Friday, March 18, 2005

How to Justify Information Security Spending



Click here for AmazonDan Lieberman, writing in Computerworld, has performed yeoman service on a topic near and dear to every CISO's heart: how to justify InfoSec spending to senior management. In interview format, Lieberman asks the reader to answer seven simple questions:

1. Is your digital asset protection spending driven by regulation?

2. Are Gartner white papers a key input for purchasing decisions?

3. Does the information security group work without security win/loss scores?

4. Does your chief security officer meet three to five vendors each day?

5. Is your purchasing cycle for a new product longer than six months?

6. Is your team short on head count, and not implementing new technologies?

7. Has the chief technology officer never personally sold or installed any of the company's products?

If you answered yes to four of the seven questions, then you definitely need a business strategy with operational metrics for your information security operation.


Lieberman asserts that a strategy boils down to three key points:

  • Strategy: have you clearly decided upon a Business Unit security strategy?

  • Metrics: measure results in terms the business can understand and do so in the context of a security process

  • Marketing: reinforce the message with senior management, using in-field experiences


  • Indeed, the stakes are high. Organized crime is actively infiltrating business networks the world over. The cases you hear about -- such as the hackers who came close to ripping off 220 million Pounds from the Japanese bank Sumitomo Mitsui -- likely pale in comparison to those that have evaded detection.

    In fact, we sporadically hear of an isolated case here and there, where hackers were busted in the midst of an exotic scam. But what about the truly elite blackhats, funded by global organized crime?

    Read the whole thing.

    Dan Lieberman: How to Justify Information Security Spending
     

    Iran and Venezuela



    Click here for AmazonThe recent visit that Mullah Khatami paid to Venezuela and Hugo Chavez resulted in some interesting, if not hair-raising, statements. Here's Khatami:

    ...Each country that tries to do its will [or] be independent, is pressured militarily... We have to be strong to strike [back] against others for the aggression of other countries and to defend ourselves from the dangers of those who want to invade us...


    I don't think invasion is the top priority on anyone's list. Stopping the world's foremost state-sponsor of terrorism from acquiring nukes, however, is.

    ...Now it is different than in the last century, when the great powers could have all [technology] exclusively... Maybe they think that our power depends on our military power... maybe they think our power depends on sophisticated weapons and weapons of mass destruction...


    The Mullah's power depends on one thing: brutal repression of their people. When young girls are stoned to death, political prisoners are massacred, the worst of the worst terrorist groups are provided aid and comfort, well, then something needs to be done. And acquisition of nuclear weapons by the Mullahs... will... not... happen.

    Of course, Hugo Chavez had to chime in, harmonizing on the tune of "resisting invasion":

    ...We have to be strong to strike [back] against others for the aggression of other countries and to defend ourselves from the dangers of those who want to invade us...


    Yes, this is the great Chavez, the neo-socialist and friend of Castro, who believes he has been targeted by the U.S. for assassination... just like his good friend Fidel.

    The Bottom Line?

    It all comes down to dependence on foreign oil. Like it or not, oil fuels the economy of the U.S. and, indeed, the world. The Senate's decision to open up a small fraction of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) points to a strategy to begin achieving some measure of independence from the Mullahocracy and the "Socialchavists". Advances in fuel cell technology, hydrogen-based engines, and hybrids will also help us move to a world less dependent upon fossil fuel and the "Axis of Instability" that operates very close to home.
     

    Wednesday, March 16, 2005

    Wolfowitz



    Click here for AmazonI received an email from a friend today with the subject heading Bush must be stupid. It contained only a hyperlink to the news that the President will recommend Paul Wolfowitz to head the World Bank. Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, has been a primary lightning rod for those opposed to the Administration's national security policies.

    I've never understood the animosity some have for Wolfowitz. Certainly he bears responsibility for failed predictions... underestimating the cost of the war in Iraq, for instance. But now, as the world around us changes, due in no small part to his steadfast vision of a democratic Middle East, it is worth considering where his vision led us.

    Last week, the New York Times's David Brooks gave us a glimpse at what may end up being Wolfowitz's legacy:

    ...with political earthquakes now shaking the Arab world, it's time to step back and observe that over the course of his long career - in the Philippines, in Indonesia, in Central and Eastern Europe, and now in the Middle East - Wolfowitz has always been an ardent champion of freedom...

    ...If the trends of the last few months continue, Wolfowitz will be the subject of fascinating biographies decades from now, while many of his smuggest critics will be forgotten. Those biographies will mention not only his intellectual commitment but also his personal commitment, his years spent learning the languages of the places that concerned him, and the thousands of hours spent listening deferentially to the local heroes who led the causes he supported...

    ...To praise Wolfowitz is not triumphalism... It's a recognition that amid all the legitimate criticism, this guy has been the subject of a vicious piling-on campaign by people who know less than nothing about what is actually going on in the government, while he, in the core belief that has energized his work, may turn out to be right.

    ...When he was ambassador to Indonesia, Wolfowitz gave a speech calling for political "openness." He was careful not to use the words "freedom" or "democracy" because under Suharto, Indonesians might have felt inhibited about talking in such bold terms. But they were comfortable with openness, and it became the subject of magazine cover stories and a great national discussion...


    As far back as 2002, The Economist gazed at Wolfowitz and saw a "velociraptor": a man so far beyond being a hawk that he scared those enamored with the "realpolitik" viewpoint of accepting the status quo.

    ...But the most important reason [for his influence] is that history has moved in his direction. Mr Wolfowitz has been arguing for years that the world is a far more dangerous place than most people realise; that America needs to increase its military expenditure; and that the best form of defence is offence. September 11th may not have proved him right in every detail. There may be no connection between Saddam Hussein and the September 11th atrocities. Rogue states don't form anything so coherent as an axis. But everybody now understands the premise.

    The velociraptor has been right before. In the 1980s Mr Wolfowitz vigorously supported Ronald Reagan's denunciation of the Soviet Union as an “evil empire”—a phrase the conventional-minded of the time regarded as bonkers. His willingness to trust his intellect against the weight of conventional opinion is admirable...


    In a 2004 speech to Polish academics and officials, Wolfowitz stated his beliefs eloquently and mapped his vision to their worldview:

    ...he recounted the events of Poland’s darkest days, and the civilized world’s acquiescence to Hitler’s ambitions which preceded them. When Hitler began to rearm Germany, Wolfowitz said, “the world’s hollow warnings formed weak defenses.” When Hitler annexed Austria, “the world sat by.” When German troops marched into Czechoslovakia before the war, “the world sat still once again.” When Britain and France warned Hitler to stay out of Poland, the Führer had little reason to pay heed.

    “Poles understand perhaps better than anyone the consequences of making toothless warnings to brutal tyrants and terrorist regimes,” Wolfowitz said. “And, yes, I do include Saddam Hussein.”

    He then laid out the case against Saddam, reciting once again the dictator’s numberless crimes against his own people. He spoke of severed hands and videotaped torture sessions. He told of the time, on a trip to Iraq, he’d been shown a “torture tree,” the bark of which had been worn away by ropes used to bind Saddam’s victims, both men and women. He said that field commanders recently told him that workers had come across a new mass grave, and had stopped excavation when they encountered the remains of several dozen women and children, “some still with little dresses and toys.”

    Wolfowitz observed that some people—meaning the “realists” in the foreignpolicy community, including Secretary of State Colin Powell—believed that the Cold War balance of power had brought a measure of stability to the Persian Gulf. But, Wolfowitz continued, “Poland had a phrase that correctly characterized that as ‘the stability of the graveyard.’ The so-called stability that Saddam Hussein provided was something even worse.” ...


    History will be the ultimate arbiter, determining whether Wolfowitz's vision can stand the test of time. My money is on his vision and not the alternative, head-buried-in-sand approach of worshipping the status quo. In an age where a single terrorist can unleash catastrophe on the civilized world, Wolfowitz wants to make the civilized world bigger. His longstanding vision of human freedom continues to undermine authoritarian regimes and shake the very foundations of the planet.

    In all likelihood, history will not speak kindly of his detractors. Instead it will speak of a man whose vision changed the world.
     

    Interview with John O'Neill



    Click here for AmazonThe invaluable LGF points us to this fascinating interview with John O'Neill in the most recent issue of The American Enterprise. O'Neill, of course, is one of the SwiftBoat Veterans who had an enormous impact on the recent Presidential Election. And, according to O'Neill, they tried to convince the Democratic Party to nominate someone, anyone, other than John Kerry. The Swiftvets, far from being partisan, simply despised the idea of Kerry as President.

    Coincidentally, today marks the forty-fifth day since John Kerry promised -- on national television -- to sign his Form-180, which would release his military service records. He has yet to do so. Anyone still undecided as to the truth behind his military service need only contemplate that Kerry, despite his promises, continues to stonewall on his service records. That should tell you all you need to know.

    TAE: How and when did the idea for the Swift Boat veterans group come into being?

    O’NEILL: The one who conceived of this was Admiral Roy Hoffmann. He began contacting many Swift Boat people in January and February last year. At that time, I was in the hospital. I had given my wife a kidney for a transplant.

    I became a part of it in early to mid March. I was motivated by several things, the first and most important being a genuine fear of what would happen to our country, our national security, and our armed forces if John Kerry became Commander in Chief.

    The reason we had our press conference on May 4 was that we thought if we could come forward quickly, we might be able to prevent John Kerry from becoming the Democratic nominee and allow the Democratic Party to pick someone else, in which case we could all go home.

    TAE: At the Swift Boat veterans’ May 4 press conference you had an open letter calling Kerry unfit to be Commander in Chief. It was signed by virtually all of John Kerry’s commanders in Vietnam. Yet the story fell flat. The media ignored it. How did your group react to the media blackout?

    O’NEILL: We were shocked. We couldn’t believe it. I haven’t been involved in politics or media relations, and I thought the job of the media was primarily to report the facts. It was obvious to me that many hundreds of his former comrades coming forward to say that he lied about his record in Vietnam and that he was unfit to be President would be important information for Americans. I only then became aware of the bias of the media.

    TAE: How do you explain the media’s response?

    O’NEILL: The establishment media was very pro-Kerry. They were opposed to any story that was critical of Kerry, and I believe that they were captured by their own bias. We met with one reporter around that time. We told a story to him relating to Kerry’s service. He acknowledged it was true and terribly important. And he told us he would not print it because it would help George Bush. That’s when we began to realize we had a real problem on our hands.

    TAE: Is there anything other than pro-Kerry bias to account for the establishment media’s attitude to the story?

    O’NEILL: Perhaps a second factor is that there are very few veterans in the established media. It makes it very difficult for them to understand the story or to care about it. That’s very different from the situation 40 or 50 years ago when most people had served in some fashion in the armed forces or had uncles or brothers who had.


    The American Enterprise: John O'Neill
     

    Tuesday, March 15, 2005

    BlatherWatch: Tom Teepen



    Click here for AmazonIt is through a lense of grim compassion that I view certain liberal pundits: Maureen Dowd and Richard Cohen, for instance. This pair is so committed to their litany of failed predictions that they'll stick with them no matter how far out of whack they may be.

    But I feel a certain sympathy for them: at least they truly are committed, along with being sour and inane. Who can blame them? History hasn't treated either kindly and, given the momentum of the Administration's sweeping initiatives, it's only going to get worse for them.

    Thus, I do feel a sort of compassion for them... much like I have for an organ-grinder's monkey at the circus. After all, Dowd and Cohen are the tiny monkeys sitting on the shoulders of the heavyweight op-ed writers on their respective newspapers. Like clockwork, you can expect the Dowds and Cohens of the world to chime in with -- no, not an original thought -- hamhanded attempts at humor sprinkled with their traditional Democratic groupthink. In perfect harmony with the fever swamp, both have achieved a track record of spectacular, flame-out-at-the-air-show-and-smash-into-the-tarmac-with-blazing-explosion failures.

    Thus, one can't help but feel compassion, not only for their poor track record, but also for the plain fact that so few people even read them anymore.

    Other liberal pundits are simply... not all there. Their driveways don't go all the way to the garage. A few sandwiches shy of a picnic. The elevator doesn't go all the way to the top floor. A guy like Tom Teepen comes to mind. He differs from the top-shelf liberal punditry on a couple of parameters: sheer ignorance, for one. A willingness to ignore reality. And, of course, astoundingly poor writing skills. Here's his latest gem, courtesy of Cox Newspapers. My comments are in bold.

    Bush scores some early wins - By Tom Teepen - 03/15/05

    President Bush guessed that the political tremors from unhorsing Saddam Hussein would crack brittle authoritarian regimes throughout the Muslim Middle East and hoped a democratic phoenix would rise from the rubble. So far the president is half right, and something is flapping around in the debris. The question is whether it is Bush's phoenix or a vulture.

    A phoenix or a vulture? Hard to tell where this is going, Tom...

    Iran holds out, a republic in name and a theocracy in practice, but movement elsewhere in the region is promising.

    Libya has resigned its nuclear ambitions. Syria has pledged to remove its occupiers from Lebanon. Egyptian strongman Hosni Mubarak says he will admit other candidates in this fall's presidential voting, turning another empty referendum into an actual election. The Saudis have permitted local elections, though of course for boys only. Palestinians and Israelis are talking, albeit at arm's length.

    A capitulation from Tom Teepen? After all of the years of flaming, poorly-written, anti-Bush rhetoric? Can it be happening? Someone pinch me.

    Not all, and perhaps not even most of this change is Bush's doing.

    There we go... that's the Tom Teepen I expect...

    Pariah Libya had been dickering for years to get itself back into the international game, even before Iraq was a gleam in Bush's eye. The potential for an Israeli-Palestinian deal mainly occurs because Yasser Arafat finally had the good grace to die and because Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who is turning out to be as hard-nosed in peace as in war, is committed to withdrawing from Gaza and is prepared to see a Palestinian state created there and in the West Bank.

    Yes, it was all happening with or without President Bush, according to the deep-thinker... plans were already in motion... forces gathering... it was all just... just a coincidence, yes, that's it!

    Syria has pledged before - most recently in 1989 - to quit Lebanon, only to balk when international attention strayed. For at least the next several weeks, Bashar Assad means to keep two-thirds of Syria's Lebanese forces in the eastern Bekka Valley, still close enough and large enough to be intimidating.

    After the years of international failures in extricating Syria from Lebanon... now that the timeframe is weeks, Mr. Teepen still isn't gracious enough to extend credit to the Administration.

    All that said, those of us who considered the Iraq adventure ill-conceived and ill-executed - and still think as much - nonetheless have to concede that it is partly responsible for shaking up the Mideast in ways that at least potentially could settle out for the better.

    Partly responsible. Well, I guess it is hard to say in print, 'You know, for many years, I've been a blathering, partisan nincompoop... and completely wrong to boot. President Bush was right. I was too thick-headed to see it coming. I surrender... and hereby willingly sign up as a GOP fundraiser.'

    But in every quarter, the potential for all of this to go awry is equally strong. Egypt's numerous small parties could splinter the opposition and let Mubarak romp to a mock legitimacy. Even if Assad keeps his word - big if - Lebanese politics could break down again into the sectarian fighting - Sunni, Christian, Druze - that fueled a 15-year civil war, and Shiite Hezbollah, with proven fighters and a ready infrastructure, is there to pick up the pieces. The gingerly Israeli-Palestinian pavane toward peace is ever vulnerable to terrorist sabotage.

    There we go, Tom! Find the dark lining in the silver cloud... hoping against hope that the U.S. fails... excellent work!

    And, of course, the relative success of the recent election in Iraq aside, the construction there of a credible, able government that reconciles Sunnis, Shia and Kurds - and all of that in the teeth of a stubborn insurgency - remains far short of certain.

    Memo to self: Google Teepen's statements prior to the election. One would hope that you could give credit where credit is due... but that would be asking too much of a serial blatherer.

    Bush has sensibly so far declined to crow. We can all hope for good outcomes, but apparently the president has learned from Iraq, if nothing else, that the Middle East has an unfortunate knack for turning even apparently accomplished missions into damnable problems.

    Well, I guess this is as close to an admission of wrong-headedness that we'll get from Mr. Teepen. Just so long as he can continue to take no risks whatsoever and proclaim the Administration's failures whenever something, anything, goes wrong, Mr. Teepen's world will be just fine in his book. Thankfully, it's a book few read.


    Tom Teepen: Bush scores some early wins
     

    Saturday, March 12, 2005

    The Fallacy of the Vanquished Democratic Party



    Click here for AmazonThere appears to be a new GOP meme wafting through the new media that goes something like this: the Democratic party "has been completely intellectually vanquished". That "we [continue] to tally up the 'I told you so’s.'". Or reveling in the seeming surrender of the MSM with their refrain that, "maybe Bush was right." And, of course, celebrating victories over partisan hacks disguised as unbiased newsmen.

    But I think it's a mistake. There are legitimate opportunities for the Democratic party to make inroads, albeit on issues not quite so critical as national defense. Here are four issues on which I believe that the GOP is increasingly vulnerable:

  • Reliance on Oil - the GOP needs to put its money where its mouth is, and dramatically raise the fuel economy requirements for automakers. For years, lobbyists for GM, Ford and the usual suspects have been successful at preventing major changes in fuel economy standards. And that's an opportunity for the Democratic party to make real inroads on an issue that's hitting every American smack dab in the wallet. There's no good reason that fuel economy standards aren't aggressively raised each and every year... and that vehicles like SUVs and pickup trucks aren't classified correctly.

  • Social Security - Rather than insisting 'there's no problem' (instead of taking the intellectually honest, though ineffectual, line that Bill Clinton and Al Gore took in the late nineties), why don't the Dems stake out a plan that resonates with the American public? It doesn't have to be private accounts... but something that can salvage the system. After all, anyone with a grade-school education knows we have a problem.

  • Medicare - No one in either party is talking about the five trillion pound gorilla - Medicare. Look up unfunded liabilities in the dictionary and you'll probably see a picture of the Medicare logo. How about someone -- anyone, for goodness' sake -- coming up with a plan to attack the problem?

  • Bankruptcy Protection - The GOP is ramrodding a bankruptcy bill through Congress that appears to deliver a gift-wrapped box o' money to the credit-card companies, whose business practices already border on the obscene. Because most bankruptcies are caused by legitimate, catastrophic disruptions to personal cash flow (extended illness, job loss, etc.), the GOP is doing the public, especially senior citizens, no favor with this sort of tripe.


  • The Democrats need a beachhead. They can pick one or more of these issues -- all of which resonate with the baby-boomer generation -- and make hay. But simply opposing anything the Administration does is not a strategy. And that seems to be the only play in the Howard Dean playbook thus far. If the Democratic strategists get their act together, though, watch out. There are plenty of vulnerabilities in the GOP defensive line.
     

    Friday, March 11, 2005

    Book Review: Frederick Forsyth's Avenger


    In the Tradition of Man on Fire



    Click here for AmazonThere are very few top-shelf revenge books. Certainly, A.J. Quinnell's Creasy series qualifies. Forsythe adds to the collection with Avenger, the story of Calvin Dexter. The protagonist is an attorney and triathlete who happens to be a Vietnam Vet. He served with distinction as a "tunnel rat", mastering the art of trapping Vietcong in the claustrophobic environs surrounding Cu Chi.

    After returning to the States, he experienced a personal and painful family tragedy. From that point forward, Dexter devotes himself to bringing certain parties to justice. Parties that others fear or are protected by foreign governments.

    One such party is Zoran Zilic, a monstrous war criminal who participated in some of the most gruesome crimes imaginable while Yugoslavia disintegrated. Zoran made the fundamental mistake of killing a volunteer aid-worker whose grandfather was a self-made Canadian billionaire. The grandfather, a World War II veteran, contracts Dexter to track down Zilic and exact revenge.

    Two issues cloud Dexter's mission. First off, Zilic has fled Yugoslavia for parts unknown, having seen the writing on the wall. Secondly, U.S. counter-terror groups have positioned Zilic to run missions for them to help combat the rise of Al Qaeda. Zilic is one of the few persons trusted by the terrorist hierarchy and therefore is the perfect pawn. Thus, a mercenary vigilante like Dexter must be removed from the scene.

    In intricately plotted detail, Forsythe describes how Zilic will be tracked down; how Dexter intends to accomplish his mission, come what may; and how the U.S. intends to deal with Dexter. Forsythe is still at the top of his game and "Avenger" -- trite name not withstanding -- is an outstanding read.
     

    Book Review: Robert Crais' Hostage


    It's like Reading an Action Movie



    Click here for AmazonFirst off: I'll admit I'm not a fan of the author's Elvis Cole series. But Hostage is a flat-out barn-burner. Written in a series of third-person vignettes, each from the perspective of a person ensnared in the drama, the action is pulse-pounding and compelling. Give yourself a few hours because, as passe as it sounds, you -- seriously -- will not want to put this book down. And I'm not exaggerating in the least.

    Within the first few pages, we encounter a trio of hoods who've recently been released from the pen. On the spur of the moment, they decide to rob a convenience store located in a ritzy, suburban neighborhood. In seconds, the robbery goes sour and they skeedaddle a ways down the road... until their vehicle suddenly dies. Exiting the road, they run into a high-end suburban enclave, and quickly end up in the backyard of a beautiful home.

    Unfortunately, a father and his two kids are actually in the house. The trio invade the home, looking for a vehicle or an exit route. Unfortunately for everyone involved, the police show up a little too quickly, and the scene rapidly degrades into a hostage situation.

    All is not as it seems, however. The accountant is no run-of-the-mill businessman. He is, in fact, a bookkeeper for the California mob and was only moments away from handing off some critical disks to a courier. The lives of many parties end up riding on the fate of the disks, from police officers, to mobsters, to the family in the house.

    Three words: just read it. You won't regret it for a split-second.
     

    Search Engine Optimization Trash Talk



    Click here for AmazonThere is one segment of eBusiness marketing that is both technically challenging and ultra-competitive. As you may have guessed from the title of this post, it's search-engine optimization. SEO is the art and science of moving certain search results up while pushing everyone else down.

    SEO can mean the difference between a successful and a failing business. High search-engine rankings can mean exposure and, interestingly, less exposure for your competition.

    For legacy businesses (e.g., a dental practice), SEO isn't quite so make-or-break a proposition. But it can still determine who will grow and who will wilt on the vine.

    My two brothers-in-law are in dental practice with their father (yes, coincidentally, he's also my father-in-law). All are excellent dentists and my father-in-law, Tudy, served on the State Dental Board for over a decade, if memory serves. As an aside, Tudy was an excellent athlete in his younger days, having played baseball at the University of Cincinnati (he was Sandy Koufax's battery-mate) and lettered for Ohio's state championship swimming team. In any event, the family is active in the community (e.g., Big Brothers) and well-known for being among the area's finest dentists.

    So, Marc, the oldest of the two brothers comes to me in a tizzy one day. He's searching for "City Dentist" on Google (city being our locale) and "City Cosmetic Dentist" and coming up with nothing, "We must be the one-hundredth search result."

    Since this is one of my areas of specialty, I tell him I can take care of it for him. After all, I spent several years munching sushi with P&G's leading e-business geniuses (guys like Ted McConnell and Terry McFadden) who had some visionary ideas in this space. I've added a bunch of proprietary tools to the repertoire and can now legitimately claim some proven expertise in SEO.

    Within a few weeks, the In-laws are the #2 result on "City Dentist" and #1 on "City Cosmetic Dentist". Marc starts trash-talking his competitor (we'll call him, "Wedge"). Wedge is one of these good looking guys who swung a gig on one of the TV network's makeover shows. Wedge knows what he's doing and has therefore rented out space on some of the dental link-farms to drive up his ranking.

    Of course, Marc being Marc, he has to talk trash to Wedge:

    "Wedge, when we get done with you, your dental practice will be nothing but a rumor."
    "Wedge, your search ranking is buried deeper than Jimmy Hoffa."
    "It's okay, Wedge... seeing as you're #103, I know you try harder."
    "Wedge, you still a dentist in town? Cuz I can't seem to find you in Google anymore."


    In all seriousness, SEO is an arduous, no-nonsense game. Real money and livelihoods ride on these rankings. If you do engage someone to handle SEO for you, make sure they can point to some real and current search results so you can judge for yourself. Just like any other business, there are those who know what they're doing and there are those who simply claim they know. The difference will be visible at places like Google.

    Wednesday, March 09, 2005

    Voices of Reason



    Click here for AmazonSen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) on CNN: "So, at some point we've got to stop criticizing each other and sit at the table and work out this problem … Every year we wait to come up with a solution to the Social Security problem [it] costs our children and grandchildren and great grandchildren $600 billion more." It's a pity more Democrats haven't aligned themselves with this centrist voice of reason. Well, perhaps it's not a pity, for as long as the Michael Moore-led, Left Bank wing of the party dominates, they'll continue to lose elections.

    Dan Rather, in the LA Times, "I've learned to trust the audience," explaining his removal from the anchor job at CBS News amid its abysmal ratings slide. When the audience disappears, so must Dan.

    Benjamin Blatt reveals that New York Times reporter Chris Hedges may be positioning himself as Jayson Blair's successor. Regarding Hedges' claimed presence at the Battle of Khafji during Operation Desert Storm, Blatt calls out Hedges, "Your version of the events in Khafji doesn’t appear to correspond with objective reality. It makes me wonder about the content of the rest of your book." It looks like another proud milestone for the Gray Lady.
     

    Tuesday, March 08, 2005

    Gun ban utopia sees an increase in violent crime



    Click here for AmazonI couldn't help but insert some snide remarks on this interesting news (my comments in bold) from a newspaper in California.

    In a pattern that's repeated itself in Canada and Australia, violent crime has continued to go up in Great Britain despite a complete ban on handguns, most rifles and many shotguns. The broad ban that went into effect in 1997 was trumpeted by the British government as a cure for violent crime. The cure has proven to be much worse than the disease.

    Crime rates in England have skyrocketed since the ban was enacted... the violent crime rate has risen 69 percent since 1996, with robbery rising 45 percent and murders rising 54 percent. This is even more alarming when you consider that from 1993 to 1997 armed robberies had fallen by 50 percent. Recent information released by the British Home Office shows that trend is continuing.

    Reports released in October 2004 indicate that during the second quarter of 2004, violent crime rose 11 percent; violence against persons rose 14 percent.

    The British experience is further proof that gun bans don't reduce crime and, in fact, may increase it. The gun ban creates ready victims for criminals, denying law-abiding people the opportunity to defend themselves.

    Is it really that difficult for the Toby Hoovers of the world to understand? Criminals, by definition, don't obey laws. Therefore, laws designed to restrict access to firearms will remove them only from the hands of the law-abiding. It's not exactly neurosurgery.

    In contrast, the number of privately owned guns in the United States rises by about 5 million a year, according to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The number of guns owned by Americans is at an all-time high, fast approaching 300 million.

    That's only one for every man, woman and child in the country. We must do better... and we can do better!

    Meanwhile the FBI reports that in 2003 the nation's violent crime rate declined for the 12th straight year to a 27-year low. The FBI's figures are based on crimes reported to police. By comparison, the U.S. Department of Justice reported in September that, according to its annual national crime victim survey, violent crime reached a 30-year low in 2003.

    Let's see if I've got this straight: crime keeps dropping in the relaxed environs of the United States while in restrictive countries like the U.K. and Australia, violent crime (especially  gun crime) is exploding. I wonder if any lessons can be gleaned from these statistics? Let me ruminate on that for a while. Talk amongst yourselves: topic - did the fall of Rome really end the 'Age of Enlightenment'?

    Right-to-Carry states fared better than the rest of the country in 2003. On the whole, their total violent crime, murder and robbery rates were 6 percent, 2 percent and 23 percent lower respectively than the states and the District of Columbia where carrying a firearm for protection against criminals is prohibited or severely restricted.

    You mean the brilliant Eric Fingerhut was wrong when he said, "the presence of a gun is actually likely to escalate violence"? And the omniscient Toby Hoover completely flubbed her prediction that, "we will have more shootings, more accidents"? My whole world is crumbling! How could those <spoonerism> two shining wits </spoonerism> possibly be wrong?

    On average in Right-to-Carry states the total violent crime, murder, robbery and aggravated assault rates were lower by 27 percent, 32 percent, 45 percent and 20 percent respectively.

    Maybe it's just a coincidence!!

    As usual, most of the states with the lowest violent crime rates are those with the least gun control, including those in the Rocky Mountain region, and Maine, New Hampshire and Ver-mont in the Northeast. The District of Columbia and Maryland, which have gun bans and other severe restrictions on gun purchase and ownership, retained their regrettable distinctions as having the highest murder and robbery rates.

    Makes you want to just go out and buy yet another handgun, doesn't it?


    Lake County Record: 'Gun ban' utopia sees an increase in violent crime
     

    Grimes Sets Off a Firestorm



    Click here for AmazonThe eloquent Richard Grimes, of Dr. Dobbs Journal fame, recently set off a firestorm in the software development corner of the blogosphere. Having written a .NET column for three years, he'd come to the end of the line. His reasoning? Read the whole thing, but here's his summary.

    ...Microsoft's current operating systems, XP and Windows 2003, do not depend on .NET; and with XP, .NET is an optional component. The next version of Windows, codenamed Longhorn, was released as a technical preview at the 2003 PDC, and it looked as if the operating system would have .NET's tendrils throughout. However, a lot has changed since then.

    ...I have a very cynical opinion of .NET. The framework has a lot of promise, but I think Microsoft was far too ambitious releasing far too many assemblies much too quickly. As a result design suffered [and]... we are stuck with the library we have...

    [.NET is] intended for users to develop applications, but not for Microsoft to create operating systems or the revenue generating products that they base their profits on...


    In other words, Grimes posits that .NET is a sort of "development-lite" environment that carries a heavy run-time penalty (which, surprisingly, doesn't even come with the operating environment).

    Dan Fernandez, Microsoft's Visual C# Product Manager, responded to Grimes' criticisms in his own blog entry. But I found the most compelling remarks in the comments on Fernandez' blog, not the blog post itself. Here's one that resonated with me, as a commercial software developer:

    # .NET Distribution should not be a developer burden 3/7/2005 6:29 AM Mark Munz

    The fact that Microsoft has NOT pushed .NET frameworks onto Windows machines lends to the lack of credibility in Microsoft's claim that .NET is the future... client side deployment of the .NET framework is crucial. Not every app is going to be server-based... Putting the burden of redistributing the .NET framework on the application developers is unprofessional for an OS company. And fear of taking some flack for including the .NET framework in a SP has got to be the lamest excuse I have ever heard...

    So smaller developers are left telling their customers -- yes, our application is 1MB, but you have to download a 25MB framework first. That's right, you have to download and install a component that is 25 times the size of our application in order to use our application. The result, we -- the smaller developers -- are the ones who look unprofessional...

    The truth is that it is mainly Microsoft's own fault that .NET is not more widely used today.


    Another heavy-duty software blogger, Mark Lucovsky, weighed in with some meaty remarks on the nature of shipping software.

    Consider the .NET framework for a second. Suppose you wrote something innocent like a screen saver, written in C# based on the .NET framework. How would you as an ISV "ship your software"? You can't. Not unless you sign up to ship Microsoft's software as well. You see, the .NET Framework isn't widely deployed. It is present on a small fraction of machines in the world. Microsoft built the software, tested it, released it to manufacturing. They "shipped it", but it will take years for it to be deployed widely enough for you, the ISV to be able to take advantage of it. If you want to use .NET, you need to ship Microsoft's software for them. Isn't this an odd state of affairs? Microsoft is supposed to be the one that "knows how to ship software", but you are the one doing all the heavy lifting. You are the one that has to ship their software the last mile, install it on end user machines, ensure their machines still work after you perform this platform level surgery.


    Exactly. Well put.

    One of my current popular downloads (over 1.2 million copies downloaded) weighs in at under 700K and doesn't come burdened with a ginormous runtime.

    .NET done right would utilize a lean, on-demand framework that could be loaded as needed, right off the network if available. In the meantime, I can't use .NET for client-side apps for the reasons specified above.
     

    Monday, March 07, 2005

    Fisking the Big Ten on the Hartzell Affair



    Click here for AmazonUpdated, scroll down to the bottom for Big Ten contact info.

    Last Friday, the 4th, the Big Ten released an official statement on the Hartzell affair. Just to refresh your memory, University of Northern Iowa Athletic Director Rick Hartzell and Southern Illinois Trustee Ed Hightower officiated the crucial Indiana/Wisconsin game.

    With an NCAA bid hanging in the balance for the bubble team (IU), Hartzell and Hightower laid the proverbial officiating egg. In other words, many of the calls appeared (to me at least) very, very odd. ESPN's announcers present at the game noted the poor calls and Doug Gottlieb, an analyst back at the studio, also made mention of the low quality of the officiating. He called into question the reasoning of the Big Ten in having two officials affiliated with or employed by bubble teams refereeing another bubble team's game. After all, a slot in the NCAA tournament is worth, quite literally, a fortune.

    Let's put it in even simpler terms: when Kentucky fans complain that IU got hosed, you know something's going on.

    So anyhow, a day after we unleashed a mini-blogswarm on the NCAA, the Big Ten Conference released its Offical Statement" on the matter.

    Personally, I think the Big Ten exhibited all the sound judgment of Anna Nicole Smith at a Tijuana pharmacy. But let's just Fisk their statement properly, shall we? My comments are in bold.

    The Big Ten has communicated its extreme disappointment and concern to ESPN's management relative to statements made by Mr. Doug Gottlieb at the halftime of Thursday's Purdue at Illinois basketball game on ESPN2.

    Specifically Mr. Gottlieb called into question the integrity of Mr. Rick Hartzell, an official in Tuesday's Indiana at Wisconsin basketball game, telecast by ESPN.

    Read the transcript (below): Mr. Gottlieb simply stated that there was the appearance of a conflict of interest. He neither impugned Hartzell's integrity nor called Hartzell names. He simply stated the obvious - an Athletic Director with a bubble team should in no way, shape or form be officiating another bubble team's game. It just looks bad. Period.

    In addition Mr. Gottlieb questioned the professionalism of Big Ten Associate Commissioner Rich Falk relative to the administration of the Big Ten's men's basketball officiating program.

    Again, read the transcript. Gottlieb questioned Falk's judgment. It is as accurate to say Gottlieb impugned Falk's professionalism than it is to say Gottlieb also closed Sportscenter that night by singing an aria from Puccini . Or is Falk, unbeknownst to us, some sort of higher being -- an officating deity, as it were -- who is beyond being questioned? Last time I checked, Falk was a human being, just as fallible as you and I. And therefore his judgment, especially in a matter such as this, can be questioned.

    Neither statement should have been made, and in our view these statements represent an example of irresponsible sports `reporting'.

    Both statements could and should have been made. Or does the Big Ten advocate stifling free speech, burning the U.S. Constitution and, with it, the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights? I, for one, will not sit here while you bad-mouth the United States of America! (...everyone hum now .... hmmm hmmm hmmm hmm...)

    It is unfortunate that Mr. Gottlieb, whose own reputation for honest dealings has been called into question in the past, has been placed in the position by ESPN to pass judgment on a well-regarded, veteran official working a Big Ten basketball game, and a Big Ten associate commissioner who has rendered valuable service to the Conference and college basketball for decades.

    Ewww, nice cheap shot on Gottlieb. And a beautiful changeup that disregards the fact that both announcers at the game criticized some of the calls and that Gottlieb was not the only reporter questioning this odd situation. This sort of practice is bogus, plain and simple. Anyone with half a brain could recognize that putting a combo-A.D.-and-referee in such a position is as sound an idea as having MC Hammer manage your investments.

    The Big Ten Conference considers this matter concluded and will have no further comment.

    It's over when we say it's over. Next time try answering the questions raised: will the Big Ten (and for that matter, the NCAA) address this practice? Why would Rich Falk make such an officiating assigment? Surely there was an officiating team available whose members weren't employed by a University in contention for a bubble spot? Or did the other officiating squads call in sick?

    You know, I think I see another blogswarm on the horizon.


    TRANSCRIPT OF DOUG GOTTLIEB'S COMMENTS DURING HALFTIME OF ESPN2'S COVERAGE OF THE PURDUE-ILLINOIS GAME MARCH 3, 2005:

    "As we take you back to Tuesday night Indiana-Wisconsin it's obvious that there may not be a real clear cut, a clear cut bad call made on this particular play.

    But if you watch it there is the appearance that maybe there is a conflict of interest. You know, Indiana trailed by one and it looked like Wilkinson fouls on the play...Mike Wilkinson fouls on the play. Mike Davis obviously went nuts but Rick Hartzell was the official who was in position.

    And that conflict of interest or at least the appearance of the conflict of interest is apparent because Rick Hartzell is the athletic director at Northern Iowa. Now if he's the AD for a bubble team, why is he officiating a game involving another bubble team in a game that could cost Mike Davis his job, and could definitely cost Indiana a chance to play in the NCAA Tournament?

    I'm not saying there is a clear cut conflict of interest, but there is at least that appearance. And it lends the question, why is Rich Falk assigning him to a game in the Big Ten? He's the conference officials commissioner, and why is he assigning him to this game, and why wasn't a switch made at the last second so that there's never that appearance? When it was obviously at least to Steve Lavin, who was calling the game as the color man for ESPN. He said it was a bad call. I agree. It was a totally blown missed call. But now there the appearance of the conflict of interest because there's no call made and because he's the AD at Northern Iowa."



    Big Ten Conference Statement

    Update: Here's some contact information, which I believe is up-to-date. Please contact, politely, any of the parties below to ask them the salient questions. The non-statement they released is, in my opinion, completely insufficient in dealing with this issue.

    Commissioner, James E. Delany (Email)
    Associate Commissioner, Rich Falk (Email)
    Director of Communications, Scott Chipman (Email)
    Associate Director of Communications, Robin Jentes (Email)
    Assistant Director of Communications, Jeff Smith (Email)

    Big Ten Conference
    1500 West Higgins Road
    Park Ridge, IL 60068-6300
    (847) 696-1010

    Fax numbers: Comm. (847) 696-1110


    For those of you bloggers out there, email me a link to your blog entry on this topic and I'll be glad to link to it. Anyone else, if you can get an answer out of the Big Ten, please email it to me and I'll be happy to post a summary.

    Another Story Buried



    Click here for AmazonThe invaluable Arthur Chrenkoff notes the following story that's been buried by the mainstream media.

    In the first substantial shift of public opinion in the Muslim world since the beginning of the United States' global war on terrorism, more people in the world's largest Muslim country now favor American efforts against terrorism than oppose them.

    This is just one of many dramatic findings of a new nationwide poll in Indonesia conducted February 1-6, 2005, and just translated and released...

    Key Findings of the Poll:

    - For the first time ever in a major Muslim nation, more people favor US-led efforts to fight terrorism than oppose them (40% to 36%). Importantly, those who oppose US efforts against terrorism have declined by half, from 72% in 2003 to just 36% today.

    - For the first time ever in a Muslim nation since 9/11, support for Osama Bin Laden has dropped significantly (58% favorable to just 23%).

    - 65% of Indonesians now are more favorable to the United States because of the American response to the tsunami, with the highest percentage among people under 30.

    - Indeed, 71% of the people who express confidence in Bin Laden are now more favorable to the United States because of American aid to tsunami victims.


    Arthur Chrenkoff - World Media Buries Another Story
     

    Sunday, March 06, 2005

    10 Things I've Done You Probably Haven't



    Click here for Amazonin recognition of Cowboy Bob's post, here are ten things I've done that most others probably haven't. Check out Cowboy Bob's post if you really want to feel inadequate. And feel free to add your own...

    1. Proposed to my wife at the stroke of midnight on New Year's Eve, a decision I've never regretted for a split-second
    2. Watched the birth of my two daughters (first natural, second with epidural... both were very stressful for me... ;-)
    3. Was fortunate enough to architect a best-selling software product, with plenty of brainpower supplied by Pete, Gerry, Cian Chambliss, Dave Delay, Terry Smith, and a host of others (product management provided by the inimitable Peter Mesnik)
    4. Spent an unforgettable vacation with my wife and kids, watching a stunning sunset in Tortola and diving off a reef at Trunk Bay, St. John's
    5. Got my nose broken and broke someone else's nose in the exact same instant going for a rebound in basketball (ouch!)
    6. Ended a bizarre bar fight with one lucky punch
    7. Got married, moved to a new city, and started a new job with an unfunded startup company... all within the period of thirty days
    8. Jumped off a forty foot cliff at the quarries in Bloomington, Indiana featured in the movie Breaking Away (although it take many minutes to screw up enough courage to do so)
    9. Took my two-year old daughter to the movie Beauty and the Beast without telling her what to expect... and watched her face light up with eyes as big as quarters when the movie started
    10. Once emptied a 33-round magazine in less than 12 seconds using a baby Glock (G26)!
     

    Saturday, March 05, 2005

    Padilla, Civil Liberties, and the Left



    Click here for AmazonJose Padilla, a convicted felon and former Chicago gangbanger, was arrested in May of 2002 at Chicago's O'Hare Airport. Padilla had been under surveillance for months, since he'd arrived at the U.S. Consulate in Pakistan asking for a replacement passport.

    The State Department obliged but, intrigued, asked other agencies to investigate why a man named Padilla was hanging around in Karachi. Padilla (who also called himself 'Abdullah Al Muhajir') was then tracked by U.S. intelligence flying between Pakistan, Egypt and Switzerland. They also found that Padilla had met with senior al Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan and Pakistan. There, he'd trained with the enemy studying such advanced topics as wiring of explosive devices and researching dispersion of radiological material.

    U.S. officials added that Padilla's planned acts of sabotage were independently described by Abu Zubaydah, the most senior al Qaeda figure captured by U.S. authorities.

    Padilla could be held indefinitely as an enemy combatant without being charged until the U.S.-declared war against terrorism ends, according to John McGinnis, professor of constitutional law at Northwestern Law School in Chicago. As the Bush Administration has argued, enemy combatants, even if U.S. citizens, are no more subject to criminal law than were Wehrmacht troops on the beaches of Normandy on D-Day.

    The history of 'enemy combatant' status lies in the tale of seven Nazi agents who came ashore in 1942. Their mission was simple: sabotage armament factories and railroads to the detriment of the American war effort. One soldier, a man named Haupt, was also a U.S. citizen.

    The Nazis were quickly captured. President Roosevelt ordered them tried by military commission, but the detainees filed a petition of habeus corpus   to challenge their military detention using the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Could the President arrest, detain, try and even execute such persons in the U.S. without involving the judiciary?

    Unanimously, the Supreme Court ruled that indeed he could*:

    ...an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals...


    In other words, saboteurs without uniforms were "enemy combatants" and therefore subject to military jurisdiction. Even Haupt, the U.S. citizen, could be so held. The Supreme Court noted:

    ...Citizens who... enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war...


    Despite the positions you've heard from pundits and TV's "judicial experts", the status of enemy combatant is not new. The U.S. Supreme Court has clearly delineated where combatant status begins and civilian law ends.

    "If someone is a soldier, he is under the rules of war and needs to be treated as such," McGinnis adds. But "He [Padilla] is not necessarily a prisoner of war. He's an undeclared combatant, a saboteur ... aiming at civilian targets, and outside the protection of the Geneva Convention."

    U.S. officials supplied evidence showing Padilla planned to harm U.S. interests and thereby transfered Padilla's case from the civilian to the military justice system. After receiving information from intelligence sources and recommendations from the Attorney General and Secretary of Defense, President Bush signed off on the decision to treat Padilla as an enemy combatant.

    Hardly a system rife for abuse, the Padilla case has both legal and historical precedent leading all the way to the Supreme Court.

    New Sisyphus: The U.K. and the U.S.: Civil Liberties in the Age of Terror

    * Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 63 S.Ct. 51, 87 L.Ed. 7 (1942)
     

    Friday, March 04, 2005

    The China Syndrome



    Click here for AmazonThe story you are about to hear is true. The names of those involved have not been changed, due to the fact that I... didn't need to.

    My good friend Gerry, who is the Managing Partner of Mindstorm Technologies in Boston, relayed the following delightful eBay buying experience.

    He's owned a Sony Vaio for years, a slick and light laptop that exudes "cool". It sat, for months at a time, plugged into the AC outlet in the living room of his fourth-floor condo in Boston. It faithfully served as his Internet surfing device and, from time to time, a backup Windows development system.

    Leaving a laptop plugged in continuously, for long periods of time, is problematic because pretty soon the battery is destined to die. And sure enough, when he went to use the Vaio unwired a few weeks ago, the battery was deader than Francisco Franco's grandma.

    Using eBay, he found an inexpensive replacement battery, which thankfully arrived within a few days. That's odd, he thought as he opened the box: there were no Sony logos. Only a series of inscrutable Chinese characters along with a slapdash mailing label.

    Placing the battery into the Vaio should have been easy. But, for some reason, it didn't seem to want to fit into its pre-ordained space. In fact, it proved downright difficult. Exerting way too much force, Gerry finally shoe-horned it into place using the strength and experience gained from opening over one thousand Miller Lites. Finally, he snapped it into place. Lo and behold, it worked! Everything was back to normal... or... so he thought.

    It was then off to dinner for Gerry. A couple of hours later, after a satisfying hiatus at the neighborhood sushi bar, he unlocked his door. And heard a loud POP. Thinking someone was in his apartment, his pulse rate quickened. He looked around for something with which to arm himself. A 9-iron perhaps?

    Suddenly he smelled burning! He snuck a glance into the living room only to spot his laptop spouting a large flame, directly from the keyboard. He ran over to the computer, simultaneously searching his field of vision for something with which to douse the fire. Another loud CRRAACK rang out - and flaming dollops of plastic sprayed in an eight-foot radius, thankfully not directly in his face.

    Now, a dozen tiny fires were burning -- along with the kindling, I mean laptop. Flames were erupting on his walls, polished hardwood floors, even on the granite countertop.

    He quickly stamped the small fires out. But the laptop still burned... IT STILL BURNED! He quickly tamped it out with a hand-towel and surveyed the damage. Floors... not good. Walls... not good either. The smell was overwhelming. He opened the bay windows in the living room to get some fresh, albeit quite cold, air circulating. As he turned back to the laptop, holy sh*t, the flames had erupted again!

    He swatted it over and over until it ceased burning. And then he realized it was still plugged in! Pulling the cord out of the wall, he breathed a sigh of relief. Finally, the fire was out. Other than the smell of burning plastic and various pockmarked surfaces, his condo had survived. He walked into the bathroom to use the facilities.

    Moments later, after washing his hands, he exited the bathroom. For the love of... the laptop was on fire again! It was like the Exorcist, or maybe Nick Lachey on TV! It just kept coming back for more!

    This time, the fire had engulfed the entire keyboard. The flames grew higher and higher. Gerry grabbed the laptop, extending his arms to keep the flames away, and ran to the window. He hurled the burning Vaio as far as he could. It arced from the condo, directly into a snow bank twenty feet away and four floors down. At last. The fire was out.

    All he could think was, "thank goodness I wasn't actually using the laptop... on my lap... when it exploded."

    Sony Vaio Laptop, fully loaded: $2730.
    Cheap battery from eBay: $50.
    Adrenaline-rush while battling flames in your condo: Priceless.
     

    It's Hillary's World, We're Just Livin' in It



    Click here for AmazonHere are latest updates on the '08 Hillary/Obama ticket, which I'm certain you've been awaiting with all the nail-biting anticipation of Tara Reid at the Oscars.

    The IT Professionals Association of America is ticked at Hill:

    Scott Kirwin, founder of the organization, states, “We are tired of Democrats pretending they care about the problems facing average Americans. Senator Clinton’s actions prove they clearly do not.”

    The ITPAA based its award on Indian press reports of Sen. Clinton supporting outsourcing and assuring political and business leaders in India that the US would not attempt to save the jobs lost. “Outsourcing will continue,” Clinton said in Delhi on Feb 28, according to a report by the Asia Times... “Her statements got little press here but were splashed all over the Indian media,” Kirwin says. “Does she think we aren’t going to find out about it?” Kirwin says that the India media is the best source of information about outsourcing and what he terms “labor dumping” – using immigration policies to dampen wages.

    Kirwin says the Senator’s position supporting outsourcing is nothing new. He noted that in March 2004 Clinton appeared on CNN’s Lou Dobbs show and criticized offshoring and the Bush administration support of the practice. Host of the program Lou Dobbs then pointed out that Clinton was closely allied with Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), an Indian offshoring giant which set up its US headquarters in upstate New York – an area Clinton represents...


    John McCain doesn't believe Hill will ever be president:

    ...Sen. John McCain said Tuesday that he doubts Hillary Clinton can win enough votes nationwide to reclaim the White House in the next presidential race.

    "I don't believe that Senator Clinton will be president of the United States," McCain told the Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes." The Arizona Republican offered the prediction after clarifying his remarks last week on "Meet the Press," where he said Sen. Clinton would make "a good president..."


    Joe Biden thinks Hill will be the Democratic nominee in '08, as reported by Newsday's Joseph Dolman:

    Sen. Joseph Biden, a Delaware Democrat who may seek the nomination himself, sizing up Clinton last Sunday on "Meet the Press", "I think she is likely to be the nominee. She'd be the toughest person. And I think Hillary Clinton is able to be elected president of the United States."

    ...I mean, the Democrats know a thing or two about wretched judgment - from Al Gore's 2000 decision to run a populist campaign to John Kerry's 2004 decision to ignore the claptrap of the Swift-Boat veterans.

    And yet, at a time when the party must broaden its clout among tradition-minded voters or languish in the shadows indefinitely, some Democrats are looking to perhaps the most polarizing woman in the nation as their savior?

    ...But for all her hard work and mainstream values, she will face the challenge of a lifetime trying to live down her activist background. Every excess of the 1960s will be her burden to carry once the GOP strategists finish with her...


    And Bill Clinton thinks his wife would make an excellent president.

    ...Bill Clinton declared during a visit to Japan that his wife "would make an excellent president". While saying he did not know if she would run, he added: "If she did run and she was able to win, she'd make a very, very good president. I think now she's at least as good as I was."


    I take that to mean that Hillary would sell even more critical defense technology to enemies of the US, accept even more cash donations from suspect sources, allow innocents to be massacred while mingling at the President's Cup golf tournament, and perhaps even commit adultery in the White House.

    And those hoping for a repeat of Clinton's boom by electing Hillary are grasping at straws.

    Here's a news flash: the Y2K and Internet booms were products of (a) an anomalous, time-based event; and (b) the genius of web inventor Tim Berners-Lee, respectively. Clinton just happened to be in office when these two tidal forces washed over the US economy. Take away those two events and Bill Clinton's economic legacy would be far, far different.

    Electing Hillary president would be akin to giving a drunken teenage boy keys to the Porsche. Way more things can go wrong than can possibly go right.
     

    Thursday, March 03, 2005

    NCAA Blogswarm



    Click here for AmazonHaving now seen the tape of the infamous IU/Wisconsin game, I'm really steamed. Despite an apparent conflict of interest, University of Northern Iowa Athletic Director Rick Hartzell and Southern Illinois Trustee Ed Hightower officiated the game. Many of the calls in the game, to put it mildly, stunk. Don't take my word for it, read what the Kentucky fans think (and they certainly have no love lost for IU).

    Indiana, a bubble team, ended up losing the game on a series of (what seemed to me, at least) preposterous calls. Even ESPN's announcers mentioned the strange calls against IU. Just a coincidence? Perhaps, but here are the standings for Hartzell's and Hightower's two teams in the MVC, which also appear to be the very definitions of bubble teams:

    Southern Illinois153-.833256.806
    Wichita State1263.667198.704
    Northern Iowa1174.611219.700


    You may ask why two men -- whose schools have so much to gain by making the NCAA tournament -- are officiating a game involving another bubble team, the Indiana Hoosiers?

    Good question. I have the same question. And I think it's one worth asking the NCAA about. Here's some contact information. Be polite and ask them about their policy of referees affiliated with or employed by Division I schools refereeing the games of other schools in direct competition for lucrative NCAA Tournament slots.

    I've also included a couple of PR contacts at the NCAA: they can be asked whether the NCAA has reviewed this incident and whether this practice will be prohibited in the future.

    Mailbox: Send a message to Division I Basketball Officiating Mailbox

    The National Collegiate Athletic Association
    700 W. Washington Street
    P.O. Box 6222
    Indianapolis, Indiana 46206-6222
    Phone: 317/917-6222   Fax: 317/917-6888

    Email: Div. I Mens Basketball Officiating

    Email: Erik Christianson, Director of Public and Media Relations

    Email: Gail Dent, Associate Director of Public and Media Relations


    If you have a blog, please post an article about this practice. As of this writing, there is no mainstream media coverage of this incident or the apparent conflict of interest of this type of practice. And that's just not right, given the huge dollars attached to making the NCAA Tournament.
     

    The Future of Blogging



    Click here to zoomThe future of blog-related technologies is not a topic on which I've seen much speculation. As a heavy blogger over, lo, these many (16) months, I present some nebulous thoughts as to blogging directions over the coming months and years.

    Blogpresence - first, I'd like to introduce the concept of Blogpresence. That is, a public face for a blogger's identity. Even when you're asleep, you're blogpresence "speaks" for you - even if it's just to say you're unavailable. Blogpresence is roughly equivalent to the instant messaging concept of buddy status. Buddies can put up away messages, or indicate that they're around but busy, or active. Blogpresence will provide a much richer version of buddy status. Implicit with status will come a concept of user identity. Anonymous users will not see as much information as trusted friends. Trusted friends, of course, will get to see additional information about the blogger (contact info, email address, etc.). In other words, blogpresence will morph to fit the user's identity.

    Blogmessaging - building upon the concept of blog comments, blogmessaging will incorporate IM and text message into a blog. A trusted friend who wants to get a hold of you will visit your blog and punch a message directly into a text-box on the blog. A routing system will determine how best to deliver the message: via text-messaging, IM, voice-call, email, etc. Anonymous users will get the same message delivered, but only via a low-priority mechanism (say, email).

    Blogalog - Amazon and other aggressive Internet retailers will soon embrace the concept of blogalogs, catalogs published by bloggers. If I read a book or listen to a CD, a toolbar add-in in Firefox will let me instantly create a blog entry or sidebar panel for it: link, image, affilliate tie-in (so I get credit for the sale), etc. A blogalog toolbar will make it much easier to pitch merchandise from my blog.

    VoxBlogoli - is a term coined, I believe, by Hugh Hewitt that means "voice of the bloggers". Hugh organizes blogswarms on specific topics: say, filibustering of Supreme Court appointments. But VoxBlogoli could be organized by any influential blogger around virtually any topic: a potential conflict-of-interest by NCAA referees, what bloggers thought of the Superbowl commercials, etc. Of special interest to marketers, VoxBlogoli takes the pulse of the blogosphere quickly and efficiently.

    Blogflow - based upon a concept I described in August of '04, blogflow is a workflow concept in which the blogger's inbox and outbox are partially made public (at least to trusted users). More useful in intranet situations, blogflow provides ad hoc workflow capabilities and, more importantly, visibility into work-processes that today are completely invisible.

    Any other thoughts on future directions? Comments appreciated.