The New York Times published an article today about how transparent the candidates are being about their health. The incomplete nature and unanswered questions about John McCain's history of skin cancer has been a topic of discussion on liberal blogs ever since Sarah Palin was chosen as his running mate, but the subject has finally reached the media.
The McCain campaign has released thousands of pages of medical records, half in 2000 and the rest back in May. But the fact the records only covered part of his history and were only given to a small group of journalists for a few hours, is a clear lack of transparency. And Barack Obama has been less than forthcoming as well, only releasing a letter from his doctor with the simple message that he is in good health.
Earlier this year, many questioned Apple about the health of CEO Steve Jobs, probably contributing to the loss the stock took. Apple eventually explained Steve Jobs apparent weight loss as being from "a common bug" and not a reoccurrence of pancreatic cancer; the company even joked about Jobs' blood pressure at the last press event it held. Due to the hit the stock took, Apple was forced to respond. Yet, the same sort of pressure isn't being applied to the presidential campaigns.
Can you blame the candidates for the lack of full transparency? The business media or interested public care about a CEO's health, but the American public and the entire media (liberal elite or not) can barely mutter about those who may be the future leaders of our country. It doesn't seem to matter to America that the country may vote in one leader, but then wind up being run by his second-in-command due to cancer treatments. Or that his opponent, who is currently leading in the polls, may have had some ailment in his past, despite his current state of good health.
Until both campaigns feel like they will be hurt because of their secrecy, there is no need for them to embrace a strategy of complete disclosure. All four principles involved in the election should release their entire medical histories -- transparency should be the norm, not the exception.
Last week Netflix sent out an email telling subscribers that the monthly fee will increase by $1.00 if they subscribe to Blu-ray discs. With times being what they are, I do not fault the company for increasing prices. I am just not sure about the logic of the particulars.
Why not raise it by $1.00 for everyone? Would that have been too dangerous to the brand? Instead, it penalized early (and at this point, not-so-early) adopters who want high definition films. Does it make sense to use a strategy that may be detrimental to mainstream movement from one standard format to a new standard? Shouldn't it be fostering the migration from DVD to Blu-ray?
One could argue, by doing it this way, Netflix is gradually preparing its users for increased prices. From that light, the strategy seems to make sense. But, to video enthusiasts with 50+ inch displays it seems like a penalty.
Could Netflix have used a different strategy when increasing prices?
How do you adapt a book that has been compared to Citizen Kane into a film? How do you honor a dense literary work while making it digestible to the mainstream public? The answer, I learned at a press event today, is carefully and faithfully. To follow-up his mammoth hit 300 director Zack Snyder decided to direct an adaptation of Watchmen, the seminal graphic novel by writer Alan Moore and artist Dave Gibbons.
As he explained it, the script originally modernized the story, bringing it to contemporary times and focusing on terrorism. But Snyder wanted the original book, an alternate history that occurred in the 80s and frequently flashed back to the events of the 50s, 60s and 70s. He wanted Richard Nixon running America in his fourth term and dealing with a Cold War where the only deterrent against Russia's nuclear program is a god-like superhero.
Snyder told an entire screening room that he took the script, took the original book and began storyboarding the entire film. Between his drawings of camera shots, he would paste panels from the graphic novel. And as he painstakingly did this, he realized the lines in the original were better than the script. So he would change the dialogue back. He admitted his dream cut of the film would be three and a-half hours long, including all the material he filmed and leaving little from the original book out. While we may still see that in the future, thanks to the successful DVD and Blu-ray market, the current cut of the film is 2:42 in length.
When asked if someone who hasn't read the book should do that before seeing the film, Snyder noted that it could work either way and he is happy if the film is "A movie-long commercial for the book." Paul Levitz, the publisher of DC Comics, said that in the 12 weeks since the Watchmen trailer debuted in theaters with The Dark Knight, the graphic novel has sold more copies than the 7 years of relatively high sales before it.
And so Snyder truly adapted the book and changed little. It is an R-rated superhero tale with some sex, violence, and a thought provoking look at morality. It still has a naked superman in all his glory. It has heroes doing rather un-heroic things. And it should make all but the most knit-picky fans happy. The first twelve minutes and the other scenes we were shown really displayed the world that Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons created.
Gibbons, who consulted on the film, was also present for the event. he stated it was amazing to see his work brought to life and finally, "Matched the movie that ran in my head." And it may have taken over 20 years, but technology can finally live up to the imagination found within innovative works of art.
Overall, the event left this Watchmen aficionado confident that the film will do the book justice. Those involved know this is more than just 'a comic book movie.' As Snyder lamented after someone asked if he was adding his own characters or material to the movie, "When adapting literature like No Country for Old Men you don't get questions like this."
On the afternoon before the VP debate, I find my attention occupied by the election. Here are a few things on my mind:
Last night on The Colbert Report, they did a wonderful thing. After a humorous commercial about "Voter Abstinence," they scrolled through all 50 states and the deadlines for voter registration. I have not seen a news show even mention that this year! Between Colbert and The Daily Show, every night these supposed comedy shows do more to serve the public than many other news shows.
In a previous blog entry I asked: would Obama or McCain be the first to launch an iPhone application? Continuing his tech streak, Obama has launched an iPhone app. Besides having relevant data about where the Obama-Biden campaign stands on the issues and contact information for your local campaign HQ, it features functions to facilitate community events with other Obama supporters.
Lastly, it is amazing to see the role YouTube has had in this election. Between campaign speeches, debate responses, and the Palin interviews, the popular video site is creating a new level of election discussion in the public. More than once this week some colleagues and I were huddled around a computer. This level of dialogue, coupled with the record number of new voter registrations, makes me feel like this presidential election will be more successful in engaging America's citizenry than the last few were.
We really won't know until November whether Stewart et al, Obama's iPhone app, YouTube's political discourse or even Digg's election channel will make a difference on who is elected. In the mean time, I am going to finish prepping myself for the VP debate.
When you examine the Presidential Debate held last Friday, when arm-chair pundits (including myself) discuss the performances of John McCain and Barack Obama, the main factor that inevitable arises is expectation. Everyone expected Obama to perform better than McCain when it came to the economy. And by most accounts, he did. While certain a win for the Obama campaign, he merely met expectations.
When the debate topic turned to foreign affairs, McCain was considered the strong candidate. But, in my opinion, McCain did not out-perform Obama. Obama held his own and the second half of the debate was a draw. But the fact that McCain did not deliver a knockout means Obama exceeded expectations. In that regard, Obama cemented the debate outcome as a victory for him.
Managing expectations is an important part of the debate process -- and of leadership in general. If you promise too much and deliver only 80% of it, than you will be perceived as a failure. But, if you promise something more reasonable, it is easier to be seen as succeeded or surpassing your promise. And this is true of an employee's output, a project's outcome, or a company's revenue. If you expect too much, you inevitable will be disappointed. This is true in business (AOL Time Warner merger), tech (iPhone 3G), or art (Star Wars: Episode I).
Of course, managing expectations can sometimes lead to incongruence. This Thursday, the Vice-Presidential debate will inevitably be a draw. Why? Sarah Palin only has to sound half-way decent to not be a failure -- the various interviews with her have made expectations so low. Of course, Joe Biden may deliver one of his gaffes and simply hand the debate over to Palin. Of course, Biden putting his foot in his mouth is becoming somewhat expected, so it may just be a wash. We will have to wait and see.
When an employee leaves a company, whatever the circumstance, it creates chaos. Who will cover their duties? Will they be replaced? Will someone be promoted to fill the gap? When the person that goes is a manager, things get even more complicated because the many people under the departed manager are left up in the air.
If the company hires a new manager, will the day-to-day operations be worse than before? Or will their arrival bring better operations? And if the company promotes internally you may find yourself now working for someone whom you are friendly with, but unaccustomed to working for. And what if you are the one promoted? How will you respond to the situation? And how will your colleagues react?
Power vacuums are a messy business and should be dealt with quickly and definitively. Routines should be re-established (even if they are modified) so business can continue. The alternative is a depressed work-place -- and who wants that?
As all of the intricate twists and turns of primary season, convention season, and now the main stage of the election have happened, there has been one site that I have relied on: Digg.com. The social news site where people submit and vote on news items has become one of the best political aggregators. Every day, stories from newspapers and political sites are dugg up to the front page. Videos of cable news shows, political ads, and speeches at political rallies also rise to the top. It keeps me pretty well informed.
But, you can make the argument that it doesn't. Ninty-five percent of the political material is pro-Obama and anti-McCain. And while this appeals to a liberal New Yorker like myself, I also look for the other perspective online -- just not at Digg. Why is it that Digg is so liberal? Are technophiles and internet geeks typically democrats? But how does that explain the many Ron Paul stories that have come up over the last year? I suppose Digg has a libertarian contingent as well.
Is the reason behind Digg's left-leaning ways because Democrats seem to "get" the tech community more? Comparing Obama and McCain's online efforts, Obama clearly has a more established presence -- not to mention the Obama campaign's impressive use of text messaging. The stereotype is that Republicans are old-fogies that don't get computers and, while obviously not 100 percent true, that may indicate the imbalance of political coverage.
I think what it ultimately comes down to is the cluster effect. Not only are people moving from one city to another to be in communities that share their political viewpoint, they are making this migration online as well. How many Republicans only get their news from Fox? Most Democrats will not watch anything on Fox News and stick with Keith Olbermann on MSNBC. And online they will ignore RedState and stick with Daily Kos.
Well, I don't like living in a divided America. I hope more people go out of their way to watch television, surf sites, and generally seek info from the other side. How can we grow and change if we are not open-minded?
Citing a quote from 19th century writer Thomas Carlyle, Bud Bilanch talks about learning after your formal years of study are finished in his new blog. I admire the concept that it is the books you read and the study you do after college that truly makes you. Granted, that is after a childhood and educational years have shaped you tremendously. It is the years after education where a person is given the opportunity to fine-tune themselves into the adult they want to live their life as.
In other words, to quote Gandhi, "We must be the change we wish to see in the world." A person can change themselves for the better, become more than their youth, and begin changing the world. Learning is something active, something that needs to be pursued methodically. And once the learning is done, you can go from being active to truly being aggressive. You have to march forth and drag the world to change.
The most recent change I made in myself was to lose some weight this year. Without getting too detailed or too boastful, I was successful because I learned about a specific weight loss program, really learned about the foods I had been and should be eating, and then aggressively pursued it. Smaller changes have been to be more green in my life, double-sided printing at work, reusable containers and bags for use at home and work, CFLs at home, and the like. This was a smaller project, simpler learning and easier tasks, but it was still a lasting change made.
So what do you want to change about yourself? About the world? Go learn about it. And then you can meet it head on.
At an event in San Francisco this morning, Steve Jobs announced a new version of the iPod Nano and of the iPod Classic. It now has an aluminum shell with a long form factor and an oval shape, and is now "the thinnest iPod ever." The iPod Nano comes in 8 and 16 GB models with a respective $149 and $199 price. The Nano now detects portrait or landscape orientation like the iPod Touch and the iPhone. And the new iPod Nano comes in a rainbow of colors!
The iPod Touch got an update similar to the iPhone 3G, it is thinner with a stainless steel contoured outside with some other software tweaks: 8GB for $229, 16GB for $299, and 32GB for $399. The iPod Classic was also updated with new software and a bump in capacity from 80 GB to 120 GB, with $249 MSRP. Today, iTunes 8 will be released. It features Genius, which creates a playlist from songs in your library and the iTunes store based upon the song you are currently listening to. Genius will be built-in to all of these new iPods announced today. It was announced that iPhone firmware was going to 2.1, with a few improvements. Other details Jobs shared was that iPods hit 160 million sold, and 100 million apps sold in the application store.
Many were wondering if the iPod could remain relevant after the success of the iPhone. With the new Nano, updated iPods, and the functional improvements, Apple is trying to answer that question. I won't even go into the uneveness of a $399 iPod compared to the iPhone. But, I will take a stand and say I would not spend $149 for a Nano when for 50 bucks more I can get an iPhone with more features and applications. Do you agree?
Yes, Microsoft has lowered the price of the Xbox 360 console. You can get the standard system for $299 and the arcade version (no hard drive or backwards compatibility) for $199. Ignoring the worldwide dominance of the Nintendo Wii, Microsoft has remained ahead of Sony here in America (though Sony is catching up). This price cut should insure a sales hike for Microsoft--both versions of the Xbox 360 are now cheaper than the PlayStation 3 ($399).
But, the $199 price point is more than just a slight pick-me-up. It is now the lowest price console of this generation. But more than that, in the video game industry $199 is considered a sweet spot. It is where, historically, sales of a system increase dramatically as the console goes from expensive luxury item to fun impulse buy. Now, I probably shouldn't be citing a figure from my spotty memory, but something like 75% of the over 200 million PlayStation 1 and PlayStation 2 consoles bought were sold at the sub-200 dollar prices.
Microsoft has beaten both rival Sony and mainstream powerhouse Nintendo to that mark. And both companies have said they do not intend to drop their prices. This holiday season will prove whether or not historical trends prove true. Or will the motion-controls of the Wii and the Blu-ray capabilities of the PlayStation 3 keep those consoles competitive against the less expensive 360? Stay tuned.
