E-Commerce Spawns Networks of Frenemies

Some sort of model along these lines will be necessary for Brick and Mortar bookstores to retain marketshare in the age of digital books, although in reverse. Traditional bookstores join an affiliate program through a publisher / online retailer to deliver customers, while delivering to customers a place to buy traditional books, or browse and buy ebooks. Think of the Barnes and Noble Nook process but extended to other platforms.

I note that while Kinde was the first device to the market, some of the innovations showcased by the Nook are driving market forces, e.g. Amazon is about to unveil a method to "loan" a book for up to 14 days.

 

 

Sent to you by Stew via Google Reader:

 

 

E-Commerce Spawns Networks of Frenemies

via Technology Review RSS Feeds on 10/25/10

Why More Web Merchants Now Work Cautiously with Their Competitors.

As marketing chief for a small chain of Southern furniture stores, Robert Hodgson almost laughed when he first heard the pitch. A representative from Furniture.com, a longtime foe of all local furniture retailers, had called with a proposition. What if Hodgson's chain, Brashears, with its three brick-and-mortar showrooms in Missouri and Arkansas, began paying the national website to steer potential customers his way? The proposal struck him as almost comically naïve. "I definitely had to consider all sorts of questions," Hodgson recalls. Most obviously: if the customer leads were really so great, why would a competitor sell them to him?

 

 

Things you can do from here:

• Subscribe to Technology Review RSS Feeds using Google Reader
• Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your favorite sites

 

 

For Democrats, Math Is Hard. So Is The Truth.

 

 

Sent to you by Stew via Google Reader:

 

 

For Democrats, Math Is Hard. So Is The Truth.

via Big Journalism by Lori Ziganto on 10/26/10

The two latest examples of Democrat ineptitude, incompetence and total math fail come to us from none other than Nancy Pelosi (the best speaker of the house EVAH)  and Joe "doll hair" Biden. First up is Nancy Pelosi with both bad math and shameless lies. As Ben Domenech points out at RedState, Pelosi claimed that Obamacare would create (or save!) 4 million jobs with 400,000 of them being created immediately. While no one else could know what was in the bill, before they passed the bill, she was somehow magically able to pull that figure out of her arse.  Why? Because it was a total lie.  In fact, the bill actually lost Americans nearly 800,000 jobs. (pdf)  Eh. Why let pesky old facts and figures get in the way of lies and damn lies?  Plus, math is hard anyway.

Telling the truth is difficult too, evidently. If you are a Democrat, at least. Remember, that whole "jobs bill" was also a total fabrication.

PROMISES, PROMISES: Jobs Bill Won't Add Many Jobs

WASHINGTON (AP) — It's a bipartisan jobs bill that would hand President Barack Obama a badly needed political victory and placate Republicans with tax cuts at the same time. But it has a problem: It won't create many jobs.

[snip]

"We're skeptical that it's going to be a big job creator," said Bill Rys, tax counsel for the National Federation of Independent Business. "There's certainly nothing wrong with giving a tax break to a business that's hired a new worker, especially in these tough times. But in terms of being an incentive to hire a lot of workers, we're skeptical."

Whoops! Jobs Shmobs; it's all about the speeches, baby. If only they would spend more time explaining their outright fallacies to us rubes. That is the problem, you see. It couldn't possibly be that everything they touch turns into massive fail.  That's what happens when the people in charge have never actually ran a business or, you know, lived and worked in the real world. No wonder President Obama, and most of the Democrats on the campaign trail, are always talking about how they "hear stories".  It is because they have zero real world experience of their own. I wonder if they can see November from their Ivory Towers?

Or, they have delusional experiences. The latest is the paranoid belief in "shadowy groups" giving money to Conservative candidates narrative. You know, super scary nefarious organizations like the Chamber of Commerce.  To be fair, it makes sense that the current crop of Democrats would be frightened of a business organization, seeing as how they obviously believe capitalism and free markets are evil and all.

Which leads me to Joe Biden; the man one heart-beat away from the Presidency. I think he was trying to tie in those sneaky, shadowy Chamber people in here, but I'm not sure.  I've forgotten to update my Moron to English dictionary. In any event, here he is in full idiocy, with the press, as always, attempting to cover for him. Their attempt, however, is as patchy as Biden's hair plugs:

In an interview with Al Hunt of Bloomberg News scheduled to be shown Friday night, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. commented on the need for disclosure when corporate interests contribute to political groups.

"I was amazed at the amount of money, this $200 billion of money that is — where there's no accountability," he said. "When I say accountability, we don't know where it's coming from. There's no disclosure, so the folks watching the ad can't make a judgment based upon motive when you say it's paid for by so-and-so."

Mr. Biden clearly meant "million" with an "M," not "billion" with a "B."

But did he?

But his tongue slipped again a moment later. "So it really — I've never seen this before, so the only caveat I'd put in terms of the House is how much impact this $200 billion are going to mean."

Math. Is. Hard. What can we expect from a man who can't even count to four, claiming that J-O-B-S is a "3 letter word"?  It's so comforting that Joe Biden is the one that The Smartest Man Alive ™ chose to put in charge of overseeing the "Stimulus" money implementation, isn't it? A billion, a thousand gazillion, whatever!

Ed Morrissey goes on to put that foreign money lie to bed as well.  Like math, the truth is hard. And elections do have consequences, dire ones at time. So, I suggest it's about time we gave them all a teachable moment ™: Lying, corruption and abysmal incompetence also have consequences.

Let those consequences be next week's elections.

————–

Cross-posted from NewsRealBlog

 

 

Things you can do from here:

• Subscribe to Big Journalism using Google Reader
• Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your favorite sites

 

 

Jalopnik Recommendation: F-22 Raptor Engineer Prevents Crash By Causing One

Stew has sent you a link to a post on Jalopnik:

Title: F-22 Raptor Engineer Prevents Crash By Causing One
Link: http://jalopnik.com/5669922/f+22-raptor-engineer-prevents-crash-by-causing-one

Stew says: Awesome Job!

Who Really Puts Islam in a Bad Light?

More re: Juan Williams

 

 

Sent to you by Stew via Google Reader:

 

 

Who Really Puts Islam in a Bad Light?

via Big Journalism by Dana Loesch on 10/21/10

I've been sifting through hundreds of emails, stories, reactions to Juan Williams' sensational firing by NPR over his remarks on Bill O'Reilly's show, covered on Big Journalism for the past 24 hours. I've also read Slate's ridiculous comparison of Williams to Sherrod. Williams didn't call everyone a racist and help bilk taxpayers of billions for unfounded claims, but hey.

Those defending NPR's reactions say that Williams "smeared" Muslims and portrayed them in a bad light.

Does not a group of men hijacking planes and flying them into the World Trade Center killing over three thousand people in the name of Islam portray Islam in a bad light?

Does not men hijacking a plane to fly into the Pentagon in the name of Islam portray Islam in a bad light?

When individuals strap bombs onto their bodies and detonate in public thoroughfares, killing men, women, and precious innocent children, all in the name of Islam, does not that paint Islam in a bad light?

When men bomb the USS Cole in the name of Islam, does that not portray Islam in a bad light?

When a Chechen group terrorizes school childrenin Beslan in the name of Islam, does that not portray Islam in a bad light?

When men blow up discotheques in Malaysia in the name of Islam, does not that show Islam in a bad light?

When members of the CIA are murdered, in the greatest massacre in the organization's history, by individuals in the name of Islam, does that not show Islam in a bad light?

When a man shoots up Ft. Hood in the name of Islam, does that not paint Islam in a bad light?

When men hijack a plane, the control of which is barely wrested away from them by brave American passengers before the plane crashes into a Pennsylvania field, leaving behind a scorch mark upon the earth for families to mourn – all in the name of Islam – does not that paint Islam in a negative light?

When the United Arab Emirates passes a law stating that it's not domestic abuse to beat your wife just so long as she bears no bruises, that doesn't paint Islam in a bad light?

When men are allowed to kill and abuse their wives, sisters, and young daughters for refusing marriage to much-older men chosen for them, that doesn't paint Islam in a bad light?

And when televisions show people filling streets in cities across Pakistan, the Middle East, cheering the 9/11 attacks while people in our country mourned the smoking ashes of over 3,000 innocent victims, that doesn't paint Islam in a bad light?

When the developers of the proposed Ground Zero Mosque refuse to not accept funds from Iran, a country which, according to our government, sponsors terrorism, that doesn't shed a bad light on Islam?

But Juan Williams calling out the statistical occurrence of the above paints Islam in a bad light?

Those who suggest that the reactions of others to the events listed above somehow negatively impact the faith pass the buck on responsibility. Perhaps if we had more people who spoke out against these atrocities instead of defending by way of failing to criticize and attacking the people who call these acts out, this wouldn't be a problem. Juan Williams wouldn't have any remarks to make on the subject.

Political correctness, Frankenstein's monster.

 

 

Things you can do from here:

• Subscribe to Big Journalism using Google Reader
• Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your favorite sites

 

 

Retraction Request: Politico’s Jonathan Martin Smears Palin with False Facts

Glen Beck mentioned the same thing on his show yesterday. This is before the NPR - Juan Williams debacle.

 

 

Sent to you by Stew via Google Reader:

 

 

Retraction Request: Politico’s Jonathan Martin Smears Palin with False Facts

via Big Journalism by retracto on 10/21/10

In his piece today entitled "Sarah Palin is wreaking havoc on the campaign trail, GOP sources say," Politico's Jonathan Martin (who was tasked with the Republican Party beat for the website for the 2008 elections) falsely claims Sarah Palin backed out of a scheduled interview with talk-radio host Mark Levin:

According to a source familiar with the situation, she backed out of planned interviews with conservative talk-show hosts Sean Hannity and Mark Levin the morning she was scheduled to talk to them.

Levin contested this claim on his facebook page, and has asked Politico to retract this statement:

This is a flat out lie. Sarah Palin never backed out of any interview with me. Period. And John Martin, the reporter, never contacted me to ask me directly. I insist on a retraction.

Red State seconded the request.  Allow us to be third.

Martin came under scrutiny in the blogosphere during the 2008 campaign for leading the investigation into the personal life of Joe the Plumber.  From Newsbusters:

Jonathan Martin of The Politico was among the first out of the gate, with blog posts noting that Wurzelbacher, affectionately known by most of America as "Joe The Plumber," has a tax lien against him and doesn't have a plumber's license. Martin conveniently forgot to mention that the law doesn't require one.

 

 

Things you can do from here:

• Subscribe to Big Journalism using Google Reader
• Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your favorite sites

 

 

Artificial life forms evolve basic intelligence

Artificial life forms evolve basic intelligence.  As Glen Reynolds of Instapundit would say, "More BOLO, less Terminator"

Comparison between the (as yet) Fictional August Suprise! and Instugator's Rescue Plan

Hot Air is reporting that James Pethokoukis is hearing rumors that the Obama Administration is thinking about ordering Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to bail out 1/5 mortgage owners who are "under water" (they owe more than their homes are worth). As a Fannie Mae Stockholder, I am in disagreement with this policy.  Since I am a strategist, I am in extreme disagreement with the policy; mostly because it does not make strategic sense - (even though I suggested a similar strategy, the beneficiaries of my strategy are those who did the right things.  Read more here.)

The Money Line form Hot Air, "In other words, it’s exactly the same kind of Obamanomics that we have seen for the last eighteen months — spend what we don’t have now, run up debt like crazy, and hope that a momentary spike will translate into political success.  Unfortunately, that has also been the formula for long-term economic failure."

Instugator's Rescue Plan is more thought out.  Here are the particulars:

Principles:

1. Reward those who practice good behavior

A. Paying your mortgage on time is good behavior

2. Do Not reward those who practice bad behavior

A. Borrowing what you cannot afford is bad behavior.

B. Having an interest-only mortgage is bad behavior.

C. Having an ARM is questionable.

D. Investment Bankers who purchase CDO’s without understanding the underlying value of them are engaging in bad behavior.

E. Those who sold CDO’s without including the data necessary to understand the underlying value are engaging in bad behavior.

3. Do not let those most directly responsible for the current mess come within 100 miles of the bailout money.

A. Those whose W-2 forms show that they work for congress, Freddie, Fannie, or any investment bank in need of a bailout need not apply.

The Plan:

1. Take the $700B <or any figure currently in Vogue>

2. Find those people who-

A. Have a conventional mortgage.

B. Have always paid it on time.

C. Have never declared bankruptcy

3. Establish an agreement that the Gov’t will:

A. Pay off the mortgage of those who meet each condition in item 2.

(This allows banks to resume mortgage lending and permits those who engaged in good behavior to go bargain-hunting - thus rewarding good behavior)

B. Each person whose mortgage is paid off will agree to make monthly payments to a money-market account

(This increases short term liquidity - also allows those with good behavior to use their work ethic to the betterment of all)

C. Each person agrees to re-finance their house at the end of a 5-10 year period of time at market value to repay the Gov’t.

(This repays the bonds that the govt will have to put on the market to fund the plan)

4. The government will issue bonds to pay for this plan (up front).

5. Bonds are repaid prior to maturity by those bailed out.

(People with good behavior are people who are less risky - that is why they have good credit ratings)

6. In the event the number of bailoutees exceeds the dollars available, applicants from the acceptable pool will be chosen by lottery.

Instugator, as author of the plan, recuses himself from participating.