Tony Snow - Honestly Adding Insult to Injury

August 20th, 2007

In a rare exhibition of honesty, Tony Snow announced that he would be stepping down as White House Press Secretary, due to finanancial reasons. Avoiding the usual cliche, of “spending more time with the family”, Snow explained “I’m not going to be able to go the distance, but that’s primarily for financial reasons.” Snow said. “I’ve told people when my money runs out, then I’ve got to go.”

Tony Snow, earns $168,000 annualy as White House Press Secretary, and apparently that’s not enough. Honest, arrogant and insulting would be the only way to characterize Tony’s reasons for leaving. At a time when American men and women, working for the same federal government, are sacraficing their lives and limbs (facing snipers and road side bombs) in Iraq, on starting salaries of $15,282.

Facing an un-armed and cowardly Washington Press Corp, Snow couldn’t continue on his current salary of $168,000, according to CNN “People close to Snow said that he felt he needed to make some more money to help his family, which includes children readying for college.”

If Mr. Snow’s children enlist in the Army, they will be eligible for up to $72,900 to pay for college with the Montgomery GI Bill, and an additional $23,724 if they join the reserves. The Snow childrens’ enlistment in the Army, will not only help their father remain as Press Secretary, and pay for their educations, they will also be a part of a war their Daddy supports. Other federal employees with children, house and car payments, and working in a much more hazardous war zone, find a way to manage - on a tenth of Mr. Snow’s salary.

Normally, I wouldn’t beat-up on a man with cancer, however Mr Snow should be aware, that their are millions of Americans earning far less than him, without health insurance, who are paying for his chemo-therapy.

Karl Rove – Iraq War Casualty

August 18th, 2007

Karl Rove’s departure from the White House, has stirred much analysis and debate, and almost universal joy among liberals and conservatives. Both Democrats and Republicans  hold him responsible for political defeats. What is missing from most of the talk is the central role Karl Rove played in the Iraq War fiasco. In fact, without Karl Rove’s participation, the Iraq War may never have occurred. One of the motivations to attack Iraq was domestic U.S. politics. Specifically, the 2002 mid-term Congressional elections. 

This is not a secret, the decision to attack Iraq in order to win the 2002 mid-term elections, is clearly outlined in a September 2002 Time Magazine article titled “General Karl Rove, reporting for duty”. The sequence of events leading up to the Iraq War, are not a mystery either, however Karl Rove’s Machiavellian political calculus gave it the green light.

The Neo-Cons, the American wing of the Israeli Likud Party, had long been advocating a war against Iraq. Their policy of creating instablility within the middle-east to enhance Israel’s security is well known. Their attempts to promote a U.S. invasion of Iraq can be seen publicly, a week before Bush takes power, in a January 2000 Wolfowitz and Perle Frontline PBS documentary. 

After Bush’s selection in 2000, the Neo-Cons found homes in both Vice-President Dick Cheney office, and Donald Rumsfeld’s Defense Dept., and continued to push war against Iraq – but nobody was buying. Even after the 911 attacks, the Neo-Con agenda of linking Saddam Hussein to Al-Qaeda, was rejected by the White House.

The 2001 war in Afghanistan was, with the exception of Bin Laden’s escape, a tremendous success. The Taliban and their Al-Qaeda allies were quickly and easily defeated, Osama Bin Laden was hiding in a cave, and the United States was victorious.

However, on the domestic political front, things weren’t going so well. The country was still divided over the Gore v. Bush election, the economy hadn’t recovered from the dot-com bust and appeared to be headed for recession, and after Sen. Jeffords defection in the Senate it looked like the Democrats would capture the House of Representatives as well.

The war in Afghanistan provided a political boost to the President, but because victory had been so rapid and complete, the positive political effects quickly diminished. Post 911 phony terror alerts, at first very effective at silencing domestic opposition, with over use began to lose their intimidation factor. In the winter and spring of 2002 things weren’t looking good for the Republicans and President Bush.

In April of 2002, the U.S. backed a coup attempt against Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez, after Chavez tried to take over the Venezuelan state oil company. The coup attempt failed and Dick Cheney and Big Oil had been defeated.

The Neo-Cons never gave up on their desire to invade Iraq, their people were in place within the administration, and they re-pitched their plan.

Oil had been trading at $20 per barrel, Haliburton was under investigation for it’s accounting practices, and was fighting for it’s corporate life in an asbestos lawsuit. It wasn’t very hard for the Neo-Cons to convince Dick Cheney to support the Iraq War plan. After having lost Venezuela’s oil, the thought of being able to capture Iraq’s oil, was too sweet a deal.

Donald Rumsfeld, a man of tremendous ego, saw how an Iraq War would increase his power and prestige within the administration. With his second in command, Wolfowitz whispering into his ear, he saw how he could crush his nemesis Colin Powell.

Colin Powell in the State Dept., the top generals in the military, and the President were the only ones remaining to get on board.

In the spring of 2002, it was not hard to convince Karl Rove ergo the President, that war against Iraq would be a good political idea.

In a time of war, the country unites, and the popularity of the president rises. Wars are a political act as much as they are a military one. And this war had many political upsides, with few political downsides, at least seemingly. Approaching the 2002 mid-term elections, with the Democrats poised to take over both houses of Congress, Karl Rove got on board the War Wagon.

Only Colin Powell remained as an opponent to invasion, and with the majority of the administration in favor, he was easily isolated.

Although large numbers of Americans opposed attacking Iraq, Congressional support was guaranteed, this was a war Israel wanted. When it comes to U.S. mid-east policy, what Israel wants Israel usually gets, and almost no member of Congress, either Democrat or Republican had the courage to oppose Israeli whishes.

The Democrats were silenced, Karl Rove was left free to frame the Attack, any member of congress who expressed dissent was labled soft on terror. The 2002 mid-term elections switched from a debate over failing domestic policies, to a debate on fighting terror, the Democrats lost both houses of Congress in the November elections.

Karl Rove would use the Iraq War once more, to silence the Democrats in 2004, and win the presidential election. Having supported the invasion, the Democrats avoided pursuing the failing Iraq War as a political strategy, even though large numbers of Americans increasingly opposed the war. The Democrats remained silent, as this time Karl Rove switched the debate from a failing foreign policy, to the threat of gay marriage at home. 

Of course, as we know now, the Iraq War finally caught up to Karl Rove in the 2006 mid-term elections. The Iraq War had turned into a disaster, and even though Democrats remained silent or called for half measures, large numbers of Americans turned out and gave both houses of Congress to the Democrats in any case.

Karl Rove was not an Iraq War ideologue or proponent. Like his boss he didn’t know the difference between a Sunni or a Shiite, was unaware of regional politics, or carefully considered the full range of consequences.

He saw the Iraq War as a tool to win elections, and it proved to be a successful strategy in two elections, however it cost him the last election.

In the spring of 2002, a debate raged in the White House over the decision to invade Iraq, Karl Rove saw the political advantage of going to war. He was central to pushing and promoting the war to gain domestic political victory. The consequences would be someone else’s problem, Dick and Don would take care of the details, and Bush would reign supreme.

In April of this year, Karl Rove stated “I wish the war were over. I wish the war never existed.” Karl Rove was central to starting something he couldn’t stop. Ultimately it cost him his job.

Saving Yahoo!

August 6th, 2007

A front page article appeared in the Sunday 8/5/2007 business section of the  San Francisco Chronicle that focused on Yahoo’s effort to find a  “Killer  App.” that would rescue it from Google domination. Hundreds of Yahoo employees crammed an auditorium, to present their ideas, and in the end one idea was chosen in the area of “search”. They were offered a meeting with a Senior Executive to “get him enthused and excited”.

The company has been falling for the past year, both in stock price, and market share.

It is important that Yahoo not fail. More importantly, that the arena of search, not be controlled by one company. The salvation of Yahoo, lies not in looking forward (finding the killer app.), but in looking backward. Yahoo already has everything it needs, not only to successfully battle Google, but to even once again dominate. Bradley Horowitz, V.P. of Advanced Development at Yahoo was the focus of the article. Here is the comment I left on his blog:

Bradley:

I read the San Francisco Chronicle which outlined your efforts in finding a solution to Yahoo’s declining market share and fortunes. The article detailed how you are leading the effort at discovering a new product or idea that will counter Googles ever increasing domination. From reading past articles about Yahoo, it appears that CEO Jerry Wang, is also in pursuit of new “killer apps.” to take back the lead from Google. You are both looking in the wrong direction.

The salvation of Yahoo lies not in looking forward - but in looking backwards. This is a time for “backwards thinking”. Yahoo already has the solution to it’s problems. In fact it has everything it needs, to not only successfully battle Google, but to once again dominate.  A killer App. won’t save you - you need to beat Google at it’s own game - and Yahoo and only Yahoo can. The solution lies in Yahoo’s neglected, and nearly abandoned, directory.

Let me explain:

Google makes it’s money from ppc. It’s ppc is dependent on it’s search engine. At one time, it’s search engine was the best on the internet, people flocked to Google for search. And advertisers followed, making Google very rich, Yahoo missed an opportunity. Today, Google’s search results are crap, and Yahoo has another opportunity. In fact, there is only one company that can - Yahoo. And that is due to your directory.

Google and Yahoo = Alta Vista and DMOZ

Looking back - At one time, Google was nothing more than an improved Alta Vista, and Yahoo was a paid DMOZ. What Google did to become so dominant was simply combine Alta Vista with DMOZ. In fact, early on, Google relied heavily on DMOZ to produce it’s search engine results. Google has gotten away from DMOZ and relies more on linking. This was useful at one time but is now it’s Achilles heel - and Yahoo’s opportunity.

Linking, as a measurement of web page value, is fine for articles. But horrible for business. It is an extreme waste of time, money, and energy. And it has become so corrupted as to render search results meaningless. Linking has given rise to bogus directories and only benefits the big players. People using search engines are not getting what they’re looking for.

Take San Francisco Hotels for example. If I am planning a trip to San Francisco, and I am looking for a hotel, I type San Francisco hotels into the search engine.  What do I expect to see? A list of Hotels in San Francisco with a short description. What do I get? A couple of big name hotels but mostly directories and travel companies. On the right hand side of the page, in the ppc section, are the hotels - and usually only the big names. Again, not what I am looking for. Bye the way, who does the best job of producing meaningful results, Google or Yahoo? Yahoo - but not by much. Google’s failure does not automatically mean Yahoo benefits. If you don’t seize the opportunity and revamp and re-energize your directory - you will still lose.

Here’s How:

  • Clean-up your directory - kick out the bogus directories from search results.
  • Dramatically lower your directory submission fees - make it cheap and easy for everyone to be listed in the directory.
  • Modify your algorithm - place the greatest weight on your directory.
  • Marketing - “Do you Yahoo?” Get people back to using Yahoo for search.

Google’s money, strength and power, does not come from AJAX or Satellite Images. It is derived from their search engine.

This is your second, and possibly last chance, don’t blow it. In the words of the Beatles “Get back to where you once belonged - JoJo”

Sincerely,

Ramsay Mameesh

Feeling Flashy? Wait.

July 8th, 2007

Want Flash on your website? Flying text and on demand video. Supercharged banner ads. These are a few of the wonderful aspects of flash design.

But wait, before you go shelling out big bucks, to change your boring web 1.0 site into a flash centric site, answer these questions first.

Does your target audience earn more than a $100,000 per year?

Does your target audience live in cities or in Iceland?

If you didn’t answer with a resounding YES!, then wait. Because if you forget about the “three second rule”, where you have three seconds to impress your visitor before they take off (a nice little paper on the subject can be seen here), then your expensive flash site, besides costing a ton of money, may hurt your sales.

An article by Mike Lazarus in the San Francisco Chronicle, presents findings from a study on broadband penetration, done by the Public Policy Institute of California. According to the study:

“The Public Policy Institute of California issued a report last week in which it found that 47 percent of all households statewide had broadband Internet access as of 2005. Nationally, the figure is closer to 40 percent.

That’s partly a factor of geography — broadband is available to more urban dwellers than people in rural communities. But it’s also a factor of wealth.

Sixty-eight percent of California households with incomes greater than $100,000 have broadband Internet access, the institute found. That percentage drops to 49 percent for households with incomes between $50,000 and $75,000 and to 24 percent for households earnings less than $25,000.”

Macromedia Flash gives website designers the ability to create truly cool websites and annoying banner ads. But unless you have high speed internet it can be very slow to download and can cause browsers to freeze or crash.

It’s been around for a few years, but only recently has it become the “hottest thing” in web design, a quick look at the job boards show that everyone wants to hire flash designers. Why?

Three main reasons:

Adobe bought Macromedia in mid 2005, and has done a good job of getting their flash plug-in onto peoples computers. Adobe claims that 98.7% of browsers in use have the plug-in installed. This means pretty much everyone can view your flash banner ad. To run flash on your computer you need to have the plug-in installed.

The number of people able to adequately access a Flash site is greater than the study done by PPIC suggests. The study was done in 2005 this is 2007. And many people do their web surfing at work, where they have access to high speed internet, not at home.

Advertising agencies and web design firms can charge their customers a lot more to create a flash site. Flash is a heavy, complicated, and specialized program. It takes quite a while to learn and also takes a lot longer to design. Hours rack up when designing a flash site and guess who pays?

So unless Are you ready to shell out big bucks to have the coolest website in your industry, your audience is a rich city dweller, or you just want to impress your competitor’s CEO in the next office tower wait. How long? Six months to a year. You have three seconds to impress your audience. What percentage of your audience are you willing to lose?