This is reveaed by Huff Post writer Sam Stein , who writes..
"The Bush Administration is actively blocking Congress' investigation into the outing of once-covert CIA agent Valerie Plame, according to House Oversight Committee chairman Henry Waxman.
In a letter sent today to Attorney General Michael Mukasey, Waxman notes that "White House objections are preventing Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald from disclosing key information to investigating officials." Among the documents being withheld are interviews taken from White House officers during Fitzgerald's investigation into the leak of Plame's identity."
Wonder what they're hiding?
Monday, December 03, 2007
Robert Reich Attacks Hillary Clinton for Her Attacks On Barack Obama
In his blog, Robert Reich , a former Labor Secretary of President Clinton's, came after Senator Hillary Clinton for attacking Barack Obama. The full blog post is below and here.
Why is HRC stooping So Low?
I’m becoming increasingly concerned about the stridency and inaccuracy of charges in Iowa -- especially coming from my old friend. While I’m as hard-boiled as they come about what’s said in campaigns, I just don’t think Dems should stoop to this. First, HRC attacked O's plan for keep Social Security solvent. Social Security doesn’t need a whole lot to keep it going – it’s in far better shape than Medicare – but everyone who’s looked at it agrees it will need bolstering (I was a trustee of the Social Security Trust Fund ten years ago, and I can vouch for this). Obama wants to do it by lifting the cap on the percent of income subject to Social Security payroll taxes, which strikes me as sensible. That cap is now close to $98,000 (it’s indexed), and the result is highly regressive. (Bill Gates satisfies his yearly Social Security obligations a few minutes past midnight on January 1 every year.) The cap doesn’t have to be lifted all that much to keep Social Security solvent – maybe to $115,00. That’s a progressive solution to the problem. HRC wants to refer Social Security to a commission. That's avoiding the issue, and it's irresponsible: A commission will likely call either for raising the retirement age (that’s what Greenspan’s Social Security commission came up with in the 1980s) or increasing the payroll tax on all Americans. So when HRC charges that Obama’s plan would “raise taxes” and her plan wouldn’t, she’s simply not telling the truth.
I’m equally concerned about her attack on his health care plan. She says his would insure fewer people than hers. I’ve compared the two plans in detail. Both of them are big advances over what we have now. But in my view Obama’s would insure more people, not fewer, than HRC’s. That’s because Obama’s puts more money up front and contains sufficient subsidies to insure everyone who’s likely to need help – including all children and young adults up to 25 years old. Hers requires that everyone insure themselves. Yet we know from experience with mandated auto insurance – and we’re learning from what’s happening in Massachusetts where health insurance is now being mandated – that mandates still leave out a lot of people at the lower end who can’t afford to insure themselves even when they’re required to do so. HRC doesn’t indicate how she’d enforce her mandate, and I can’t find enough money in HRC’s plan to help all those who won’t be able to afford to buy it. I’m also impressed by the up-front investments in information technology in O’s plan, and the reinsurance mechanism for coping with the costs of catastrophic illness. HRC is far less specific on both counts. In short: They’re both advances, but O’s is the better of the two. HRC has no grounds for alleging that O’s would leave out 15 million people.
Yesterday, HRC suggested O lacks courage. "There's a big difference between our courage and our convictions, what we believe and what we're willing to fight for," she told reporters in Iowa, saying Iowa voters will have a choice "between someone who talks the talk, and somebody who's walked the walk." Then asked whether she intended to raise questions about O’s character, she said: "It's beginning to look a lot like that."
I just don’t get it. If there’s anyone in the race whose history shows unique courage and character, it's Barack Obama. HRC’s campaign, by contrast, is singularly lacking in conviction about anything. Her pollster, Mark Penn, has advised her to take no bold positions and continuously seek the political center, which is exactly what she’s been doing.
All is fair in love, war, and politics. But this series of slurs doesn't serve HRC well. It will turn off voters in Iowa, as in the rest of the country. If she's worried her polls are dropping, this is not the way to build them back up.
CNN Listening? - Jesse Jackson Jr. Publically Tells Jackson Sr. He's Wrong About Barack Obama
When the Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr. openly criticized the Democratic Candidates for forgetting about African Americans, it was taken as a slam against Senator Barack Obama by CNN and others, including me. In fact, CNN did not waste time reporting this.
Now, one week later, Jackson's son, Jesse Jr. comes out publically to tell the World that his father's wrong about Obama. He did this in the Monday Chicago Sun Times. Read below and let's see if CNN is quick to report this. If so, they're being fair. If not, it's another sign that they're trying to help Senator Clinton.
Jesse Jr. to Jesse Sr.: You're wrong on Obama, dad
December 3, 2007
During his historic run for the presidency in 1984, the Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr. was dubbed ''Thunder'' by the Secret Service agents assigned to protect him. It was a fitting name for Jackson, whose electrifying oratory, energy and intellect shed light on critical issues as he took the country by storm.
In his column on Tuesday, ''Thunder'' struck again, criticizing Democratic presidential candidates for having ''virtually ignored the plight of African Americans in this country.'' While causing quite a stir, Jackson's comments unfortunately dimmed -- rather than directed -- light on the facts. But, they should be clear.
» Click to enlarge image
Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (left) defended his close friend Barack Obama (D-Ill.) from criticism by Jesse Jackson Sr. (right). Jesse Jr. responds to his dad's column in an open letter to the Sun-Times.
(AP)
RELATED STORIES
• Jesse Jackson Sr.'s column
• Jackson Jr.'s relatively critical
• Campaign splits Jacksons
• Sweet blog: Jesse Jackson Jr. rebuts Dad
As a national co-chairman of Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign, I've been a witness to Obama's powerful, consistent and effective advocacy for African Americans. He is deeply rooted in the black community, having fought for social justice and economic inclusion throughout his life. On the campaign trail -- as he's done in the U.S. Senate and the state Legislature before that -- Obama has addressed many of the issues facing African Americans out of personal conviction, rather than political calculation.
It is a testament to his deep commitment and new vision that Obama is poised to become the first black man to make it all the way to the White House. Taking him there will be the character, the judgment and the principles that are propelling his rise.
So often, the place where a candidate begins a campaign points to the direction where he intends to take the country. It is a hint of things to come.
Obama launched his presidential campaign at the Old State Capitol in Springfield, where Abraham Lincoln delivered his famous speech calling on a divided nation to come together. Arguing that slavery was morally wrong, Lincoln professed this: ''I believe that this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.''
Lincoln's words were not just poignant, they were prophetic. His campaign defined the challenge and changed the country, setting in motion an immortal, inevitable clash of armies and ideas. In the clamor and convulsion of the Civil War, President Lincoln rallied the nation, freed the slaves and saved our Union, ushering in ''a new birth of freedom.''
Almost a century and half later, Obama stood only steps away from where Lincoln warned of a ''house divided.'' Like Lincoln, Obama called on us to come together and ''to face the challenges of this millennium together, as one people -- as Americans.'' He called on us to join with him to conclude a war without end, to solve the health care crisis, to build better schools, to create better jobs and to provide greater opportunity and justice for all. He said, "I want us to take up the unfinished business of perfecting our union, and building a better America."
Clearly, African Americans -- as all Americans -- are listening and responding. On the same day that Jackson's column appeared, the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies released the results of its latest national survey of likely black presidential primary voters. The study found that many African Americans were paying close attention, with nearly 75 percent having a favorable view of Obama.
They see the light.
Now, one week later, Jackson's son, Jesse Jr. comes out publically to tell the World that his father's wrong about Obama. He did this in the Monday Chicago Sun Times. Read below and let's see if CNN is quick to report this. If so, they're being fair. If not, it's another sign that they're trying to help Senator Clinton.
Jesse Jr. to Jesse Sr.: You're wrong on Obama, dad
December 3, 2007
During his historic run for the presidency in 1984, the Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr. was dubbed ''Thunder'' by the Secret Service agents assigned to protect him. It was a fitting name for Jackson, whose electrifying oratory, energy and intellect shed light on critical issues as he took the country by storm.
In his column on Tuesday, ''Thunder'' struck again, criticizing Democratic presidential candidates for having ''virtually ignored the plight of African Americans in this country.'' While causing quite a stir, Jackson's comments unfortunately dimmed -- rather than directed -- light on the facts. But, they should be clear.
» Click to enlarge image
Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (left) defended his close friend Barack Obama (D-Ill.) from criticism by Jesse Jackson Sr. (right). Jesse Jr. responds to his dad's column in an open letter to the Sun-Times.
(AP)
RELATED STORIES
• Jesse Jackson Sr.'s column
• Jackson Jr.'s relatively critical
• Campaign splits Jacksons
• Sweet blog: Jesse Jackson Jr. rebuts Dad
As a national co-chairman of Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign, I've been a witness to Obama's powerful, consistent and effective advocacy for African Americans. He is deeply rooted in the black community, having fought for social justice and economic inclusion throughout his life. On the campaign trail -- as he's done in the U.S. Senate and the state Legislature before that -- Obama has addressed many of the issues facing African Americans out of personal conviction, rather than political calculation.
It is a testament to his deep commitment and new vision that Obama is poised to become the first black man to make it all the way to the White House. Taking him there will be the character, the judgment and the principles that are propelling his rise.
So often, the place where a candidate begins a campaign points to the direction where he intends to take the country. It is a hint of things to come.
Obama launched his presidential campaign at the Old State Capitol in Springfield, where Abraham Lincoln delivered his famous speech calling on a divided nation to come together. Arguing that slavery was morally wrong, Lincoln professed this: ''I believe that this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.''
Lincoln's words were not just poignant, they were prophetic. His campaign defined the challenge and changed the country, setting in motion an immortal, inevitable clash of armies and ideas. In the clamor and convulsion of the Civil War, President Lincoln rallied the nation, freed the slaves and saved our Union, ushering in ''a new birth of freedom.''
Almost a century and half later, Obama stood only steps away from where Lincoln warned of a ''house divided.'' Like Lincoln, Obama called on us to come together and ''to face the challenges of this millennium together, as one people -- as Americans.'' He called on us to join with him to conclude a war without end, to solve the health care crisis, to build better schools, to create better jobs and to provide greater opportunity and justice for all. He said, "I want us to take up the unfinished business of perfecting our union, and building a better America."
Clearly, African Americans -- as all Americans -- are listening and responding. On the same day that Jackson's column appeared, the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies released the results of its latest national survey of likely black presidential primary voters. The study found that many African Americans were paying close attention, with nearly 75 percent having a favorable view of Obama.
They see the light.
Julia Allison and Meghan Asha Search For White Tech Guys at TechCrunch
Ok. You're wondering what's up with the title's smarky angle "Julia Allison and Meghan Asha Search For White Tech Guys at TechCrunch"? Well, it's simple. It's true.
If you've ever been to an SF Bay Area tech event as a Black male, you discover five things:
1) The party's mostly white
2) The men are cool to talk with
3) The women there act like they're afraid to talk with you if you're Black.
And establish these rules...
1) You have a better time if you just hang with one group and don't mingle much.
2) You have a fantastic time if you don't wait for people to talk to you, and totally avoid anyone
-- including some women -- who seem to have an issue with your presence.
I'm serious about this.
As the video reveals, of all of the people at these parties, it's generally non-tech White Women that generally act like they're looking only for White and at times Asian tech guys, as opposed to just plain networking. (And by "non-tech" I mean those who are not in tech positions. There are some exceptions if you read on, but that's my general experience. Julia, for example, is not herself a programmer or videoblogger or game developer, or web designer.) And their focus is so hard on this type of guy that they most of them will not do the normal act of simple networking with manners. By contrast, the guys act, well, normal. I've got to be honest about this. Hey, when you're one of , say, three Black men out of 300 people you see a different side of society at these events.
And before you go there, I didn't learn this by trying to establish a conversation, but more by simply noticing patterns -- where people went to at these parties and mostly who they took the time to strike up a conversation with, and also seeing how other Black men were treated, and quickly establishing the set of ground rules you see above and moving forward.
Hey, someone's got to point this out; might as well be me because the rules you see above have become habit for me. It's hilarious. For example, I remember the founder of a certain "scrapping" website app that ryhmes with "Scrabble" just pass and brush against me ( and with her chest, folks. Her chest!) without even saying so much as "excuse me" or "how's it going?" -- terrible behavior which I took as a weird form of passive-agresssive flirting or a rude "I don't want to see you" brush off and said nothing to her.
Folks like her are what makes the World a little less cool and a lot more hurtful. I just wish they'd realize how inappropriate they're being, but that may be asking too much. A simple "Hello" will do in the future.
I can report there was one woman at these events that was really cool and normal, and she knows who she is. Maybe there will be more like her, and less like the Julia Allisons.
Not that I've met Julia Allison. I may be wrong about her, but my experience tells me otherwise. I'd bet the ranch I'm right. But I can't lose. If I'm right, then my World is easier for noting the problem, if I'm wrong, then she's not what is the norm and that's good, and if I'm right and she's sensitive to this, she'll change, and we'll all be better.
I just want to attend one Tech party where everyone's cool. I know that party's out there, somewhere.
(Oh. And if you're one of those who's going to stupidly remark about this and claim that -- for example -- I'm racist for pointing out racism, be smart enough to realize that if people stopped behaving in the patterns I identify, I'd have to reason to complain or dish. Think about it. What I'm sharing with you is conversation that Blacks generally reserve for Black-on-Black environments. I dont' do that. I'll let you know what's on my mind, period. Also, stating that a person's racist for identifying racism is like saying one person's a robber for identiying a robbery.)
CNN / YouTube Debates - My Message To Steve Grove and Dave Bohrman
This video and post present my message to Steve Grove, the News and Politics editor for CNN, and to Dave Bohrman, the Executive Producer of the CNN / YouTube Debates for CNN.
My take is that CNN/YouTube was lucky to realize the ratings record that was set for the debate, and this was achieved for two reasons: 1) the time of year -- it's the fall holiday season, and 2) the fact that all of the Republican Presidential Candidates were there, which is no small feat.
Still, CNN/YouTube handled this debate differently than the Democratic Debate. First, the level of promotion of the event was dramatically scaled back compared to the first. Second, there were fewer questions picked out of the 5,200 that were submitted : 34 questions versus 43 for the first debate. Third, there was an annoying tendency to pick Blacks who submitted questions about Black issues, when there were videos from people who were not Black, but did ask questions about Blacks and the Republican Party.
(As a momentary aside, I think that practice shows an America that does not exist. It shows an America where only Blacks care about Black or minority issues, and not the real America, where a diverse set of people care about all Americans, and will ask questions regarding how Blacks are treated. To not show this -- the real America -- is criminal and paints America as far more racist than it really is. This country has come a long way and is better than it's ever been.)
CNN/YouTube also didn't handle its video talent properly. In the video I present myself as an example. In the begining I was -- and still am -- part of the sample video for the CNN/YouTube Debates. I'm also on the YTDebates channel, at least as of this writing and you can see my photo on the channel here in this blog post. So when I learned that YouTubers were being flown out by Google to the debates, I thought -- rightfully -- that somone would call.
Nope. Didn't happen.
I also sent an inquiry to determine if this was the case, and didn't get an answer from Steve Grove.
So it makes one wonder -- in this case, me -- what's going on over at CNN / YouTube and why they treat people in this way - or at least me. But given the thousands of people who have made and submitted videos, and the other talent that was promoted, I can't believe it's just me that had the problem.
CNN itself showed little regard for my time when they contact me for the first debate. Three show producers contacted me separately and in one case I thought I was to get on a flight. Then didn't get a call back. Then was essentially made to wait for a few days, then got a call saying I wasn't being flown out, only to get a call from another show flying me to New York.
Nuts.
What bothered me this time around was not that I was not called, but Steve didn't answer my emails attempting to learn what he and YouTube were going to do. If they'd said "Zennie, we don't need you this time", or "Hey CNN thinks you're an Obama supporter, and they've got a problem with that" then I'd be fine. I just wanted communication. I didn't get it.
As for the debate itself there were a lot of problems in addtion to the ones I discussed above. Not a single video question on Health Care was presented, leaving one to think the Republican Party doens't care about it. Is that CNN's call or the Republican Party? One has to assume they were working together. But in eliminating that series of questions, CNN / YouTube and the Republican Party pissed off a country.
Plus, CNN / YouTube did't tell video submitters they were going to do this, and the video makers -- given the Democratic Debate with YouTube, had full reason to think they would do so. Moreover, CNN / YouTube didn't tell anyone what they were going to do -- I learned it from CNN's David Bohrman being quoted in the New York Times.
That's not good.
In closing, I think CNN / YouTube owes YouTubers an appology and I'm also disappointed with how Steve Grove handled things this time around. I have high standards for him and I expect that -- givent the historic nature of what he's doing with YouTube and CNN that he will reach and maintain them. It's not personal -- I like Steve -- just professional.
I don't know Dave Bohrman, but I expect that he's a fine and upstanding person who will take these crticisms to heart and act on them. I think all of us want to see the CNN / YouTube system reach its potential.
My take is that CNN/YouTube was lucky to realize the ratings record that was set for the debate, and this was achieved for two reasons: 1) the time of year -- it's the fall holiday season, and 2) the fact that all of the Republican Presidential Candidates were there, which is no small feat.
Still, CNN/YouTube handled this debate differently than the Democratic Debate. First, the level of promotion of the event was dramatically scaled back compared to the first. Second, there were fewer questions picked out of the 5,200 that were submitted : 34 questions versus 43 for the first debate. Third, there was an annoying tendency to pick Blacks who submitted questions about Black issues, when there were videos from people who were not Black, but did ask questions about Blacks and the Republican Party.
(As a momentary aside, I think that practice shows an America that does not exist. It shows an America where only Blacks care about Black or minority issues, and not the real America, where a diverse set of people care about all Americans, and will ask questions regarding how Blacks are treated. To not show this -- the real America -- is criminal and paints America as far more racist than it really is. This country has come a long way and is better than it's ever been.)
CNN/YouTube also didn't handle its video talent properly. In the video I present myself as an example. In the begining I was -- and still am -- part of the sample video for the CNN/YouTube Debates. I'm also on the YTDebates channel, at least as of this writing and you can see my photo on the channel here in this blog post. So when I learned that YouTubers were being flown out by Google to the debates, I thought -- rightfully -- that somone would call.
Nope. Didn't happen.
I also sent an inquiry to determine if this was the case, and didn't get an answer from Steve Grove.
So it makes one wonder -- in this case, me -- what's going on over at CNN / YouTube and why they treat people in this way - or at least me. But given the thousands of people who have made and submitted videos, and the other talent that was promoted, I can't believe it's just me that had the problem.
CNN itself showed little regard for my time when they contact me for the first debate. Three show producers contacted me separately and in one case I thought I was to get on a flight. Then didn't get a call back. Then was essentially made to wait for a few days, then got a call saying I wasn't being flown out, only to get a call from another show flying me to New York.
Nuts.
What bothered me this time around was not that I was not called, but Steve didn't answer my emails attempting to learn what he and YouTube were going to do. If they'd said "Zennie, we don't need you this time", or "Hey CNN thinks you're an Obama supporter, and they've got a problem with that" then I'd be fine. I just wanted communication. I didn't get it.
As for the debate itself there were a lot of problems in addtion to the ones I discussed above. Not a single video question on Health Care was presented, leaving one to think the Republican Party doens't care about it. Is that CNN's call or the Republican Party? One has to assume they were working together. But in eliminating that series of questions, CNN / YouTube and the Republican Party pissed off a country.
Plus, CNN / YouTube did't tell video submitters they were going to do this, and the video makers -- given the Democratic Debate with YouTube, had full reason to think they would do so. Moreover, CNN / YouTube didn't tell anyone what they were going to do -- I learned it from CNN's David Bohrman being quoted in the New York Times.
That's not good.
In closing, I think CNN / YouTube owes YouTubers an appology and I'm also disappointed with how Steve Grove handled things this time around. I have high standards for him and I expect that -- givent the historic nature of what he's doing with YouTube and CNN that he will reach and maintain them. It's not personal -- I like Steve -- just professional.
I don't know Dave Bohrman, but I expect that he's a fine and upstanding person who will take these crticisms to heart and act on them. I think all of us want to see the CNN / YouTube system reach its potential.
Senator Larry Craig's Public Sexual Insult To His Wife Continues
Yep. That's how I feel about the whole sorry deal. Senator Craig -- if all of these charges are true that he's had sexual encounters with eight men-- has not been kind to his wife. I feel sorry for her almost to to the point of tears.
Sunday, December 02, 2007
Like ASIMO? Here's LAND WALKER - Like The Imperial Walker In Star Wars
Ok. If you thought ASIMO was a cool advance in human-like mechanics, or Mecha, then check out this device called The Land Walker. It's 11 feet tall, weighs about a ton, costs $315,000. and has side machine guns. The only problem I can see is that it moves slow and seems to be movable on a flat surface, rather than an uneven one.
ASIMO - Honda's Robot Experiment Has Evolved Into Running Entity
What you're about to see is ASIMO -- Honda Corporations 20-year old experimental robot project which is at the point where the latest version can run up to four miles per hour. The video below shows the ASIMO robot in running action, and there are no wires.
Reportedly Honda's designed this robot to be used to help people, and the ASIMO website seems to imply this. But as ASIMO has reached this stage of development, the question of what would happen if ASIMO got into the wrong hands must be asked. Could this robot be used to deliver explosive devices for terrorists? How can one protect the technology from getting into the wrong hands?
Scary stuff, where we're aheaded.
Dave Colarusso On "How Social Media Can Help Shape Society"
Dave Colarusso who created the Community Counts / CNN / YouTube Debates website and is a co-creator of 10Questions, was interviewed by Jean Yung of the USC Annenberg School of Business. The article's called "How Social Media Can Help Shape Society" and is here below and linked to in the title of this post.
How social media can help shape society
OJR speaks with a co-creator of 10Questions.com about how the site is helping empower popular discussion about the U.S. Presidential campaign.
By Jean Yung
Posted: 2007-11-12
Building on July's YouTube/CNN presidential debate, 10Questions.com has opened a new channel of communication between the public and the presidential hopefuls.
Welcome to the agora of the 21st century: 10 Questions is a people-powered platform for presidential politics created by Andrew Rasiej and Micah L. Sifry of techPresident and high school physics teacher David Colarusso, who also runs a site called Community Counts. Anyone can upload a video question for the candidates. The public votes on the questions it wants to see answered, and the candidates respond to the top 10 questions.
Will such a forum bring the democracy of the Internet to politics? OJR spoke on the phone with 10 Questions co-creator and self-described "technical guy" for the site, David Colarusso. An edited transcript follows.
OJR: 10 Questions is based on the technology of your site, Community Counts. How did Community Counts get its start?
Colarusso: Back in the beginning of this year, YouTube began spotlighting individual candidates on its page by posting a video of the candidate asking the community a question. YouTube users were then invited to submit video responses. Lastly, the candidate responded to these responses. For example, the first question was by Mitt Romney: "What do you believe is America's single greatest challenge?". I submitted a response, and luckily, the first two candidates replied to my videos.
It became obvious to us users after a while that there wasn't a good mechanism for the candidates to understand what the community valued. We thought the community should have some say as to what they wanted to see the candidate respond to. So we said, why don't we just survey everyone? That turned into Community Counts.
When the YouTube/CNN debate came along, I had the tools necessary for people to vote on those questions. We got a good deal of press coverage. We had a lot of users: 30,000 votes by 6,000 voters. That got the attention of the people of techPresident.
After the debate was over, we thought about what we wanted to see happen, and that turned into 10 Questions.
OJR: How is 10 Questions different from the YouTube/CNN debates?
Colarusso: There are some rather profound differences. The primary one is that we're doing this as a people-powered forum, not a debate. It's a discussion with the candidates. The YouTube debate allowed people to ask questions, but CNN had the ultimate say in choosing the final videos. YouTube also took away the features that let users see their peers' most popular videos. Community Counts allowed the users to vote on the questions themselves, to prioritize them. We pose the question: Do you think this should be asked of the candidates? Community Counts shows that when you ask that you get serious stuff.
Another difference is that we offer the ability for the community to comment on the candidates' replies and to rate whether the question was answered.
OJR: As of this morning, 10 Questions had about 76,000 votes and 160 videos. What is the traffic like? How do you add traffic to the site? What do you expect in the final week?
Colarusso: We'll probably get about 100,000 votes by November 14. The videos come in spurts as different groups get interested.
The idea of leveraging the wisdom of the crowds – that a group of people together can make better decisions – works when the crowd is diverse. The two ways we try to get diversity is to make the audience very large and to reach out to different populations. We have a collection of 40 cross-partisan "sponsors," such as the Huffington Post, Hugh Hewitt, DailyKos, BET. There is no financial relationship. The sponsors let their readers and viewers know what's going on over here. We have a nice mix of left and right voters.
OJR: How can you tell the political leaning of your visitors?
Colarusso: We can only say where they're coming from – our main referring sites (our sponsors) have a nice mix.
As for traffic, there are different drivers. Up to today, we've seen three major spikes. (We can tell by looking at the history for each of the videos – the top two videos would show these spikes.)
The first spike was our initial launch. In terms of unique individual visitors to the site, we had about 5,000. There was a peak of 7,000 visitors per day during the launch period.
The second spike in traffic, with a peak of about 11,000 individual visitors to the site, was on October 29, during Barack Obama's MySpace/MTV dialogue. We had worked it out so that the top ten questions on our site at the time would be asked. MoveOn.org sent an e-mail to their users telling them to vote on videos. It generated a lot of attention and traffic. The result was that a question on net neutrality shot up to number one, and it's still currently the top video. The following week there were discussions on the legitimacy of MoveOn.org. They were accused of "astroturfing". We don't think it's the right characterization. Sending out an e-mail asking people to vote doesn't guarantee that everyone will vote.
We do have safeguards on our site – only one vote per IP address allowed. At the end of round one [on November 14, when the top ten questions will be submitted to the candidates], we'll start an auditing process to further refine those safeguards.
This last weekend, there was another spike of about 6,400 unique visitors, resulting in the question, "Is America unofficially a theocracy?" climbing into the current number two spot. A blogger had posted an entry asking his readers to vote on two questions on religion and politics. It took off like crazy after someone dugg the blog entry. It got a couple thousand diggs, and generated a lot of traffic. So in the course of the weekend, it pushed these questions right up to the top 10. Certainly this is not astroturfing. This is not an organized e-mail list. People came and stayed around to vote on other questions.
We're big on being transparent. We've been blogging each day about the traffic. As of today, we've had about 65,000 unique visitors total since the site started. We're pretty happy that these individual people came to vote, and then stayed around to vote on other videos. On average people voted on about three videos. That's promising.
In the last peak, there were fewer unique voters but more voting. It's interesting to see how these numbers are correlated. This is the mystery of the Web – how people participate.
OJR: Have you any idea which campaign is more Web-organized than others, in terms of submitting videos to the site or getting their supporters to vote?
Colarusso: It's a tricky question. You see, you might have a small group that's good at mobilizing its members – but it has few members. I can tell you that over the life of the site, we've got in the top ten list of referring sites (in rough order): digg, blogspot [both from last week's spike], Crooks&Liars, MSNBC, Hugh Hewitt at Townhall, TalkingPointsMemo, HotAir, and Conservative Grapevine.
OJR: One of the hot topics surrounding the democracy of Internet-based forums is: Are the questions better? Smarter? More original? More relevant? What are your thoughts?
Colarusso: I think they're definitely diverse, and that's one of the main things we're trying to get at – a sense of what our community, our visitors think are questions that should be asked. So it's hard not to succeed with that rubric [laughs].
It's interesting to note that these questions are different from the normal questions. I think that means they're adding something. Policy-specific questions, such as net neutrality, or questions about whether America is unofficially a theocracy are obviously what this community feels strongly about.
OJR: What can journalists learn from this public forum?
Colarusso: An interesting question, but hard to answer at the moment. This is something that has to run its course. There could be another spike tomorrow and everything could change. This will work best when we have the most number of users participating. That's when we'll have the most diverse sample. The lesson might just be that there is a desire on people's part to have this access to candidates. We see a lot of student voices, students asking questions. We see the participation of people who might not normally feel like they have access. It's entirely egalitarian. We're not promoting any one viewpoint. We're just letting people decide. I think people very much appreciate that feeling that what you get is the will of the community.
OJR: Will the informal style of Internet home videos put an end to the sound-bite-driven style of politics on TV?
Colarusso: One of our goals is to provide a forum to allow politicians to move away from sound bites. It has to do with what we're looking for. With all these debates on TV, candidates say they don't get the chance to give nuanced answers. We're giving them a month to submit answers. They'll actually have to live up to that.
Additionally, having the community rate their answers lets the candidate know that they have an engaged community. And we hope that that will also provide an impetus for a more substantive answer.
As far as the informality of the questions, I think the main benefit is to put a human face on people who ask the questions, to make people feel more engaged when they are watching someone that looks more like them.
OJR: Is anyone analyzing or tabulating all the questions you've gotten?
Colarusso: We're keeping tabs on it – trying to give commentary as we go. We're providing data on votes and history. I'm definitely interested in seeing what the final tally looks like. There's a lot to glean there.
How social media can help shape society
OJR speaks with a co-creator of 10Questions.com about how the site is helping empower popular discussion about the U.S. Presidential campaign.
By Jean Yung
Posted: 2007-11-12
Building on July's YouTube/CNN presidential debate, 10Questions.com has opened a new channel of communication between the public and the presidential hopefuls.
Welcome to the agora of the 21st century: 10 Questions is a people-powered platform for presidential politics created by Andrew Rasiej and Micah L. Sifry of techPresident and high school physics teacher David Colarusso, who also runs a site called Community Counts. Anyone can upload a video question for the candidates. The public votes on the questions it wants to see answered, and the candidates respond to the top 10 questions.
Will such a forum bring the democracy of the Internet to politics? OJR spoke on the phone with 10 Questions co-creator and self-described "technical guy" for the site, David Colarusso. An edited transcript follows.
OJR: 10 Questions is based on the technology of your site, Community Counts. How did Community Counts get its start?
Colarusso: Back in the beginning of this year, YouTube began spotlighting individual candidates on its page by posting a video of the candidate asking the community a question. YouTube users were then invited to submit video responses. Lastly, the candidate responded to these responses. For example, the first question was by Mitt Romney: "What do you believe is America's single greatest challenge?". I submitted a response, and luckily, the first two candidates replied to my videos.
It became obvious to us users after a while that there wasn't a good mechanism for the candidates to understand what the community valued. We thought the community should have some say as to what they wanted to see the candidate respond to. So we said, why don't we just survey everyone? That turned into Community Counts.
When the YouTube/CNN debate came along, I had the tools necessary for people to vote on those questions. We got a good deal of press coverage. We had a lot of users: 30,000 votes by 6,000 voters. That got the attention of the people of techPresident.
After the debate was over, we thought about what we wanted to see happen, and that turned into 10 Questions.
OJR: How is 10 Questions different from the YouTube/CNN debates?
Colarusso: There are some rather profound differences. The primary one is that we're doing this as a people-powered forum, not a debate. It's a discussion with the candidates. The YouTube debate allowed people to ask questions, but CNN had the ultimate say in choosing the final videos. YouTube also took away the features that let users see their peers' most popular videos. Community Counts allowed the users to vote on the questions themselves, to prioritize them. We pose the question: Do you think this should be asked of the candidates? Community Counts shows that when you ask that you get serious stuff.
Another difference is that we offer the ability for the community to comment on the candidates' replies and to rate whether the question was answered.
OJR: As of this morning, 10 Questions had about 76,000 votes and 160 videos. What is the traffic like? How do you add traffic to the site? What do you expect in the final week?
Colarusso: We'll probably get about 100,000 votes by November 14. The videos come in spurts as different groups get interested.
The idea of leveraging the wisdom of the crowds – that a group of people together can make better decisions – works when the crowd is diverse. The two ways we try to get diversity is to make the audience very large and to reach out to different populations. We have a collection of 40 cross-partisan "sponsors," such as the Huffington Post, Hugh Hewitt, DailyKos, BET. There is no financial relationship. The sponsors let their readers and viewers know what's going on over here. We have a nice mix of left and right voters.
OJR: How can you tell the political leaning of your visitors?
Colarusso: We can only say where they're coming from – our main referring sites (our sponsors) have a nice mix.
As for traffic, there are different drivers. Up to today, we've seen three major spikes. (We can tell by looking at the history for each of the videos – the top two videos would show these spikes.)
The first spike was our initial launch. In terms of unique individual visitors to the site, we had about 5,000. There was a peak of 7,000 visitors per day during the launch period.
The second spike in traffic, with a peak of about 11,000 individual visitors to the site, was on October 29, during Barack Obama's MySpace/MTV dialogue. We had worked it out so that the top ten questions on our site at the time would be asked. MoveOn.org sent an e-mail to their users telling them to vote on videos. It generated a lot of attention and traffic. The result was that a question on net neutrality shot up to number one, and it's still currently the top video. The following week there were discussions on the legitimacy of MoveOn.org. They were accused of "astroturfing". We don't think it's the right characterization. Sending out an e-mail asking people to vote doesn't guarantee that everyone will vote.
We do have safeguards on our site – only one vote per IP address allowed. At the end of round one [on November 14, when the top ten questions will be submitted to the candidates], we'll start an auditing process to further refine those safeguards.
This last weekend, there was another spike of about 6,400 unique visitors, resulting in the question, "Is America unofficially a theocracy?" climbing into the current number two spot. A blogger had posted an entry asking his readers to vote on two questions on religion and politics. It took off like crazy after someone dugg the blog entry. It got a couple thousand diggs, and generated a lot of traffic. So in the course of the weekend, it pushed these questions right up to the top 10. Certainly this is not astroturfing. This is not an organized e-mail list. People came and stayed around to vote on other questions.
We're big on being transparent. We've been blogging each day about the traffic. As of today, we've had about 65,000 unique visitors total since the site started. We're pretty happy that these individual people came to vote, and then stayed around to vote on other videos. On average people voted on about three videos. That's promising.
In the last peak, there were fewer unique voters but more voting. It's interesting to see how these numbers are correlated. This is the mystery of the Web – how people participate.
OJR: Have you any idea which campaign is more Web-organized than others, in terms of submitting videos to the site or getting their supporters to vote?
Colarusso: It's a tricky question. You see, you might have a small group that's good at mobilizing its members – but it has few members. I can tell you that over the life of the site, we've got in the top ten list of referring sites (in rough order): digg, blogspot [both from last week's spike], Crooks&Liars, MSNBC, Hugh Hewitt at Townhall, TalkingPointsMemo, HotAir, and Conservative Grapevine.
OJR: One of the hot topics surrounding the democracy of Internet-based forums is: Are the questions better? Smarter? More original? More relevant? What are your thoughts?
Colarusso: I think they're definitely diverse, and that's one of the main things we're trying to get at – a sense of what our community, our visitors think are questions that should be asked. So it's hard not to succeed with that rubric [laughs].
It's interesting to note that these questions are different from the normal questions. I think that means they're adding something. Policy-specific questions, such as net neutrality, or questions about whether America is unofficially a theocracy are obviously what this community feels strongly about.
OJR: What can journalists learn from this public forum?
Colarusso: An interesting question, but hard to answer at the moment. This is something that has to run its course. There could be another spike tomorrow and everything could change. This will work best when we have the most number of users participating. That's when we'll have the most diverse sample. The lesson might just be that there is a desire on people's part to have this access to candidates. We see a lot of student voices, students asking questions. We see the participation of people who might not normally feel like they have access. It's entirely egalitarian. We're not promoting any one viewpoint. We're just letting people decide. I think people very much appreciate that feeling that what you get is the will of the community.
OJR: Will the informal style of Internet home videos put an end to the sound-bite-driven style of politics on TV?
Colarusso: One of our goals is to provide a forum to allow politicians to move away from sound bites. It has to do with what we're looking for. With all these debates on TV, candidates say they don't get the chance to give nuanced answers. We're giving them a month to submit answers. They'll actually have to live up to that.
Additionally, having the community rate their answers lets the candidate know that they have an engaged community. And we hope that that will also provide an impetus for a more substantive answer.
As far as the informality of the questions, I think the main benefit is to put a human face on people who ask the questions, to make people feel more engaged when they are watching someone that looks more like them.
OJR: Is anyone analyzing or tabulating all the questions you've gotten?
Colarusso: We're keeping tabs on it – trying to give commentary as we go. We're providing data on votes and history. I'm definitely interested in seeing what the final tally looks like. There's a lot to glean there.
Hugo Chavez Loses Crucial Constitutional Vote
CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) ― President Hugo Chavez suffered a stinging defeat Monday in a vote on constitutional changes that would have let him run for re-election indefinitely and solidify his bid to transform this major U.S. oil provider into a socialist state.
Voters defeated the sweeping measures by a vote of 51 percent to 49 percent, said Tibisay Lucena, chief of the National Electoral Council, with voter turnout just 56 percent.
She said that with 88 percent of the votes counted, the trend was irreversible.
"This was a photo finish," Chavez said immediately after the vote, adding that unlike past Venezuelan governments, his respects the people's will.
It was the first victory for an emboldened opposition against Chavez after nine years of electoral defeats.
"Don't feel sad," he urged his supporters, saying there were "microscopic differences" between the "yes" and "no" options in a referendum that Chavez's opponents feared could have meant a plunge toward dictatorship.
Chavez's supporters had faith he would use the reforms to deepen grass-roots democracy and more equitably spread Venezuela's oil wealth.
The changes would have created new forms of communal property, let Chavez handpick local leaders under a redrawn political map, permit civil liberties to be suspended under extended states of emergency and allow Chavez to seek re-election indefinitely. Now, Chavez will be barred from running again in 2012.
Other changes would have shortened the workday from eight hours to six, created a social security fund for millions of informal laborers and promoted communal councils where residents decide how to spend government funds. The reforms also would have granted Chavez control over the Central Bank and extended presidential terms from six to seven years.
Chavez had warned opponents ahead of the vote he would not tolerate attempts to incite violence, and threatened to cut off oil exports to the U.S. if Washington interfered.
The loss was unfamiliar territory for a leader who easily won re-election last year with 63 percent of the vote.
All was reported calm during voting but 45 people were detained, most for committing ballot-related crimes like "destroying electoral materials," said Gen. Jesus Gonzalez, chief of a military command overseeing security.
At a polling station in one politically divided Caracas neighborhood, Chavez supporters shouted "Get out of here!" to opposition backers who stood nearby aiming to monitor the vote count. A few dozen Chavistas rode by on motorcycles with bandanas and hats covering their faces, some throwing firecrackers.
Opponents -- including Roman Catholic leaders, press freedom groups, human rights groups and prominent business leaders -- feared the reforms would have granted Chavez unchecked power and threatened basic rights.
Cecilia Goldberger, a 56-year-old voting in affluent eastern Caracas, said Sunday that Venezuelans did not really understand how Chavez's power grab would affect them. She resented pre-dawn, get-out-the-vote tactics by Chavistas, including fireworks and reveille blaring from speakers mounted on cruising trucks.
"I refuse to be treated like cattle and I refuse to be part of a communist regime," the Israeli-born Goldberger said, adding that she and her businessman husband hope to leave the country.
Chavez sought to capitalize on his personal popularity ahead of Sunday's vote.
He is seen by many as a champion of the poor who has redistributed more oil wealth than any other leader in memory.
Tensions have surged in recent weeks as university students led protests and occasionally clashed with police and Chavista groups.
Lucena called the vote "the calmest we've had in the last 10 years."
Voters defeated the sweeping measures by a vote of 51 percent to 49 percent, said Tibisay Lucena, chief of the National Electoral Council, with voter turnout just 56 percent.
She said that with 88 percent of the votes counted, the trend was irreversible.
"This was a photo finish," Chavez said immediately after the vote, adding that unlike past Venezuelan governments, his respects the people's will.
It was the first victory for an emboldened opposition against Chavez after nine years of electoral defeats.
"Don't feel sad," he urged his supporters, saying there were "microscopic differences" between the "yes" and "no" options in a referendum that Chavez's opponents feared could have meant a plunge toward dictatorship.
Chavez's supporters had faith he would use the reforms to deepen grass-roots democracy and more equitably spread Venezuela's oil wealth.
The changes would have created new forms of communal property, let Chavez handpick local leaders under a redrawn political map, permit civil liberties to be suspended under extended states of emergency and allow Chavez to seek re-election indefinitely. Now, Chavez will be barred from running again in 2012.
Other changes would have shortened the workday from eight hours to six, created a social security fund for millions of informal laborers and promoted communal councils where residents decide how to spend government funds. The reforms also would have granted Chavez control over the Central Bank and extended presidential terms from six to seven years.
Chavez had warned opponents ahead of the vote he would not tolerate attempts to incite violence, and threatened to cut off oil exports to the U.S. if Washington interfered.
The loss was unfamiliar territory for a leader who easily won re-election last year with 63 percent of the vote.
All was reported calm during voting but 45 people were detained, most for committing ballot-related crimes like "destroying electoral materials," said Gen. Jesus Gonzalez, chief of a military command overseeing security.
At a polling station in one politically divided Caracas neighborhood, Chavez supporters shouted "Get out of here!" to opposition backers who stood nearby aiming to monitor the vote count. A few dozen Chavistas rode by on motorcycles with bandanas and hats covering their faces, some throwing firecrackers.
Opponents -- including Roman Catholic leaders, press freedom groups, human rights groups and prominent business leaders -- feared the reforms would have granted Chavez unchecked power and threatened basic rights.
Cecilia Goldberger, a 56-year-old voting in affluent eastern Caracas, said Sunday that Venezuelans did not really understand how Chavez's power grab would affect them. She resented pre-dawn, get-out-the-vote tactics by Chavistas, including fireworks and reveille blaring from speakers mounted on cruising trucks.
"I refuse to be treated like cattle and I refuse to be part of a communist regime," the Israeli-born Goldberger said, adding that she and her businessman husband hope to leave the country.
Chavez sought to capitalize on his personal popularity ahead of Sunday's vote.
He is seen by many as a champion of the poor who has redistributed more oil wealth than any other leader in memory.
Tensions have surged in recent weeks as university students led protests and occasionally clashed with police and Chavista groups.
Lucena called the vote "the calmest we've had in the last 10 years."
DesMoines Register Reports Barack Obama Ahead in Poll
Yet another poll is reporting that Senator Barack Obama's ahead in Iowa; this one by The DesMoines Register in Iowa. What it may mean is that -- assuming the poll focuses on older voters -- that the Iowa older voter is seeing Obama as the candidate of choice. If that's the case then Clinton's in big trouble, as Obama's growing beyond his base of young supporters.
Bionic Woman On Hulu - Best Episode Yet - Do Not Disturb
Ok, you now know I'm hooked on the new show "Bionic Woman" and for reasons I've stated already. But the show's writing -- before the strike -- kept getting better and better. Here's an example which can be seen on Hulu, or here if you don't have a Hulu account.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)