Wyclef Jean on the difference between being on a high horse and dealing with things directly. Short and sweet - and right on point.
www.bigthink.comhosted in Obamesque's "vodpod."
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Zennie Dances - Anticipating An Obama Victory
OK, it wasn't really for that reason at all much as I was just plain clowning around after a big dinner with friends. But when Barack Obama wins the presidential race, you can bet money that's the dance I'm gonna do!
Monday, April 07, 2008
Hillary Clinton Lies Again! ABC's Jack Tapper Exposes Iraq Lie
ABC News; Jack Tapper has a online space called "Political Punch" and where Tapper reveals yet another Clinton lie. This one on who spoke out against the Iraq War first after 2005, his first Senate year. She says she did, but Tapper shows that Obama did. Read on..
In Oregon, Clinton Makes False Claim About Her Iraq Record Vs. Obama's
April 06, 2008 9:49 AM
In Eugene, Ore., Saturday. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., attempted to change the measure by which anyone might assess who criticized the Iraq war first, her or Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., by saying those keeping records should start in January 2005, when Obama joined the Senate. (A measure that conveniently avoids her October 2002 vote to authorize use of force against Iraq at a time that Obama was speaking out against the war.) She claimed that using that measure, she criticized the war in Iraq before Obama did.
But Clinton's claim was false.
Clinton on Saturday told Oregonians, "when Sen. Obama came to the Senate he and I have voted exactly the same except for one vote. And that happens to be the facts. We both voted against early deadlines. I actually starting criticizing the war in Iraq before he did."
It's an odd way to measure opposition to the war -- comparing who gave the first criticism of the war in Iraq starting in January 2005, ignoring Obama's opposition to the war throughout 2003 and 2004. (And Clinton's vote for it.)
But even if one were to employ this "Start Counting in January 2005" measurement, Clinton did not criticize the war in Iraq first.
Scrambling to support their boss's claim, Clinton campaign officials pointed to a paper statement Clinton issued on Jan. 26, 2005, explaining her vote to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State.
"The Administration and Defense Department's Iraq policy has been, by any reasonable measure, riddled with errors, misstatements and misjudgments," the January 2005 Clinton statement said. "From the beginning of the Iraqi war, we were inadequately prepared for the aftermath of the invasion with too few troops and an inadequate plan to stabilize Iraq."
But Obama offered criticisms of the war in Iraq eight days before that, directly to Rice, in his very first meeting as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Jan. 18.
Obama pushed Rice on her answers to previous questioners regarding the effectiveness of Iraqi troops, and he criticized the administration for conveying a never-ending commitment to a US troop presence in Iraq.
"I am concerned about this notion that was pursued by Senator Biden and others that we've made significant progress in training troops," Obama told Rice "Because it seems to me that in your response to Senator Alexander that we will not be able to get our troops out absent the Iraqi forces being able to secure their own country, or at least this administration would not be willing to define success in the absence of such security. I never got quite a clear answer to Senator Biden's question as to how many troops -- Iraqi troops -- don't just have a uniform and aren't just drawing a paycheck, but are effective enough and committed enough that we would willingly have our own troops fighting side-by- side with them. The number of 120,000 you gave, I suspect, does not meet those fairly stringent criteria that Senator Biden was alluding to. I just want to make sure, on the record, that you give me some sense of where we're at now."
Obama concluded his brief q&a by saying "if our measure is bring our troops home and success is measured by whether Iraqis can secure their own circumstances, and if our best troops in the world are having trouble controlling the situation with 150,000 or so, it sounds like we've got a long way to go. And I think part of what the American people are going to need is some certainty, not an absolute timetable, but a little more certainty than is being provided, because right now, it appears to be an entirely open-ended commitment."
**
The misrepresentation of the record is symbolic of the re-writing of history Clinton has attempted on her record regarding the war in Iraq.
Because the larger context is more important. And Clinton's written criticism of the war in a press statement in January 2005 received little attention compared to the press surrounding her trip to Iraq the next month, in February 2005.
Upon returning she argued that setting a deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops would aid the enemy.
“I don’t think it’s useful to set a deadline because I think it sends a signal to the terrorists and the insurgents that they just have to wait us out,” she said.
Describing her trip to Iraq, she said, "It’s regrettable that the security needs have increased so much. On the other hand, I think you can look at the country as a whole and see that there are many parts of Iraq that are functioning quite well."
She also interpreted a series of suicide bomb attacks as an indication that the insurgency was failing.
“The concerted effort to disrupt the elections was an abject failure," she said. "Not one polling place was shut down or overrun. The fact that you have these suicide bombers now, wreaking such hatred and violence while people pray, is to me, an indication of their failure.”
In an interview with NBC's Meet the Press on Feb. 20, 2005, Clinton said that withdrawing some troops or setting a date for withdrawal would be a "mistake."
"I don't believe we should tie our hands or the hands of the new Iraqi government," Clinton said. "We don't want to send a signal to the insurgents, to the terrorists that we are going to be out of here at some, you know, date certain."
"We have just finished meeting with the current prime minister, the deputy prime minister and the finance minister, and in our meetings, we posed the question to each of them as to whether they believed that we should set a firm deadline for the withdrawal of American troops," Clinton said. "To a person, and they are of different political parties in this election, but each of them said that would be a big mistake, that we needed to make clear that there is a transition now going on to the Iraqi government. When it is formed, which we hope will be shortly, it will assume responsibility for much of the security, with the assistance and cooperation of the coalition forces, primarily U.S. forces."
Clinton said that "what the American people need to know is, number one, we are very proud of our young men and women who are here," and second, "there can be no doubt that it is not in America's interests for the Iraqi government, the experiment in freedom and democracy, to fail. So I hope that Americans understand that and that we will have as united a front as is possible in our country at this time to keep our troops safe, make sure they have everything they need and try to support this new Iraqi government."
She soon told New York Daily News editors and reporters that it was important for Democrats to combat the idea that they're soft on national security issues like Iraq.
"If you can't persuade a majority of people that you're going to be strong and tough where we need to protect America and our [national] interests, you can't cross the [electoral] threshold," she said.
**
That same month, while Clinton was talking up the need for Democrats to project strength, and claiming a withdrawal deadline would be sending a signal to the terrorists, Obama was meeting with his constituents, sounding quite skeptical about the war and reiterating his opposition to the decision to go to war to begin with.
The Bloomington, Ill., Pantagraph reported that during a town hall meeting, asked about the Iraq war, "Obama said poor planning by the Bush administration has left Iraq woefully incapable of handling its own security. He expressed hope that more intensive training will be provided for Iraqi forces, saying such measures could allow most American troops to return home next year. While Obama said the recent Iraqi election is an encouraging sign for democracy, he questioned Bush’s rationale for the Iraq invasion. ’I didn’t see the weapons of mass destruction at the time, I didn’t think there was an imminent threat from Saddam Hussein.'"
Clinton made this latest questionable claim the same day that she came under fire for repeatedly telling a story that turned out not to be true about a poor pregnant woman losing her baby and her own life after being denied hospital treatment because she couldn't afford a $100 fee. The New York Times discovered that the woman in question was never denied treatment, and that she did have insurance. “We implore the Clinton campaign to immediately desist from repeating this story,” said a representative of the hospital.
The Clinton campaign said that the senator had been told the story by a sheriff's deputy, and had not been able to fully check its accuracy. "We did try but were not able to fully vet it,” Clinton campaign spokesman Mo Elleithee said. “If the hospital claims it did not happen that way, we respect that."
This latest incident also comes less than two weeks after Clinton had to back off a description of a plane landing during a 1996 trip to Bosnia that she had claimed was under sniper fire. Video evidence surfaced proving that claim false and Clinton admitted that she "misspoke."
- jpt
In Oregon, Clinton Makes False Claim About Her Iraq Record Vs. Obama's
April 06, 2008 9:49 AM
In Eugene, Ore., Saturday. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., attempted to change the measure by which anyone might assess who criticized the Iraq war first, her or Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., by saying those keeping records should start in January 2005, when Obama joined the Senate. (A measure that conveniently avoids her October 2002 vote to authorize use of force against Iraq at a time that Obama was speaking out against the war.) She claimed that using that measure, she criticized the war in Iraq before Obama did.
But Clinton's claim was false.
Clinton on Saturday told Oregonians, "when Sen. Obama came to the Senate he and I have voted exactly the same except for one vote. And that happens to be the facts. We both voted against early deadlines. I actually starting criticizing the war in Iraq before he did."
It's an odd way to measure opposition to the war -- comparing who gave the first criticism of the war in Iraq starting in January 2005, ignoring Obama's opposition to the war throughout 2003 and 2004. (And Clinton's vote for it.)
But even if one were to employ this "Start Counting in January 2005" measurement, Clinton did not criticize the war in Iraq first.
Scrambling to support their boss's claim, Clinton campaign officials pointed to a paper statement Clinton issued on Jan. 26, 2005, explaining her vote to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State.
"The Administration and Defense Department's Iraq policy has been, by any reasonable measure, riddled with errors, misstatements and misjudgments," the January 2005 Clinton statement said. "From the beginning of the Iraqi war, we were inadequately prepared for the aftermath of the invasion with too few troops and an inadequate plan to stabilize Iraq."
But Obama offered criticisms of the war in Iraq eight days before that, directly to Rice, in his very first meeting as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Jan. 18.
Obama pushed Rice on her answers to previous questioners regarding the effectiveness of Iraqi troops, and he criticized the administration for conveying a never-ending commitment to a US troop presence in Iraq.
"I am concerned about this notion that was pursued by Senator Biden and others that we've made significant progress in training troops," Obama told Rice "Because it seems to me that in your response to Senator Alexander that we will not be able to get our troops out absent the Iraqi forces being able to secure their own country, or at least this administration would not be willing to define success in the absence of such security. I never got quite a clear answer to Senator Biden's question as to how many troops -- Iraqi troops -- don't just have a uniform and aren't just drawing a paycheck, but are effective enough and committed enough that we would willingly have our own troops fighting side-by- side with them. The number of 120,000 you gave, I suspect, does not meet those fairly stringent criteria that Senator Biden was alluding to. I just want to make sure, on the record, that you give me some sense of where we're at now."
Obama concluded his brief q&a by saying "if our measure is bring our troops home and success is measured by whether Iraqis can secure their own circumstances, and if our best troops in the world are having trouble controlling the situation with 150,000 or so, it sounds like we've got a long way to go. And I think part of what the American people are going to need is some certainty, not an absolute timetable, but a little more certainty than is being provided, because right now, it appears to be an entirely open-ended commitment."
**
The misrepresentation of the record is symbolic of the re-writing of history Clinton has attempted on her record regarding the war in Iraq.
Because the larger context is more important. And Clinton's written criticism of the war in a press statement in January 2005 received little attention compared to the press surrounding her trip to Iraq the next month, in February 2005.
Upon returning she argued that setting a deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops would aid the enemy.
“I don’t think it’s useful to set a deadline because I think it sends a signal to the terrorists and the insurgents that they just have to wait us out,” she said.
Describing her trip to Iraq, she said, "It’s regrettable that the security needs have increased so much. On the other hand, I think you can look at the country as a whole and see that there are many parts of Iraq that are functioning quite well."
She also interpreted a series of suicide bomb attacks as an indication that the insurgency was failing.
“The concerted effort to disrupt the elections was an abject failure," she said. "Not one polling place was shut down or overrun. The fact that you have these suicide bombers now, wreaking such hatred and violence while people pray, is to me, an indication of their failure.”
In an interview with NBC's Meet the Press on Feb. 20, 2005, Clinton said that withdrawing some troops or setting a date for withdrawal would be a "mistake."
"I don't believe we should tie our hands or the hands of the new Iraqi government," Clinton said. "We don't want to send a signal to the insurgents, to the terrorists that we are going to be out of here at some, you know, date certain."
"We have just finished meeting with the current prime minister, the deputy prime minister and the finance minister, and in our meetings, we posed the question to each of them as to whether they believed that we should set a firm deadline for the withdrawal of American troops," Clinton said. "To a person, and they are of different political parties in this election, but each of them said that would be a big mistake, that we needed to make clear that there is a transition now going on to the Iraqi government. When it is formed, which we hope will be shortly, it will assume responsibility for much of the security, with the assistance and cooperation of the coalition forces, primarily U.S. forces."
Clinton said that "what the American people need to know is, number one, we are very proud of our young men and women who are here," and second, "there can be no doubt that it is not in America's interests for the Iraqi government, the experiment in freedom and democracy, to fail. So I hope that Americans understand that and that we will have as united a front as is possible in our country at this time to keep our troops safe, make sure they have everything they need and try to support this new Iraqi government."
She soon told New York Daily News editors and reporters that it was important for Democrats to combat the idea that they're soft on national security issues like Iraq.
"If you can't persuade a majority of people that you're going to be strong and tough where we need to protect America and our [national] interests, you can't cross the [electoral] threshold," she said.
**
That same month, while Clinton was talking up the need for Democrats to project strength, and claiming a withdrawal deadline would be sending a signal to the terrorists, Obama was meeting with his constituents, sounding quite skeptical about the war and reiterating his opposition to the decision to go to war to begin with.
The Bloomington, Ill., Pantagraph reported that during a town hall meeting, asked about the Iraq war, "Obama said poor planning by the Bush administration has left Iraq woefully incapable of handling its own security. He expressed hope that more intensive training will be provided for Iraqi forces, saying such measures could allow most American troops to return home next year. While Obama said the recent Iraqi election is an encouraging sign for democracy, he questioned Bush’s rationale for the Iraq invasion. ’I didn’t see the weapons of mass destruction at the time, I didn’t think there was an imminent threat from Saddam Hussein.'"
Clinton made this latest questionable claim the same day that she came under fire for repeatedly telling a story that turned out not to be true about a poor pregnant woman losing her baby and her own life after being denied hospital treatment because she couldn't afford a $100 fee. The New York Times discovered that the woman in question was never denied treatment, and that she did have insurance. “We implore the Clinton campaign to immediately desist from repeating this story,” said a representative of the hospital.
The Clinton campaign said that the senator had been told the story by a sheriff's deputy, and had not been able to fully check its accuracy. "We did try but were not able to fully vet it,” Clinton campaign spokesman Mo Elleithee said. “If the hospital claims it did not happen that way, we respect that."
This latest incident also comes less than two weeks after Clinton had to back off a description of a plane landing during a 1996 trip to Bosnia that she had claimed was under sniper fire. Video evidence surfaced proving that claim false and Clinton admitted that she "misspoke."
- jpt
"McNasty" McCain Loses His Temper, Even With Wife?
According to this account in the "Raw News Story" , in 1992 Senator John McCain referred to his wife as a "cunt" in front of reporters, and in high school, he was called "McNasty" McCain.
Hmm..."McNasty" I like the sound of that.
Hmm..."McNasty" I like the sound of that.
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Mark Penn,Clinton's Top Strategist, Quits
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Hillary Clinton's chief presidential campaign strategist is quitting his post amid criticism of his public relations firm's contacts with the Colombian government over a pending free-trade deal, Clinton's campaign announced.
Mark Penn and his political consulting firm will continue advise the New York senator's Democratic presidential bid, but Penn will give up his job as chief strategist, campaign manager Maggie Williams said.
"After the events of the last few days, Mark Penn has asked to give up his role as chief strategist of the Clinton campaign," Williams said.
Penn is CEO of public relations giant Burston Marsteller and is president of Penn, Schoen and Berland, his political consulting firm.
Friday, he acknowledged he had met with the Colombian ambassador to the United States earlier in the week in his role as Burston Marsteller's chief to discuss the pending U.S.-Colombia trade pact, which Clinton has criticized on the campaign trail.
Penn called the meeting "an error in judgment that will not be repeated," and apologized. That prompted Colombia's government to fire the company Saturday, calling the remarks "a lack of respect to Colombians."
Clinton and top aides were sharply critical of rival Democrat Barack Obama in February when reports indicated that his top economic adviser had suggested to a Canadian official that Obama was not as supportive of changes to the North American Free Trade Agreement as the Illinois senator claimed to be on the campaign trail.
Mark Penn and his political consulting firm will continue advise the New York senator's Democratic presidential bid, but Penn will give up his job as chief strategist, campaign manager Maggie Williams said.
"After the events of the last few days, Mark Penn has asked to give up his role as chief strategist of the Clinton campaign," Williams said.
Penn is CEO of public relations giant Burston Marsteller and is president of Penn, Schoen and Berland, his political consulting firm.
Friday, he acknowledged he had met with the Colombian ambassador to the United States earlier in the week in his role as Burston Marsteller's chief to discuss the pending U.S.-Colombia trade pact, which Clinton has criticized on the campaign trail.
Penn called the meeting "an error in judgment that will not be repeated," and apologized. That prompted Colombia's government to fire the company Saturday, calling the remarks "a lack of respect to Colombians."
Clinton and top aides were sharply critical of rival Democrat Barack Obama in February when reports indicated that his top economic adviser had suggested to a Canadian official that Obama was not as supportive of changes to the North American Free Trade Agreement as the Illinois senator claimed to be on the campaign trail.
Mark Penn and his political consulting firm will continue advise the New York senator's Democratic presidential bid, but Penn will give up his job as chief strategist, campaign manager Maggie Williams said.
"After the events of the last few days, Mark Penn has asked to give up his role as chief strategist of the Clinton campaign," Williams said.
Penn is CEO of public relations giant Burston Marsteller and is president of Penn, Schoen and Berland, his political consulting firm.
Friday, he acknowledged he had met with the Colombian ambassador to the United States earlier in the week in his role as Burston Marsteller's chief to discuss the pending U.S.-Colombia trade pact, which Clinton has criticized on the campaign trail.
Penn called the meeting "an error in judgment that will not be repeated," and apologized. That prompted Colombia's government to fire the company Saturday, calling the remarks "a lack of respect to Colombians."
Clinton and top aides were sharply critical of rival Democrat Barack Obama in February when reports indicated that his top economic adviser had suggested to a Canadian official that Obama was not as supportive of changes to the North American Free Trade Agreement as the Illinois senator claimed to be on the campaign trail.
Mark Penn and his political consulting firm will continue advise the New York senator's Democratic presidential bid, but Penn will give up his job as chief strategist, campaign manager Maggie Williams said.
"After the events of the last few days, Mark Penn has asked to give up his role as chief strategist of the Clinton campaign," Williams said.
Penn is CEO of public relations giant Burston Marsteller and is president of Penn, Schoen and Berland, his political consulting firm.
Friday, he acknowledged he had met with the Colombian ambassador to the United States earlier in the week in his role as Burston Marsteller's chief to discuss the pending U.S.-Colombia trade pact, which Clinton has criticized on the campaign trail.
Penn called the meeting "an error in judgment that will not be repeated," and apologized. That prompted Colombia's government to fire the company Saturday, calling the remarks "a lack of respect to Colombians."
Clinton and top aides were sharply critical of rival Democrat Barack Obama in February when reports indicated that his top economic adviser had suggested to a Canadian official that Obama was not as supportive of changes to the North American Free Trade Agreement as the Illinois senator claimed to be on the campaign trail.
Saturday, April 05, 2008
Matt Leinart Party Boy In News For Partying With Girls
Two years ago, as Matt Leinart was repped by Leigh Steinberg and preparing to come out for the NFL Draft, I wondered if Leinart could focus in the NFL with all of the partying he's known for.
Well, with his season ending injury and now his photos of him simulating you-know-what with a champagne bottle and some celeb guys, the answer seems to be, well, let's review what I wrote first:
There's a school of thought that once Matt Leinart hits the grind of the NFL, he'll not post the same remarkable numbers that he did at USC. While I do disagree with that -- I think Matt will be one of the best -- I do think his first two years will be a bit hard. He's not going to be able to run the streets as he did at USC.
Look, as a Cal-grad who was getting his master's degree there at a time when most my age were still undergrads, I can identify with Matt's love for parties and the ladies. But now millions of dollars are on the line. Will Matt dump all of this fun?
Well, we have our answer and it's a resounding "no" because of these photos, but as Matt's partying always seems to have some casuality, this one fits the pattern. The Dirty.com is accusing Matt of serving alcohol to underage girls.
All of this was surfaced by a website called "The Dirty.com" which posted these photos of Leinart at his best.
As for the accusation, Leinart himself came forward and told Arizona Cardinals Head Coach Ken Whisenhunt about the party ahd the photos. Also, there's actual proof of this -- The Dirty.com dugg that up too -- so Matt's not off the hook regarding this, and in a way, that's too bad because I still think Matt tries to do the right thing, but that he get caught up in having fun -- and lets face it, it's not like he had to trick the women into being there.
The question is which one of Matt's "friends" leaked the photos. I mean Matt's got to watch his P's and Q's, but that means keeping your friends close and your enemies even closer.
And checking those IDs of girls before they drink.
UPDATE:
The girls age information according to TheDirty.com:
Courtney Elizabeth Halki (age 20 beer bong myspace profile below, this idiot made a picture from this night as her profile pic- same dress and beer pong set up) is a student at ASU. Liv Fierro (age 19 her bebo profile below was a blonde, but now short brown hair in blue big top), Chelsea Antoniono, and Karley Davis (in spa left of Matt zebra top- sophomore from Downers Grove, IL her myspace says in a relationship and ASU nursing major) were three of the other girls in the pictures. Still digging up more dirt so please email me with any info on the ladies pictured.
Clinton Swift-Boats Herself: Clinton Lies, Mistruths Nasty Pattern
Clinton Lies And Mistruths Are Nasty Pattern: Health Care and NC
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, just two weeks from a nasty storm of criticism on the heels of the disclosure that she lied about a trip to Bosnia she made as First Lady, faces a brand new problem of truth regarding an area that was her strength, health care. Then, just today as well, it was disclosed that Clinton is telling lies about Senator Obama's committment to North Carolina.
The Clinton Lies just keep coming.
According to the New York Times, Senator Clinton has crossed the country on her campaign tour, recounting a story of an Ohio woman who was denied health care for an illness that eventually took her life. Well, it turns out that the woman was not only not refused care, but had health insurance as well.
Bloggers are calling this a lie.
And CNN has the story on it's "Ballot Bowl" telecast:
Now the problem with the video is that Senator Clinton tells this story with a great deal of detail, and that the entire CNN segment makes Senator Clinton look bad, even as the CNN anchor's try to "balance" it out.
While this does not seem to count as a "lie" it certainly points to a lack of fact-checking on the campaign's part. They don't follow the Obama rule, which seems to be to talk in general terms and use the names of the people you know -- and make sure you know them.
What this story does is totally wreck whatever credibility Clinton and her staff had. Bloggers are already referring to this as "a lie" because of Clinton's Bosnia error, and it comes at the same day that Clinton is accused of lying about Barack Obama in North Carolina.
Eventually, no one will believe anything Clinton says at all.
Why Should Fantasy Football Owners Watch The NFL Draft?
While fantasy football owners steadfastly wait in anticipation for the beginning of the 2008 season, it’s imperative to remember that one must accrue the necessary building blocks and contributing factors in order to assemble a potent and versatile team capable of emerging victorious in all fantasy league formats. It’s essential to differentiate your team from the competitors by channeling a significant amount of energy, focus and determination into searching for what players in this year’s NFL draft have the ability to add value and provide meaning to one’s team. Still, maintain a vested interest in the excitement and thrill of the two-day spectacular at Radio City Music Hall.
As prospective players wait with overwhelming angst and nervousness, and high level executives remain engrossed in the complexities of the draft room, fantasy players are equipped with a desire to accelerate their overall understanding of the rookie landscape, and transform into stronger, more creative and innovative owners.
The foundation for consistent success in the fantasy realm is to possess the knowledge base and skill set needed to make shrewd and purposeful decisions. The NFL draft affords individuals the opportunity to gradually increase their comprehension of who the rising young stars are projected to be, and in which ways they will cement their impact on the field and in a fantasy owner’s lineup.
Moreover, in order to accumulate the balance required on a fantasy roster, one must harbor a wide assortment of players who excel in a multitude of fashions and mesh well on a continuous basis. To have one or two dynamic players and a significant amount of inferior players will enable your team to survive, not thrive. The same notion remains constant for the draft in which understanding who the premier top five players are, but not recognizing the plethora of other viable athletes scattered throughout the rounds is both ill-advised and detrimental to one’s long term future aspirations in a potential fantasy draft scenario.
From Jerious Norwood and Stephen Gostcowski, to Brandon Marshall and Marques Colston at pick 252, it’s evident that watching the majority of the draft will enable one to discover a full spectrum of players who might not be recognizable to the untrained eye come the end of August, but would certainly be relevant to the person who put forth the effort to tune into eight hours of draft day coverage Saturday and Sunday.
Most notably, I would not have the ability to sift through rookie talent in a fantasy drat and intelligently determine what players are authentic difference makers who can polish out the latter portion of my roster if I did not glue myself to the television for two consecutive days in April.
It’s very important to remember that watching the draft equipped with a gameplan that pointedly describes what your looking to achieve, and in what measurable steps you’ll reach your target is critical to fostering a broad understanding of the incoming players into the league and in what aspect they can affect one’s fantasy team.
It’s noteworthy to include that in fantasy football when one sees the opportunity, they must seize the opportunity. So, when one is tirelessly concentrated on their draft in the waning days of August, and sees several formidable rookies available on the board, it’s advisable to seize the opportunity and draft one’s that could add value to your team.
Undoubtedly, I’d rather select various rookies who’s careers look bright and prosperous, but lack any real track record, then utilize precious picks on established veterans who’s careers appear despondent and gloomy, but have already etched their way into the minds of fantasy players. In order to know who the prominent rookies might be, it’s essential to watch the NFL draft. This all harps back to the notion that to put together a flexible team one must have the needed building blocks, and these building blocks start to grow by doing the homework on the draft, gaining important insights while tuning into the coverage, and then understanding what young players have a viable chance of making a real difference on the field.
In addition, it’s very important to note during the draft proceedings what skill players are being drafted to what teams and where they could immediately fill a starting role. For example, last year the astute fantasy owner recognized that when Kansas City drafted LSU star Dwayne Bowe and Indianapolis selected Ohio State phenom Anthony Gonzalez, they were instantly going to occupy positions that would warrant immediate production and attention. Both players combined for over 1500 yards receiving and eight touchdowns, certainly cementing their impact on fantasy owner’s rosters and potentially serving as the prime reason why an owner could have been propelled to victory during any given week.
For fantasy owners, watching the NFL draft is a shrewd and sensible decision that will pay significant dividends once the regular season commences. Through tuning into the rapid coverage, one can blaze a pathway to success for their team and catapult from the goal line to the finish line.
As prospective players wait with overwhelming angst and nervousness, and high level executives remain engrossed in the complexities of the draft room, fantasy players are equipped with a desire to accelerate their overall understanding of the rookie landscape, and transform into stronger, more creative and innovative owners.
The foundation for consistent success in the fantasy realm is to possess the knowledge base and skill set needed to make shrewd and purposeful decisions. The NFL draft affords individuals the opportunity to gradually increase their comprehension of who the rising young stars are projected to be, and in which ways they will cement their impact on the field and in a fantasy owner’s lineup.
Moreover, in order to accumulate the balance required on a fantasy roster, one must harbor a wide assortment of players who excel in a multitude of fashions and mesh well on a continuous basis. To have one or two dynamic players and a significant amount of inferior players will enable your team to survive, not thrive. The same notion remains constant for the draft in which understanding who the premier top five players are, but not recognizing the plethora of other viable athletes scattered throughout the rounds is both ill-advised and detrimental to one’s long term future aspirations in a potential fantasy draft scenario.
From Jerious Norwood and Stephen Gostcowski, to Brandon Marshall and Marques Colston at pick 252, it’s evident that watching the majority of the draft will enable one to discover a full spectrum of players who might not be recognizable to the untrained eye come the end of August, but would certainly be relevant to the person who put forth the effort to tune into eight hours of draft day coverage Saturday and Sunday.
Most notably, I would not have the ability to sift through rookie talent in a fantasy drat and intelligently determine what players are authentic difference makers who can polish out the latter portion of my roster if I did not glue myself to the television for two consecutive days in April.
It’s very important to remember that watching the draft equipped with a gameplan that pointedly describes what your looking to achieve, and in what measurable steps you’ll reach your target is critical to fostering a broad understanding of the incoming players into the league and in what aspect they can affect one’s fantasy team.
It’s noteworthy to include that in fantasy football when one sees the opportunity, they must seize the opportunity. So, when one is tirelessly concentrated on their draft in the waning days of August, and sees several formidable rookies available on the board, it’s advisable to seize the opportunity and draft one’s that could add value to your team.
Undoubtedly, I’d rather select various rookies who’s careers look bright and prosperous, but lack any real track record, then utilize precious picks on established veterans who’s careers appear despondent and gloomy, but have already etched their way into the minds of fantasy players. In order to know who the prominent rookies might be, it’s essential to watch the NFL draft. This all harps back to the notion that to put together a flexible team one must have the needed building blocks, and these building blocks start to grow by doing the homework on the draft, gaining important insights while tuning into the coverage, and then understanding what young players have a viable chance of making a real difference on the field.
In addition, it’s very important to note during the draft proceedings what skill players are being drafted to what teams and where they could immediately fill a starting role. For example, last year the astute fantasy owner recognized that when Kansas City drafted LSU star Dwayne Bowe and Indianapolis selected Ohio State phenom Anthony Gonzalez, they were instantly going to occupy positions that would warrant immediate production and attention. Both players combined for over 1500 yards receiving and eight touchdowns, certainly cementing their impact on fantasy owner’s rosters and potentially serving as the prime reason why an owner could have been propelled to victory during any given week.
For fantasy owners, watching the NFL draft is a shrewd and sensible decision that will pay significant dividends once the regular season commences. Through tuning into the rapid coverage, one can blaze a pathway to success for their team and catapult from the goal line to the finish line.
Brent Turner Talks About Open Source Voting
My friend Brent Turner is on a focused mission at the California State Democratic Convention to make sure our voting process is safe and free from the chance of fraud using "open source voting" where you can see the software code of the electronic voting systems. You can go to openvoting.org for more information.
Friday, April 04, 2008
SF Ad Execs Don't Know Digital Media, But Act Like It
Ok, I warn you. This is a rant of massive proportions and designed to get my dander up for the day. Here it is.
I'm sick and tired of meeting San Francisco Digital Media and Ad Execs who work for or with Linkedin, AOL, Facebook, and other once nice little startups that suddenly became large companies yet don't know the first thing about coding a website, or don't even use state-of-the-art digital communications tools like Twitter, or even know how to make a YouTube channel, let alone upload a video to it....and will not admit it.
These folks are nice enough, but they're doing no one any favors at all and need a massive crash course in online tech, yet work in it! I realized this after a trip to the St. Regis Hotel on March 20th of this fine year 2008 to make a video for a kind of industry networkng group called "SF-BIG" or San Francisco Bay Area Interactive Group.
Now the video was a volunteer matter on my part and part of the agreement was that the video is mine, not their's and so I make it and post it and use it. I mean heck, if I'm not going to get an SF-BIG membership out of the deal, then I've got to protect what I do, right?
Which also means I get to rant, big time.
What I saw in the event discussion -- you can seee the video here after this break --
is a collection of 250 people, with maybe three Black faces inluding mine, and of which the vast majority were not tech-types, yet have some say over which tech-type gets what job if a tech-type dared to wade into their shallow end of the pool. Melinda Mettler , who represents the Academy of Art School of Advertising, made a flip set of remarks, indicating a near dislike forthe very students she's supposed to be trying to find jobs for. She says they're too cool, "life's a party, man."
Maybe it's because the tech-heads know that their real "job" is to go out and make their own company and not work for another large corporate bureaucracy full of game-players and back-stabbers. Maybe they know that the people doing the hiring don't know what they know anyway, so why go there?
Melinda says that tech-types don't want to leave San Francisco because it's too nice. No. The real reason is that the venture capitalists who would fund new firms are most likely to be here than in, say, New York or Chicago. That's why.
Watch the video. The only person who gets a pass from me is recruiter David Greenwald, and that's it. As far as I'm concerned, SF-BIG would do its members a favor if it had a panel on blogs and new media and coding and optimization, ....and a test. Call it a tech industry I.Q. test.
The lecture would be necessary, because as of this writing, most of the SF-BIG members would flunk the I.Q. test.
I'm sick and tired of meeting San Francisco Digital Media and Ad Execs who work for or with Linkedin, AOL, Facebook, and other once nice little startups that suddenly became large companies yet don't know the first thing about coding a website, or don't even use state-of-the-art digital communications tools like Twitter, or even know how to make a YouTube channel, let alone upload a video to it....and will not admit it.
These folks are nice enough, but they're doing no one any favors at all and need a massive crash course in online tech, yet work in it! I realized this after a trip to the St. Regis Hotel on March 20th of this fine year 2008 to make a video for a kind of industry networkng group called "SF-BIG" or San Francisco Bay Area Interactive Group.
Now the video was a volunteer matter on my part and part of the agreement was that the video is mine, not their's and so I make it and post it and use it. I mean heck, if I'm not going to get an SF-BIG membership out of the deal, then I've got to protect what I do, right?
Which also means I get to rant, big time.
What I saw in the event discussion -- you can seee the video here after this break --
is a collection of 250 people, with maybe three Black faces inluding mine, and of which the vast majority were not tech-types, yet have some say over which tech-type gets what job if a tech-type dared to wade into their shallow end of the pool. Melinda Mettler , who represents the Academy of Art School of Advertising, made a flip set of remarks, indicating a near dislike forthe very students she's supposed to be trying to find jobs for. She says they're too cool, "life's a party, man."
Maybe it's because the tech-heads know that their real "job" is to go out and make their own company and not work for another large corporate bureaucracy full of game-players and back-stabbers. Maybe they know that the people doing the hiring don't know what they know anyway, so why go there?
Melinda says that tech-types don't want to leave San Francisco because it's too nice. No. The real reason is that the venture capitalists who would fund new firms are most likely to be here than in, say, New York or Chicago. That's why.
Watch the video. The only person who gets a pass from me is recruiter David Greenwald, and that's it. As far as I'm concerned, SF-BIG would do its members a favor if it had a panel on blogs and new media and coding and optimization, ....and a test. Call it a tech industry I.Q. test.
The lecture would be necessary, because as of this writing, most of the SF-BIG members would flunk the I.Q. test.
Supervisor Chris Daly Calls Matier and Ross Bottom-Feeders, Not Islam Leaders
Turning away from national politics and tech for a moment, we find more fun stuff in San Francisco.
In his blog, Chris Daly called San Francisco Chronicle columnists Phil Matier and Andy Ross "bottom-feeders" and took a shot at their constant contacting him for news and information. This is what Chris Daly wrote:
It’s been nearly a year since I last spoke to either Phil Matier or Andy Ross, the bottom-feeders of the San Francisco Chronicle. But I have to admit, they are persistent. In addition to their regular calls to my cell phone, they now have taken to emailing me. I thought that it may be fun to use this forum to respond…
Supervisor Daly, how you doing — I wanted to ask you about issue of Olympic torch run, and the fact that all the demonstrations will likely mean lots of police overtime. POA contends that board decries police overtime, then encourages demonstations (sic) here that require large police presence and hence lots of overtime? Any response to Gary Delagnes and Co.??? Feel free to call or write. Thanks, Andy Ross (777-7158)
When I called Andy Ross for a response, he said "Ya know. Chris, is Chris. You know? I mean. That's all I'm going to say."
Well, that's enough for us. It's certainly more than the Islam crap someone wrote to us about. But I'll leave that alone. Chris may have his enemies around town, but he's certainly well-respected and well-liked by many including this space.
In his blog, Chris Daly called San Francisco Chronicle columnists Phil Matier and Andy Ross "bottom-feeders" and took a shot at their constant contacting him for news and information. This is what Chris Daly wrote:
It’s been nearly a year since I last spoke to either Phil Matier or Andy Ross, the bottom-feeders of the San Francisco Chronicle. But I have to admit, they are persistent. In addition to their regular calls to my cell phone, they now have taken to emailing me. I thought that it may be fun to use this forum to respond…
Supervisor Daly, how you doing — I wanted to ask you about issue of Olympic torch run, and the fact that all the demonstrations will likely mean lots of police overtime. POA contends that board decries police overtime, then encourages demonstations (sic) here that require large police presence and hence lots of overtime? Any response to Gary Delagnes and Co.??? Feel free to call or write. Thanks, Andy Ross (777-7158)
When I called Andy Ross for a response, he said "Ya know. Chris, is Chris. You know? I mean. That's all I'm going to say."
Well, that's enough for us. It's certainly more than the Islam crap someone wrote to us about. But I'll leave that alone. Chris may have his enemies around town, but he's certainly well-respected and well-liked by many including this space.
Valleywag's Paul Boutin Exposes Gawker Media Pay Scale System
Apparently upset that Gawker Media is reducing it's payments to writers, Paul Boutin has elected to expose the dark underbelly of a system that compenstates its bloggers. Here's that description in full below:
Gawker Media dark overlord Nick Denton (pictured) has launched a new pay system for all Gawker Media blogs, after testing it at four of his leading sites. Denton's goal is to discourage "self indulgent" posts and "mind-numbing frequency" in favor of "linkworthy material, by which I mean a secret memo, a spy photo, a chart, a well-argued rant, a list, an exclusive piece of news, a well-packaged find." Where does a self-indulgent secret memo fit on that axis? I guess we'll find out after the jump.
From: Noah Robischon Subject: Editor Newsletter - 2008 Preview Edition Date: December 31, 2007 11:42:12 AM PST
In January, as you've no doubt heard, Gawker editorial is introducing a new bonus system. While your base monthly pay remains the same, the chance of a bonus will depend on your individual performance. More specifically: it will depend on the popularity of your posts that month. Below, an explanation of the background to the move; why now; and how the new system works.
1. BACKGROUND
It's only on the internet that a writer's contributions can be measured. At newspapers, a reporter's reputation depends on the opinion of their editors, which can be fickle. Some people get on because they play the office politics well. Or simply because they're more aggressive in lobbying for more prominent jobs, or pay increases.
Advertising people say that the internet is special, because the audience's engagement is so much more measurable than that of newspaper readers, or television viewers. Which makes it so bizarre that most writers, on the internet as in print, are paid for the sheer brute quantity of their output.
Gawker has been equally backward. Sure, we pioneered the pageview bonus system, which rewards all writers for a site's performance. But, let's be honest: those bonuses have been allocated subjectively. And, in the large, writers have been rewarded, at $12 a post, for mind-numbing frequency. When we've paid a higher rate (the $200 "feature" rate) we've often not been rewarding better pieces; merely encouraging the padding of perfectly good, short items.
In short, we have repeated the bad habits of traditional media organizations: leaving remuneration to the arbitrary will of upper management; and, by treating words as if they were Soviet steel output targets, encouraging quantity over quality.
2. WHY NOW
Early on in the commercial blog era, frequency was the key to the success of a site: Engadget took a lead because it churned out 24 posts a day while Gizmodo, fearful of overwhelming its audience, stuck to a dainty dozen items. We learnt that lesson, and vowed never to be out-produced again. But we now really are reaching the limits of sheer volume. Readers can't take any more. And the proliferation of blogs, and social news services such as Digg, has changed the rules.
Where there was a shortage of attitude and commentary, there's now a surfeit. And what's in heavy demand, and short supply, is linkworthy material, by which I mean a secret memo, a spy photo, a chart, a well-argued rant, a list, an exclusive piece of news, a well-packaged find. Gina showed on Lifehacker, with the style of feature she pioneered a couple of years ago, that it was possible to grow a site's audience without endlessly increasing the number of posts.
Second, our objective is not merely to provide gratification for a writer, or amusement for their pals, but to appeal to the wider readership of a site, and to new readers who might discover it through Digg or Google or some other link. It's fine to pen the occasional self-indulgent or self-referential item. But we're not going to waste the editorial budget on them, when we're investing so heavily in the sites. We need a more efficient form of bonus compensation — and one that's fair to the writers who care most about their readers.
Third, the market for editorial talent is becoming more competitive. If a writer works like hell, or sparkles, we always run a risk: that somebody outside the organization notices before the news trickles up the management hierarchy. We need a mechanism to reward hard work, and stardom — to dispense pay increases automatically, if you will.
3. HOW IT WORKS
For several months now, we've displayed the number of views each item receives. It's not a perfect measure. The view count does not reflect attention paid to the posts on the front page; nor photo galleries (which are usually junk views anyhow); and it can overstate the value of cheap items with superficial appeal, but which damage a site's reputation. Nevertheless, it's the best measure we have, so we're going to use it to calculate bonuses.
From now on, you will be paid a set monthly fee. This is the total amount of money outlined in your editorial agreement or determined between you and your site lead. The era of counting posts that are worth $12 or $200 is over. You will be expected to contribute a set number of posts each month in exchange for your monthly base pay.
On top of your monthly base pay, you will be eligible for a bonus based on the number of pageviews your posts receive each month. This total includes any pageview on any story with your byline that was read during the month, even if the story is months or years old. You can track your monthly total here: (Click your site name in the rollup data section along the very top of the page).
Each site will be assigned a pageview rate, which is the dollar amount that each 1,000 pageviews on the site is worth. Although this sounds similar to an advertising CPM, this number has nothing to do with your site's revenue or advertising value. At the end of the month, if the money you earn in pageviews exceeds your monthly base pay, you will be paid the extra money as a bonus.
This chart should make it clearer. If your site has a PV rate of $5:
$2,000 = 400,000 views:
$5,000 = 1m views:
$7,000 = 1.4m views
Based on this example, if your base pay is $2,000 per month then you would need to get upwards of 400,000 pageviews to begin earning bonus. A total of 500,000 views would earn $500 bonus (or $2,500 total pay).
Your site lead will be able to tell you the pageview rate for your site, and give you a chart like this one to for calculating bonus.
For the majority of sites, there is no cap on the amount of bonus you can earn each month. Four sites are already using the new bonus system (Gawker, Wonkette, Gizmodo and Defamer). One guest editor on Wonkette landed a huge exclusive and walked away with an extra $3k in his paycheck.
-Rules Of The Road-
* The pageview rate for each site will change at the beginning of each quarter. It cannot be changed at any other time.
* This bonus will replace all other bonuses that now exist.
* Site leads do not take part in this system. They are still measured on overall site performance.
* The site lead has the right to revoke pageviews on any post. This is to guard against the publication of material that may be inappropriate or illicit, and we hope it is never necessary.
The site leads have more detailed information about all of this, and can share specific numbers for your site to give you a better sense of how your pageviews will translate into bonus.
Please send questions to so that we can round them all up and answer for everyone.
All best,
- Noah and Nick
Gawker Media dark overlord Nick Denton (pictured) has launched a new pay system for all Gawker Media blogs, after testing it at four of his leading sites. Denton's goal is to discourage "self indulgent" posts and "mind-numbing frequency" in favor of "linkworthy material, by which I mean a secret memo, a spy photo, a chart, a well-argued rant, a list, an exclusive piece of news, a well-packaged find." Where does a self-indulgent secret memo fit on that axis? I guess we'll find out after the jump.
From: Noah Robischon Subject: Editor Newsletter - 2008 Preview Edition Date: December 31, 2007 11:42:12 AM PST
In January, as you've no doubt heard, Gawker editorial is introducing a new bonus system. While your base monthly pay remains the same, the chance of a bonus will depend on your individual performance. More specifically: it will depend on the popularity of your posts that month. Below, an explanation of the background to the move; why now; and how the new system works.
1. BACKGROUND
It's only on the internet that a writer's contributions can be measured. At newspapers, a reporter's reputation depends on the opinion of their editors, which can be fickle. Some people get on because they play the office politics well. Or simply because they're more aggressive in lobbying for more prominent jobs, or pay increases.
Advertising people say that the internet is special, because the audience's engagement is so much more measurable than that of newspaper readers, or television viewers. Which makes it so bizarre that most writers, on the internet as in print, are paid for the sheer brute quantity of their output.
Gawker has been equally backward. Sure, we pioneered the pageview bonus system, which rewards all writers for a site's performance. But, let's be honest: those bonuses have been allocated subjectively. And, in the large, writers have been rewarded, at $12 a post, for mind-numbing frequency. When we've paid a higher rate (the $200 "feature" rate) we've often not been rewarding better pieces; merely encouraging the padding of perfectly good, short items.
In short, we have repeated the bad habits of traditional media organizations: leaving remuneration to the arbitrary will of upper management; and, by treating words as if they were Soviet steel output targets, encouraging quantity over quality.
2. WHY NOW
Early on in the commercial blog era, frequency was the key to the success of a site: Engadget took a lead because it churned out 24 posts a day while Gizmodo, fearful of overwhelming its audience, stuck to a dainty dozen items. We learnt that lesson, and vowed never to be out-produced again. But we now really are reaching the limits of sheer volume. Readers can't take any more. And the proliferation of blogs, and social news services such as Digg, has changed the rules.
Where there was a shortage of attitude and commentary, there's now a surfeit. And what's in heavy demand, and short supply, is linkworthy material, by which I mean a secret memo, a spy photo, a chart, a well-argued rant, a list, an exclusive piece of news, a well-packaged find. Gina showed on Lifehacker, with the style of feature she pioneered a couple of years ago, that it was possible to grow a site's audience without endlessly increasing the number of posts.
Second, our objective is not merely to provide gratification for a writer, or amusement for their pals, but to appeal to the wider readership of a site, and to new readers who might discover it through Digg or Google or some other link. It's fine to pen the occasional self-indulgent or self-referential item. But we're not going to waste the editorial budget on them, when we're investing so heavily in the sites. We need a more efficient form of bonus compensation — and one that's fair to the writers who care most about their readers.
Third, the market for editorial talent is becoming more competitive. If a writer works like hell, or sparkles, we always run a risk: that somebody outside the organization notices before the news trickles up the management hierarchy. We need a mechanism to reward hard work, and stardom — to dispense pay increases automatically, if you will.
3. HOW IT WORKS
For several months now, we've displayed the number of views each item receives. It's not a perfect measure. The view count does not reflect attention paid to the posts on the front page; nor photo galleries (which are usually junk views anyhow); and it can overstate the value of cheap items with superficial appeal, but which damage a site's reputation. Nevertheless, it's the best measure we have, so we're going to use it to calculate bonuses.
From now on, you will be paid a set monthly fee. This is the total amount of money outlined in your editorial agreement or determined between you and your site lead. The era of counting posts that are worth $12 or $200 is over. You will be expected to contribute a set number of posts each month in exchange for your monthly base pay.
On top of your monthly base pay, you will be eligible for a bonus based on the number of pageviews your posts receive each month. This total includes any pageview on any story with your byline that was read during the month, even if the story is months or years old. You can track your monthly total here: (Click your site name in the rollup data section along the very top of the page).
Each site will be assigned a pageview rate, which is the dollar amount that each 1,000 pageviews on the site is worth. Although this sounds similar to an advertising CPM, this number has nothing to do with your site's revenue or advertising value. At the end of the month, if the money you earn in pageviews exceeds your monthly base pay, you will be paid the extra money as a bonus.
This chart should make it clearer. If your site has a PV rate of $5:
$2,000 = 400,000 views:
$5,000 = 1m views:
$7,000 = 1.4m views
Based on this example, if your base pay is $2,000 per month then you would need to get upwards of 400,000 pageviews to begin earning bonus. A total of 500,000 views would earn $500 bonus (or $2,500 total pay).
Your site lead will be able to tell you the pageview rate for your site, and give you a chart like this one to for calculating bonus.
For the majority of sites, there is no cap on the amount of bonus you can earn each month. Four sites are already using the new bonus system (Gawker, Wonkette, Gizmodo and Defamer). One guest editor on Wonkette landed a huge exclusive and walked away with an extra $3k in his paycheck.
-Rules Of The Road-
* The pageview rate for each site will change at the beginning of each quarter. It cannot be changed at any other time.
* This bonus will replace all other bonuses that now exist.
* Site leads do not take part in this system. They are still measured on overall site performance.
* The site lead has the right to revoke pageviews on any post. This is to guard against the publication of material that may be inappropriate or illicit, and we hope it is never necessary.
The site leads have more detailed information about all of this, and can share specific numbers for your site to give you a better sense of how your pageviews will translate into bonus.
Please send questions to so that we can round them all up and answer for everyone.
All best,
- Noah and Nick
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)