I have just arrived in that Europe place, where, just as in America, few are indifferent.
Happy, sad, angry, amazed, disbelieving, numb. These would be a few of the words that might describe reactions to Senator Barack Obama's decisive victory against John McCain.
However, it's easy to let today's strong feelings mask yesterday's. In previous elections, there was much concerned discussion (on the losing side, naturally) about machines that could be programmed to steal the vote.
Voters would walk up, touch screens and, thanks to a little venal hocus-pocus, their choices might allegedly be made to disappear by those who favored one side or another.
Those thoughts appear silent today, partly because the race wasn't close, and partly, perhaps, because enough people decided that this was a time to assert themselves and their views, regardless of the technology that was being used to hear their voices.
Negative thoughts about paperless machines recording votes might also have reflected a wider view of technology's potential for a more embracing control of both individuals and society.
(Credit:
CC VoxEfx TM)
I hate to mention Google at this point (well, not 'hate' exactly) but what will it do with all our information? How long will it REALLY keep hold of it? And who will be monitoring whether the company keeps its word?
Then there's the folks who will own your particular cloud, one that will increasingly store more of your inner depths and secrets? Can you trust them?
Technology has, in the last very few years, allowed far more people to express themselves to a wider audience than ever before.
However, certain people with high technological skills are spending many of their days trying to find ways that technology can control humanity rather than enhance it.
Perhaps some simply believe machines are a little more interesting than humans. Perhaps they look forward to the day when machines replace humanity.
Yet there are some who have slightly more cynical and nefarious intentions.
Today, a day when there is much concern about the UK Government storing every single email and web visit in a giant database, there are many real and ordinary people in America who feel slightly reassured that no technology (yet) can stop their voices being heard.
A company run by Hillary Clinton's fine people-knower, Mark Penn, got together with the highly-regarded Landor Associates, an organization that once came to the enlightening conclusion that "green is the color of reading," to research the relationship between presidential candidates and brands.
It makes for very colorful reading. Purple, to my eyes.
It seems that the respondents, who came from all political shades and who intended to vote, were asked to choose which brand best characterized Barack Obama, John McCain, Sarah Palin, and Joe Biden.
The brands were from most of the essential categories--cars, coffee, Internet search engine, portable music devices, social networking sites, mobile phone carriers, you know, the essentials.
The survey's results betray a depth of consumer perception that few might have expected.
While Joe Biden and John McCain are both AOL, Barack Obama and Sarah Palin are both, apparently, Google.
The authors of this report suggest that the Google association reflects the personable and youthful nature of both candidates. Which might leave some to wonder whether respondents might have thought that AOL stood for An Old Label.
The candidates were also evenly split when it came to cell-phone brands. Senators Biden and McCain were both AT&T, while the Obama-Palin tandem apparently said to people "Verizon."
Where does that warm and fuzzy conclusion leave the iPhone? Ah, now, the survey is quite definite that Barack Obama is the iPhone. While the other three are Blackberries. No, really.
And you may begin to feel a little more queasy, regardless of your political leanings, when you discover that all four candidates were iPods (you don't see a little Zune in Joe Biden?).
I am fairly confident, however, that there will be metaphorical or, in some cases, physical regurgitation at the conclusion that, when it came to social-networking sites, all four of these fine politicians were MySpace, rather than Facebook.
The authors seem to put this down to MySpace's alleged game-changing nature. But some might think this clear bilge, as even a cadaver could tell you that John McCain is, my friends, a quintessential Friendster.
Now I know that the most important questions for readers, far above "Believer vs. Atheist" and "Desperate Housewives vs. the Discovery Channel," is that huge political issue: "Mac vs. PC."
Please put down your weapons, step away from all sharp objects, blunt instruments, potential projectiles and, um, walls.
Alright, here it is.
Sarah Palin, Joe Biden, and John McCain are, so the people say, all PCs. Yes, just like Sanjay Gupta, Eva Longoria, and the men with beards and glasses.
While the 1,002 voters were tied, yes, their heat was dead, when it came to deciding whether Barack Obama really is a Mac or a PC.
Who would have thought that, should he be elected, the first crisis facing Senator Obama would be an identity crisis?
I understand that some people might be upset that Google CEO, Eric Schmidt, has decided to personally endorse Barack Obama for President.
I have heard echoes that this taints the Google brand, that McCain-supporting Google employees (yes, both of them) are upset and that Mr. Schmidt just might be using this endorsement to foster his company's, or even his own, ambitions in the event of an Obama victory (Gosh, no. Really?).
Here is the news. Every CEO is political. Being CEO is, in its very essence, something of a political position. With a small 'p' and sometimes with a larger 'p'. Most of the time, employees will have a pretty clear idea of which political winds their CEO might be helping to blow.
But criticism of Mr. Schmidt opens up wider issues.
Do we really think of brands as Republican or Democrat? No more than we think of JetBlue or Marriott Hotels as Mormon brands. Think about it- Tide: Republican or Democrat? (Stain removal suggests Democrat, no?). What about Honda? (Those eight-seater people carriers surely suggest Democrat, don't they?)
And should we really believe that a CEO's political proclivity determines how he or she goes about their daily work?
I wonder if some of the whining at Mr. Schmidt carries with it a suggestion that a CEO's politics determine what kind of company leader he or she might be. Republican-leaning CEOs are frightfully mean authoritarians, while deeply Democrat CEOs are cuddly, feely, people-friendly, all-listening altruists. Didn't you know?
It strikes me that the one thing, perhaps the only thing, all CEOs have in common is a remarkable fondness for amassing money. Their political bent doesn't generally dictate how they view their employees or their brands.
I've seen avowedly Republican CEOs who were immensely sensitive and talented managers and Democratic CEOs who were venal, insensitive numbskulls. And vice-versa. I once encountered a CEO who voted as often as possible for Ralph Nader. She was a very fine CEO.
The truth is surely quite simple: Some CEOs are good, some are not so good. And the performance of their brands reflects their personal performance, not their personal politics.
The fact that Meg Whitman is a Republican doesn't affect in the slightest what people think about eBay.
Neither will Eric Schmidt's admission of Democratic tendency (goodness, he contributed $229,216 to Democrat candidates and a vast $6500 to Republicans, so surprise!) drive millions of Republicans to Yahoo or Ask (wait, they might be run by Democrats too..).
Personally, I am far more concerned about what Mr. Schmidt's company is doing with all the intimate information we are allowing it to collect than about whether he rides a donkey or an elephant.
Disclosure: I once voted for the Monster Raving Loony Party. Does that make me a...oh, well, perhaps.
The NVision Conference, held last week in San Jose, has had such an eye-opening effect on me that I have been unable to sleep.
The things those clever scientific people have come up with make me realize that the world as we know it is no longer the world as we know it.
I was particularly moved to hear about an Israeli company called OptiTex.
Their fashion design optical gizmography is so realistic that designers can observe on screen just how the fabrics will shimmy and shake even before the couture gown has been cut and shaped.
I was struck semi-comatose by the comment from NVidia's Chris Malachowsky that, one day, doctors "will be able to recreate scan data so fast you could see your own heart beating."
I am not terribly sure I ever want to see my heart beating. I am not terribly sure I want to ever witness my innards performing live on screen.
But the fact that I hear this is possible gives me great pause to wonder whether there are already some prototypes out there that these terribly bright scientists haven't told us about.
My first thought descended on both Vice-Presidential candidates. Is there actually any proof that either of them is real?
(Credit:
New Line Cinema)
Please take a very close look at Joe Biden. Is there anything about him that looks even remotely imperfect?
His coiffure is not so much worn as airbrushed. His teeth have surely been based on those of Angelina Jolie. His shirts stay in place longer than Fidel Castro. And his cuff links- well, have you ever seen them rotate even a quarter of an inch?
It is my solemn suspicion that Joe Biden is a creation of one of these companies like NVidia or OptiTex.
I believe that in order to prove their graphic brilliance, one of these forward-thinking scientific corporations has graphically sculpted this perfect candidate and is hologramically projecting their creation all over the United States.
(In fact, they even tried an international experiment by projecting the new Mr. Biden all the way to hostile projectile territory in Georgia only a couple of weeks ago.)
I think this may, therefore, be the reason for Sarah Palin.
Doesn't she just very slightly remind you of the lead character in the movie S1M0ne?
In the movie, everyone wonders who is the astonishingly enticing actress Simone. Just as everyone is wondering today about Sarah Palin.
Simone, it turns out, was actually an abbreviation for Simulation One, the computer program that created her.
Do you not feel just the slightest intuition that the Republican Party, having discovered the Democrats' nifty scheme in creating the perfect Biden (I mean, come on, no gaffes so far, huh?), decided they had to create their own Perfect Vice?
Fortunately, they already had their prototype going through its test in Alaska. All they had to do was a little fiddling with the graphic controls and beam it onto the national stage.
Please consider just how her perfection matches that of Mr. Biden.
The hair is disciplined, but the scientists have just left the suggestion that wildness could break out at any moment. The fingers are perfectly sculpted to wag without effort.
And the matching element to Mr. Biden's cuff links? Why, the rectangular, rimless glasses that maintain their posture with a rigor not seen since a certain vice-presidential candidate upbraided a schoolchild for failing to spell 'potato' in the appropriate manner.
I would prefer it that the creators of these two Virtual Vices come clean about the extent to which they have expressed their talents.
The nation deserves to know what has really been going on.
Still stunned by the tale of a man who called 911 to complain that Subway had left the sauce off his sandwich, I discover another telephony cacophony.
It surrounds robocalling.
Which, apparently, involves some clever and remarkably cost-effective technology that allows millions of calls, many featuring the (scripted, naturally) voices of the famous, to be made simultaneously on behalf of political candidates.
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, activists are fighting to regulate political calls in a way similar to the Do Not Call Registry that came into effect five years ago to regulate America's (or, sometimes, Canada's) most thick-skinned humans- telemarketers.
(Credit:
CC psd)
The FTC excluded political telephonies citing freedom of speech issues.
Now the thing about celebrities such as Scarlett Johansson is that, well, their fame and their general heroic nature makes their calls more effective.
Allegedly, when Arnold Schwarzenegger's voice was used in a robocall, the total recall was so pulsating that people stayed on the line hoping for an encore.
Which creates a huge moral dilemma. There are those who would wish that people should be able simply to opt in. That is, to choose to take the robocalls or not.
However, there is a more equitable and human solution.
Those who are couch-sunken at home, desperate for a little respite, should be able to choose precisely which celebrity is allowed to call them.
We should all be able to register online and ensure that, for example, Chuck Norris, was not allowed to call us. Unless he gives us free karate lessons. We should be able to banish Barbra Streisand from our homes. Unless she sings. We should be able to veto Danny DeVito. And say no to DiCaprio.
Equally, if Ted Danson, the Dixie Chicks or our favorite Muppet or Teletubby are voices that we would love to hear under any circumstance, we should be given the right to say so.
Of course, I am not saying that all these celebrities choose to be politically active in this way. But we should state our preferences clearly and unequivocally. Just in case.
You never know, the use of Paris Hilton and Britney Spears in a John McCain ad might make these two hitherto neutral celebrities as active politically as they are socially.
We should be able to decide in advance whether we want them to be active in our house.
There they were, two up and coming Senior Vice-Presidents discussing how they would change things if they got the top job.
The top job they were talking about was National CEO.
Barack Obama and the leader of the traditionally snooty, but now trying desperately to be hippish, UK Conservative Party, David Cameron, strolled through the British Parliament last week and didn't mention V for Vendetta once.
Instead, Mr. Cameron told Mr. Obama he should go to the beach. Really.
And Mr. Obama recounted how someone who has already gone through the White House experience told him "the most important thing you need to do is to have big chunks of time during the day when all you're doing is thinking."
Naturally, this made me think of the tech industry. And, in particular, Google, a company that prides itself (or at least did last time I heard) on giving its employees one day a week to associate their mind with something slightly more free than the direct work function.
When Valley companies first came to the notice of those who wore tasseled loafers and tasteless neck adornments, derision was the initial reaction.
These are silly little children, the east coasters would say. They're just playing at business and they will get their fingers burned.
And if they weren't being described as childish, they would receive another damning slice of spittle- they would be accused of being vaguely effeminate.
Yet in the time it takes to flip up their zippers, folks in the more traditional industries were suddenly tucking their golf shirts into their khakis and believing they had found a new freedom. At least on a Friday.
So it makes me wonder just how far Mr. Obama, should he get elected, would adopt the management principles of Silicon Valley rather than those of the Valley of Elah.
This was taken at the British Computer Society Dinner. Should Mr. Cameron be concerned?
(Credit: CC Mark Hillary)Will we suddenly see a more dressed-down government? (I know Banana Republic, John Varvatos and The Golf Mart are hoping we do.) Might we even see a more direct correlation with the Nine Heavenly Graces that Google's Marissa Mayer laid down in 2006?:
1. Ideas come from everywhere.
2. Share everything you can.
3. You're brilliant, we're hiring.
4. A license to pursue dreams.
5. Innovation, not instant perfection.
6. Data is a-political.
7. Creativity loves constraint.
8. Users, not money.
9. Don't kill projects, morph them.
Of course, I couldn't possibly comment on how much Google has lived up to these principles. But I am told that at least the company has tried.
And how bad would it really be, for example, if the truly brilliant were all moved to participate in government? Or if 'users, not money' was just an occasional guiding shaft of light?
Sometimes it's hard to parse the truly material parts out of what seems like naive idealism. And the tech industry in general has sometimes suffered, at least in image terms, from its tendency towards idealistic impudence. And impudent idealism. Just as Mr. Obama has suffered for his overt penchant for green tea and his prissish avoidance of trans-fats and beer.
But perhaps Mr. Obama has already shared an audacious and hopeful low-fat biscotti with Messrs. Page and Brin. Perhaps, one day, we might see and hear the results of their ruminations. It would, one imagines, be as revealing as the conversation between Mr. Cameron and Mr. Obama.
It's Sunday. A good time to consider ideals just for a few hours. Why don't you go off to the beach? I understand it will make you a more ideal manager. Or, at least, a better politician.
My heart, or at least some recondite part of me, went out to John McCain this weekend when I read his plaintive words: "I'm an illiterate who has to rely on his wife for any assistance he can get."
He was, I understand, referring to websurfing rather autocue-reading.
And I can honestly say that I feel his pain.
Thankfully, he is, on this page, in the hands of the experienced.
In the early part of this century, I was asked to help a company called Senior Surfers. Senior Surfers' goal was to find easy ways to take the wrinkles out of web-savviness for the wrinkled.
Together with my large-brained planning director, Chris Lydon (who is now a significant cranium at Coke), we talked to many people who had seen a few things.
Funnily enough, they acted as if they hadn't, seeming so relieved that they were now free of all responsibility that I half expected one of the 70-year-old chaps to pull out a condom and make a balloon out of it to impress the ladies.
(Credit:
Chris Matyszczyk)
Based on the knowledge gleaned from this eye-opening and, at times, tummy-twisting experience, I would like to offer Mr. McCain a few helpful hints on creating the lasting impression that he rules the internets:
1. Change your name to John MacCain.
This simple and very brand-aware maneuver will allow you, sir, to own the web progressiveness that Apple has so cleverly woven into its brand fabric. Mr. Obama already has the B and M from IBM. And it would only be a small stretch, surely, to refer to him as IBaMa.
2. Log on to Funny or Die daily.
This is a must. Mr. MacCain, your humor has thus far fallen into the indeterminate crack between juvenilia and senilia. My experience with seniors is that they are extremely fond of the juvenile end of the humor continuum.
Which I know will appeal to many voters south of, oh, Detroit. Funny or Die will be an excellent place for you to perfect (or, some would way, learn) timing, delivery and just the right level of puerility.
3. Make your homepage more, you know, cool.
Right now, John Mac, your homepage leads with COUNTRY FIRST. If that's the case, at least tell us whether you're more Alan Jackson or Faith Hill. Tell us whether you've got Julianne Hough's new album on your iPod. You've made a good start with that fabulous Pork Invaders game you have there, except, you know, well, Space Invaders was not, how can I put it, this century. (Was it even the last?)
We all want to know what sites are your faves. Plastic surgery? Plastic surges, perhaps? Maybe this one.
The people will be with you, as long as you update them daily. Don't worry, you have techy-types (don't you?) who'll create the links for you. You just have to do the Googling and to be seen to do the Googling.
4. Stop one of your speeches to read your Blackberry
Rudy Giuliani once stopped a press conference to take a call from his wife and mention 9/11. Not cool. The phone did not look modern. However, you can suddenly pause, perhaps during one of your impromptu 'um, er, is this Salt Lake City or Tehran?' moments and flip out your mobile nerve-killer.
Then, having read (or pretended to) the message, you can look up and say something profound like "The markets are up", "The Dark Knight just broke box office records", or even "My economics class has been moved up to 4.30."
5. Start commenting on Barack Obama's site.
John Mac, listen, Mr. Obama's most recent blog post, about canvassers meeting at a Tampa Dunkin' Donuts, has already got 176 comments as I write these words.
You, John Mac, can go right in there and tell them how it really is. All you have to do is log in. (Use your old name) Everyone reads commenters. Everyone knows they are the true voices of the people. Overnight, you will become like that cool chap on the Apple ads who used to date Drew Barrymore. And Mr. IBaMa will seem like the rotund nerdy one.
You could have these Democrat types eating out of your hands. Thanks to your web-savvy fingers.
Please let me know how it goes, John Mac. We'll be watching you on YouTube. You know, YouTube. Oh, ask your daughter.
- prev
- 1
- next
