Technically Incorrect

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.

"I'm a PC. You betcha I am."

(Credit: CC SSKennel)

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?

Nike, having already collaborated with LCD Soundsystem on the creation of music that might enhance running performance, is now commissioning more young musicians to create tunes specifically for your sweaty ears.

A key in finding music that will improve your performance, some experts believe, is Beats Per Minute (BPM). The more beats in every 60 seconds, the more strides you are likely to take.

However, I understand that aerobic performance might also be enhanced by the rearrangement of a song's lyrics.

The Taylor and Francis Journal of Sports Science published research that concluded: "When selecting music for an individual, the effects of personal associations should be considered. For example, a boxer may have conditioned him or herself by listening to a certain piece of music prior to fighting. Where possible, practitioners should attempt to encourage the formation of such personal associations and harness their power."

If you make the lyrics more meaningful to you, then you will experience a heightened emotional involvement which will drive your body to more intense action.

Indeed, several of the more influential personalities of today's troubled world have been trying to find an extra edge through their ears. Some have, allegedly, commissioned well-known lyricists, producers and performers to reimagine existing works, specifically to improve their aerobic efficiency through their iPod-coddled ears.

I understand that Steve Jobs himself has had the Village People's YMCA reworked by Coldplay. The new personal jogger version has a much faster tempo and, in honor of Apple's successes when recently presenting its case to the recording industry's association, is entitled RIAA.

John McCain, who is said to take regular power walks up and down several of his homes in his singlet and shorts, managed to persuade Latino star (Mave)Ricky Martin to redo the Beach Boys' classic Barbara Ann.

Performance enhanced by iPod?

(Credit: CC Mark from Borft)

To a fast, repetitive and haunting beat, the words assault the ears and make the listener run for the hills. But they are not the "Ba'mb, Ba'mb, Ba-Ba'mb Iran" lyrics with which Mr. McCain once regaled an audience. No, no. Instead we have:
"Ba, Ba, Ba, Ba-Barbra Bush.
Ba, Ba, Ba, Ba-Barbra Bush...".

Strangely, the verses include the line:
"Went to a dance,
looking for romance,
Saw Barbara Bush
and my insides turned to mush....".

You see, aerobic exercise and a traditional view of love really do go together.

Barack Obama is not one to be outdone. So it is not surprising that he has jumped on the personalized iPod running content bandwagon. Apparently, he managed to persuade Stevie Winwood, a star from quite a long time ago, to recreate his hit "Valerie".

Some of the words make for very moving listening:
"Hillareeee.. Call on me.
Hillareee, Call on me..
Come and see me...
I'll be here in the morning at three...."

Clearly, it helps to have the right connections to create your own jogging accompaniment. But perhaps Apple will consider allowing anyone to recreate their own performance-enhancing versions as part of the iTunes service.

More royalties for the artists. More loyalties for Apple.

I, for one, have a new version of the Vengaboys' Boom Boom Boom Techno Trance Dance Mix that I'd like Radiohead to have a look at.

Perhaps you, too, would like to share the ways in which you would like some of your favorite songs rewritten and rearranged for performance-enhancing purposes?

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.

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.

How many of us are really comfortable crossing over to the other side?

You know, those people who do and believe things that you really don't like.

For some, that might be David Duke. For others, Doris Duke. And, for me, the Duke of Edinburgh.

Nowhere is this reluctance greater than in politics.

The media, each as objective as a Vegas casino owner, have abdicated their objectivity throne and decided to cater to their own skewed crowd.

Those barely left of center wander off to the New York Times, the Huffington Post and the Bill Maher Bible Study Group.

Those on the other side to Fox News, the Drudge Report and the Michael Richards stand-up show.

This means that independents, or anyone even vaguely still in control of their own faculties, have to do a lot of work to separate the wheat from the gaffe.

And this is where Kevin Rose and his Oligarchy of Objectivity at Digg might just step in.

(Credit: i.m. indraneel)

While Mr. Murdoch at Fox is known as the Dirty Digger, perhaps Mr. Rose might don the mantle of the Clean Digger. (Quick, before he sells to MySpace)

Here's how it might work.

Digg could create an Election Special Section on its site.

In order for an article to make it into this de-cessed pool, it would have to have been Dug by at least one Republican and one Democrat.

Any article that achieved this hallowed status would be deemed to have a Double Digg.

Independents could then go to the Double Diggs in order to make their trawl for intelligent information a little easier than being a skipper on the Deadliest Catch.

You're going to ask how Digg will know that the Double Diggers are, indeed, members of the respective (if not always respected) parties.

Well, they could either have a direct connection to voter registration all around the country. (They're techies. They can hack into anything.)

Or there could be a simple test question.

To ascertain whether someone is a Republican, you might ask them: DO THE WORDS 'LIBERAL' AND 'COMMUNIST' MEAN THE SAME THING?

Or, if we're going for a less cerebral demographic: WHICH BAND DID MARTIN LUTHER KING PLAY WITH?

To ascertain whether someone is a Democrat, the question might be: HAVE YOU EVER BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN A SINGLE THING YOU BELIEVE IN USING LESS THAN FIVE THOUSAND WORDS?

Or, perhaps, HAVE YOU EVER HAD SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH A WHOLE COMMITTEE?

Once an article has entered the Double Digg area, entry should only be permitted to undecideds.

Of course, those undecideds could then keep on Digging, until there is a hierarchy of the most useful information available.

Which would surely be if not a nirvana of journalistic objectivity, then at least a near-vana.

This election is too important to leave to the entrenched biases of media types.

The truly informative articles (and they surely exist on both sides) must be treated like porcelain and preserved in a vault for all well-meaning people to peruse with haste and without pressure.

The Double Digg.

A swing voter just can't swing without it.