text:
- Font:
- +
- -
Guest Host: Mike Barnicle
Guests: Pat Buchanan, Chuck Todd, David Gregory, Ron Brownstein, Rep. Chellie Pingree, Rep. Gerry Connolly, David Corn, Jonathan Martin
MIKE BARNICLE, GUEST HOST: A make-or-break week for President Obama?
Let's play HARDBALL.
Good evening. I'm Mike Barnicle, in tonight for Chris Matthews.
Leading off tonight: Obama's big moment.
President Obama is facing perhaps the most important and consequential week yet of his presidency. It all begins with health care and his speech to a joint session of Congress tomorrow night. Then there is Afghanistan, the September 11 anniversary, stubbornly high unemployment, and growing uneasy—unease about the deficit. Add to that the sense that the president is being shaped by events more he is shaping them. Whether he can turn that around may say a lot about how successful a president he will be.
Virtually every Republican has decided to just say no to anything the president proposes. Plus, he's faced with this inconvenient truth. Liberal Democrats won't vote for a health care plan without a public option. Moderate Democrats won't vote for one with it.
Two congressional Democrats who fall on either side of this issue will be here in just a moment.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is among those demanding a public option, will hold a news conference in half-an-hour. And we will cover it live and get reaction.
Plus, was the White House asleep at the switch when the right-wing attack machine went after the president on all fronts? They translated health care reform into death panels and killing grandma, and even turned today's back-to-school speech into socialist indoctrination. The White House seems flummoxed by the attacks and now says it's going to fight back. Well, we will see.
And, finally, after serving seven years in prison, former Congressman Jim Traficant has managed to compare himself to, of all people, Nelson Mandela. That's where it belongs, in the HARDBALL "Sideshow."
But we begin with President Obama's big moment.
Chuck Todd is NBC News chief White House correspondent and political director. And Jonathan Martin is Politico's senior political writer.
Let's start with you, Chuck.
As you know better than most, Chuck—I have been around a long time
and I have got to tell you, this furor over the president's school speech to students...
CHUCK TODD, NBC NEWS POLITICAL DIRECTOR: Right.
BARNICLE: ... the continuing jam over which Democrats are with him on health care, which aren't, and the continuing prognostications about all the different polls out there, is the Obama presidency at an end, what is going on here?
TODD: Right.
Well, I think—you know, I talked to one outside Democratic adviser to this White House. And it was put to me this way, that, look, they—they are aware that, in many ways, this fall, and how—and, frankly, it starts tomorrow—that the White House and the president, himself, is taking a character and leadership test, that this is a moment in time for him to show he can take control of a debate, he can take control of his party, he can figure out a way to cut through some of the problems of sausage-making inside of his own party.
It may be not about figuring out how to stop polarization among the
two political parties. I don't think any one person can end that, but in -
at a minimum, becoming a leader, leading his own party out of this health care jam, if you would.
I don't think they would describe it as a mess, but it's clearly a political jam. And there's only one person that can lead them out of it.
And, so, I have heard some that—in many ways, if they look at tomorrow's speech as a chance to test his character and show off his character, that that might be a step in the right direction in fixing this perception problem that I—Mike, I think that you're—you're—you're hitting at.
BARNICLE: Jonathan, what are you hearing in your reporting? I mean, we—we hear from some sources that the president is going to step up to the plate and, you know, get a little tougher than he has been in the past. He's got—he's got a problem, clearly, with Speaker Pelosi, or some issue with Speaker Pelosi. Seems to be a split with majority leader Steny Hoyer.
What are you hearing?
JONATHAN MARTIN, SENIOR POLITICAL WRITER, POLITICO.COM: Well, Chuck -
Chuck is, as usual, exactly right.
The fact is, this president is not going to be able to transcend the partisan divide in this country. It's apparently gotten worse. And it's not gotten any better. But where he can be successful is by trying to get his own party in line, in finding some consensus among congressional Democrats.
And, if it he can do that, that's going to lead to a victory on health care. And that gets him past this first hurdle. But I talked to a lot of Democrats today, Mike, for a story that I'm doing. And, you know, they—they are flummoxed themselves because of this sort of right-wing attack machine that you mentioned.
The fact is, if you're the president of the United States, and you're in the White House, do you engage these folks on the right wing, or do you ignore them? Well, if you ignore, then you have got the sort of death panels that sort of start setting in. But, if you engage them, does that diminish your office?
It's a really tough question. But, clearly, it was a very tough summer, in large part because the White House didn't know what to do with some of these forces on the right. They really drove the conversation on health care.
BARNICLE: Hey—hey, Chuck, that gets to, you know, back to the school prayer (sic) thing that I mentioned at the top.
TODD: Right.
BARNICLE: I found the whole controversy over it kind of depressing, sort of people out there having no—no confidence in their own parenting skills...
TODD: Right.
BARNICLE: ... no matter what the president would say in school.
But it's easy to get isolated in the White House. We all know that.
TODD: Right.
BARNICLE: And, yet, there are elements of that debate where the president was going to say, wash your hands, respect your teachers, do your homework, respect yourself, and for that message to be so misconstrued out there...
TODD: Yes.
BARNICLE: ... are they aware of how incendiary this stuff is?
TODD: Well, I will tell you, they—you know, in many ways, it's my understanding—you know, yesterday, the president went to Cincinnati, AFL-CIO picnic. And everybody came away and go, whoa, where did that guy come from?
All of a sudden, candidate Obama was standing in for President Obama.
He was fiery. He was in a—looked in a good mood, but sort of stern and
and seemed to just want to want—want to light the—light the supporters, you know, on fire, get them fired up, get them behind him, rallying him, almost in campaign mode, and I'm told, in many ways, because he, himself, was frustrated by how this school speech was treated.
And the White House now has this attitude. Look, they were blowing it off. You know, last week, Robert Gibbs referred to it that this is the silly season, trying to almost be dismissive of it. Not anymore. These guys want to engage directly now on some of this stuff, go ahead and take some of these folks on, because it isn't—it may be a fringe in their mind that is starting these stories.
But the problem they have got is, is, when you have got 20 percent to 25 percent of America, eventually, that's the message that they get is from that fringe...
MARTIN: Right.
TODD: ... then they feel like they have got to beat this back, because they can't—they can't be having 20 percent to 25 percent of the population not getting their side of the story at all.
BARNICLE: Jonathan, before you jump in on—on what Chuck...
MARTIN: Sure.
BARNICLE: ... was just telling us....
MARTIN: Yes.
BARNICLE: ... let's listen to President Obama, a bit of it, yesterday in Cincinnati.
MARTIN: Sure.
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: And because we're so close to real reform, suddenly the special interests are doing what they always do, which is just try to scare the heck out of people.
But I have got—I have got a question for all these folks who say, you know, we're going to pull the plug on Grandma and this is all about illegal immigrants—you've heard all the lies. I have got a question for all those folks: What are you going to do?
OBAMA: What's your answer?
OBAMA: What's your solution?
OBAMA: And you know what? They don't have one.
BARNICLE: Jonathan, your thoughts, please.
MARTIN: Well, I have always thought that, when this president gets further away from that building that Chuck's standing in front of now, he's much more effective.
I—there's something about the marble in Washington that sort of takes the fire—fire away from this president. And once he's out there in a place like Cincinnati, talking to organized labor—for example, this summer when he was campaigning for Jon Corzine in New Jersey, you saw a similar, more sort of campaign-style president. And he's much more effective.
But, you know, part of the challenge was he wasn't spending all summer in that public campaign mode. A lot of these—these negotiations were behind closed doors with the American Hospital Association and with members of Congress. It was more of an inside game. He was not sort of doing the outside game at full force all summer long, like he was there yesterday in Cincinnati.
And, look, I think the back-to-school episode, Mike, that you mentioned and this whole Van Jones incident, the White House adviser who was forced out over the weekend, if those two incidents are not sort of opening the eyes of a lot of folks in this White House about the still-resonant power of the right wing in this country, I don't know what's going to.
BARNICLE: Chuck, health care tomorrow night...
TODD: Yes.
BARNICLE: ... and power of the right wing, Barack Obama's president of the United States.
BARNICLE: There's a certain element of power there.
TODD: There is. And I think what you're going to see tomorrow is this, is that, if the speech is successful, Mike, Joe and Jane in Kansas City, Missouri, are going to be able to tell you what President Obama's health care plan is, period.
So, then, if that is what happens tomorrow, and he successfully can do that, outline how to pay for it, outline how things should be covered, even deal with this issue of the public option—he may deal a little bit with the issue of bipartisanship, but I don't think they're going to get into political process a lot. I really think it is going to be about...
MARTIN: Right.
TODD: ... the specifics of what reform would look like after it's implemented, and trying to get folks to—to focus on that.
But I think we're starting to see—today was a lot of sausage-making happenings today here on Capitol Hill, on Pennsylvania Avenue. And, behind the scenes, you're starting to see what's going to happen. On this issue of the public option, there's going to—it's never going to die. It may not be implemented.
MARTIN: Right.
TODD: It is now going to be in—we call it a trigger—it's actually a terrible term to try to explain—the threat of the public option on private insurance.
That is a belief that centrist Democrats are buying into, and it may be enough to keep the left, who really want a public option, to say, OK, you know...
TODD: ... and that's where they're coming together. That looks like
where everything seems to be coming together today, which, by the way, it's
a big victory for public option advocates, because you know what we're not
talking about? This idea of the co-ops, remember, the Kent Conrad idea—
try—granted, try to explain that in 30 seconds, and I won't—but that
that seems to have faded.
BARNICLE: Yes. Try 30 days, you couldn't explain it.
Jonathan, you agree with Chuck on that?
MARTIN: Yes, I was going to say—yes, I was going to say Chuck's point is very, very shrewd.
I think, politically, what the trigger does, it provides cover for liberal Democrats who have gone out on a limb and said, look, there's no way we can support a bill with no public option, if they include the trigger language, those Democrats...
BARNICLE: Right.
MARTIN: ... can at least make the argument, I'm still voting for a bill that has some kind of public option language in there. But, at the same time, you bring home those moderate Democrats in the Senate from red states, who are very much wary of a public option.
BARNICLE: Hey, Chuck, before we go—and this is a rather sensitive issue, but I wonder, is there any sense within the White House that you hear, that you pick up that they think race might be a part of this argument against everything that the president does?
TODD: In a—in the—even on background, they will never touch that.
BARNICLE: Right.
TODD: They don't want to go near it. They don't want to be accused of crying race, that somehow—remember that it would come up in the campaign, and you would have...
BARNICLE: Yes.
TODD: ... back and forth, sort of accusing them, oh, look, by—by saying that something might have to do with race, Obama's playing the race card.
You know, so there would—they're very concerned. They don't ever want—so, they will never talk about it as an excuse. Outside, advisers to—you know, sort of outside advisers to this White House, that's usually the quickest way they go to it. They say, if you look at these polls, it's Southern. It's mostly—you know, you look at the school speech, it was a lot of...
MARTIN: Yes.
BARNICLE: Yes.
TODD: Yes, it was places in the South that were reactive.
So, you get a lot of people saying, hey, two plus two plus two plus two eventually equals eight here, and maybe it has to do with something with race. But this White House doesn't want to touch that.
MARTIN: Right.
BARNICLE: That is both interesting and depressing, gentlemen.
Chuck Todd, Jonathan Martin, thanks very much.
Coming up: President Obama's biggest challenge tomorrow night may be getting his own party to get on the same page about health care reform. We will talk to two House Democrats, one who is demanding a public option and one who's more willing to compromise.
That's next. You're watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
BARNICLE: Coming up: Why is the right-wing attack machine so effective against President Obama? And can the White House do anything to neutralize it?
HARDBALL returns after this.
BARNICLE: Welcome back to HARDBALL.
Will Congress pass a health care bill that doesn't include a public option?
Congresswoman Chellie Pingree is a Democrat from Maine, and Congressman Gerry Connolly is a Democrat from Virginia, two people on the same sides, and yet not—maybe not on the same side so much.
Congresswoman Pingree, let's start with you.
If there is no public option included in the bill that hits the House floor at some point down the road, will you vote for it or against it?
REP. CHELLIE PINGREE (D), MAINE: That would be a tough one for me.
I have already said that I would vote against a bill that doesn't have a public option. It's a huge issue to me in terms of really reforming health care. Frankly, for my constituents, many of whom still think we should have a single-payer health care plan, this is middle ground, moving to the right.
And they're very worried about the debate that is going on. And, so, I would be concerned if we don't have a public option.
BARNICLE: But you—you—you're not going to tell you how you would vote, yes or no, right?
PINGREE: Right. Today, I would vote no.
I mean, you know, you never know what the next configuration would be.
BARNICLE: Right.
PINGREE: But I signed on to a letter saying I won't vote for a bill with a public option. I wanted to be very—without a public option—I wanted to be very clear to the president and to my colleagues that, in my experiences on health care—I come from Maine. We have done a lot of work with insurance companies.
You know, what I hear from people is, you know, why would you want to help out the insurance companies? That's where the problem is. When people say to us, well, it won't be a level playing field—field if you don't—if you—if you put a public option in, you know, I have to say, I didn't get elected to make sure insurance companies made huge profits, that CEOs got big salaries. I'm here to make sure we have an equitable plan, that people can afford their health care, and that we really expand it and have major reforms.
So, for me right now, that is essential.
BARNICLE: Congressman Connolly, public option doesn't really hit your hot button in terms of a final version of the bill, is it?
REP. GERRY CONNOLLY (D), VIRGINIA: Well, it's not much that.
I support a public option. And I have endorsed a public option, but it's not a matter of theology to me. I want to overall—I want to get on a path to yes for health care reform legislation. I'm not there yet. I have other problems with the bill.
But a public option, if it is an instrument that can broaden access and bring down health care costs, insurance coverage in particular, by providing competition, I'm all for it. If there's another way for doing the same thing, I'm for that too.
So, I'm—I'm unwilling to draw a bright line in the sand over that particular aspect of health care reform.
BARNICLE: You said you had other problems with—with the bill, as it's being drafted right now. Who are those other problems?
CONNOLLY: Well, there are lots of discrete issues that we could talk about, but two big ones.
I don't we have run out—enough by way of savings in the bill yet. And I don't like the surcharge that's being proposed here in the House. I think it hurts a lot of folks in my area of the world, in Northern Virginia, but it also hurts small businesses.
And, so, before we start talking about revenue enhancement, I want to be convinced and I think the public wants to be convinced we have done everything we have can, we have left no rock unturned, in trying to identify additional savings.
Example, the drug companies have put $80 billion on the table in voluntary savings. The Hospital Association has put $130 billion on the table for voluntary savings. The insurance companies, which Chellie mentioned—and I agree with her—the biggest profit-makers in the whole system, zero dollars on the table.
We can do better.
BARNICLE: Congresswoman Pingree, you just heard Congressman Connolly say that he wants to get to yes.
So, tell me, given the seemingly split—some say it's minor, some say it's major—between the speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, who's going to be speaking in a few minutes, I guess, and Steny Hoyer, a split over public option, how do you navigate to yes, if that, indeed, is your goal? Is it your goal, too?
PINGREE: Absolutely. I think we all want to get to yes.
And ,remember, I come from the state with Senator Olympia Snowe, who is busily working with the White House to see if there are other options in the Senate. So, I, as well as anybody, understand the importance of negotiating, the importance of getting a final bill that really allows us to move forward.
And I agree with a lot of things that Gerry says. And we have a huge freshman class, and all of us ran on this issue of bringing about reform in the health care system. Things like making sure that we negotiate with the pharmaceutical manufacturers to bring down the price of prescription drugs, you know, that's essential to lowering the cost here. So, I do think that there's a lot of work to be done in making sure that we lower costs.
On the other hand, if we don't come out with a very strong bill from the House—and I believe that has to have a public option, that it really has to fight back against the insurance companies, that has to show massive amounts of reform—when we get to negotiating with the Senate, we will already have moved too far in what will be a complicated conference process.
So while everybody kind of wants to know today, you know, Declare where you are, What are you going to do here...
BARNICLE: Yes.
PINGREE: You mentioned it earlier. This is sausage making. There's a lot of complicated maneuvering that's going to have to go on to get us from here to there. But I think everybody knows that the president wants to pass a bill. This Congress wants to pass a bill. And at least for me, with whatever dispute went on with our—you know, with out constituents this summer, the one thing I heard loud and clear was, Get this fixed. Work together. Find a solution.
CONNOLLY: And Mike, if I could, add to that, in some ways, it's an academic question. I think both Chellie and I would agree. It's highly unlikely anything would pass the floor of the House of Representatives without a strong public option.
BARNICLE: Congressman Gerry Connolly, Congresswoman Chellie Pingree, thanks very much for your views. We appreciate it.
Up next: Former Ohio congressman Jim Traficant is out of prison, and he has some advice for all of us. That's next on the "Sideshow."
You're watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
BARNICLE: Oh, I love that music. I just love it. Back to HARDBALL. Time for the "Sideshow." First: Shout it from the mountaintop. Former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich was on the "Today" show this morning to promote his new book, "The Governor," which gives us his version of the events which led to his impeachment. No surprise here. Blago's not giving an inch on those charges he tried to sell Barack Obama's Senate seat.
ROD BLAGOJEVICH (D), FORMER ILLINOIS GOVERNOR: When you're an honest person and you believe that—you want to tell the people who hired you and trusted you that you didn't let them down, you look for the highest mountaintop that you can find and you want to shout out and say, It just ain't so. And so no one hears you if you're on top of a mountain, so the best—next best thing is to write a book.
If what I'm saying is true is true -- and the tapes will bear out what I say. And again, it's the prosecution that won't allow us to have the tapes heard publicly. But if what I say is true is true, then somebody is lying here. And it's not me. And if a governor was stolen from office by false accusations knowingly given, then something is seriously upside down. And that's what the story of this book is.
BARNICLE: I'll tell you what's not upside down is his hair. He's got great hair. Be sure to watch Blago's turn on HARDBALL this Monday the 14th.
Speaking of trouble with the law, former congressman Jim Traficant got out of the slammer just last week after serving four years on federal corruption charges. Upon his return to Ohio, Traficant gave a speech at his welcome home bash invoking, who else, Nelson Mandela. Traficant put his own twist on the South African leader's words, saying, quote, "If you want to know the true nature of a country, you must go through its prisons. I know America. I have seen the other side of it, and I don't like it," unquote.
Well, Traficant's not done yet. He told supporters that the government, quote, "had to cheat to convict him," unquote back in 2002, that he plans further major announcements by the end of the week, this week.
Moving on, "The Politico" is out with its list of the top Washington, D.C., area party animals. And guess what? Some HARDBALL regulars made the list. You've got Margaret Carlson of Bloomberg News, "Vanity Fair's" Chris Hitchens, and of course, Howard Fineman of "Newsweek." Crazy, crazy party animals, all of them. They've got it all written all over them.
Time for tonight's "Big Number," though. Joe Kennedy II announced this weekend that he will not be running for his uncle Ted's Senate seat in Massachusetts, which means no Kennedys are in the mix in that special election. You could call this the end of an era.
Just how long has Massachusetts had a Kennedy in Congress? About 62 straight years. There was a brief blip between 1961 and 1962, when Jack Kennedy became president and Ted Kennedy won a special election to the Senate. But it looks like the 62-year streak of Massachusetts-based Kennedys in Congress has come to an end and that, 62, is tonight's "Big Number."
Up next: Why is the conservative right so angry at everything President Obama does, from his speech today to schoolchildren to his efforts to reform health care? The right-wing attack machine is powered up against the president's every move. What the White House can do to combat it, next.
You're watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
BARNICLE: Welcome back to HARDBALL. The right-wing attack machine has ginned up fights against President Obama on just about every front, from his efforts to overhaul health care to his work in rescuing the economy to his back-to-school speech today to students. So has the White House ignored these attacks for too long? And what do they need to do at this point to neutralize them?
Pat Buchanan is an MSNBC political analyst and David Corn is the Washington bureau chief for "Mother Jones." And Pat Buchanan actually knew Mother Jones, so let's start with you, Pat.
PAT BUCHANAN, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: I also was part of the right-wing attack machine.
BARNICLE: Pat, we were speaking earlier—Chuck Todd was on earlier from the White House, and I told him that I have been amazed at the furor that has developed over President Obama's speech today to students, high school and some grammar school students, basically saying, Do your homework, wash your hands so you don't get the flu, respect your parents, respect your teachers and respect yourself. What is going on? What is the deal here?
BUCHANAN: Well, there's nothing wrong with the speech itself. It was a good speech to students. I'll tell you what it's all about, Mike. The atmosphere and the politics in this town are thoroughly poisoned across the board right now. This was just an occasion where Barack Obama said he's going to talk to the students, and all of a sudden, the students had these workbooks they were going to work on.
But Mike, back in 1991, George Bush I went out to Alice Deal (ph) junior high school right up the street. He was attacked by "The Washington Post" for using students as props and turning the school into a media studio. Lamar Alexander, education secretary, was called to the Hill. The GAO was ordered to investigate the whole thing.
It's a poisoned political atmosphere, and this was dropped into the middle of it.
DAVID CORN, "MOTHER JONES": But you know...
BARNICLE: David, how did it get so toxic?
CORN: Well...
BARNICLE: How?
CORN: Well, if you remember back to the campaign, I would go to these McCain/Palin rallies and there were people there who were attacking Barack Obama, literally saying that he's a communist, that he hangs out with terrorists, that he's not legitimate, he's not a natural-born citizen, he could never even become president if elected. There is a slice of the public out there, 5, 10, 15 percent—listen, they're wackos. It's that clear. They cannot stand this guy. They'll fight him on every front. These are not policy battles.
And then you have people like Sarah Palin. What's she doing today? She's out there insisting that the health care reform bill does include "death panels," even though the AARP, the AMA and every other expert group that's looked at the issue has said that they don't include "death panels." So you—I mean, this is irrational behavior driven by Obama hatred from people who just can't accept him. And you have to at least question whether for some of those people, not all, but for some of them there is a racial element to it.
BUCHANAN: Look, what has happened with Barack Obama is he's gone from 70 percent to 50 percent in his health care proposal. It's not 15 percent that are against it, it's a majority of the country that's against it!
CORN: That's not true.
BUCHANAN: You have tremendous numbers of people coming out -- 2,500 people show up in the middle of August in Reston, Virginia, a laid-back community, to shout at the former chairman of the Democratic Party. The point is, Mike, this country's very nationally polarized over health care. Obama has lost the cachet that he's had. And it's not simply Rush Limbaugh that's done that or the folks over at FOX News, it is the country that's losing confidence in this guy!
CORN: Well, listen, the polls still show that a majority believe in
health care reform, that 70 percent of so favor a public option. I mean,
it's not as if there's a popular revolt. There are people out there who
are being very vocal. They're being—listen they're getting—they're
holding up signs accusing him of "Afro-Leninism"
BUCHANAN: Oh...
CORN: ... and they're getting on TV and they're causing a great right-wing noise machine!
BUCHANAN: That's probably because we're putting them on TV. Let's talk about those "death panels," for example. Now, what Sarah Palin said today is exactly right. The whole health care proposal cutting costs is going to—it's leading to rationed care in the last six months of life, where all the expenses are done. People are going to be told, There are procedures, there are drugs and there are surgeries which we're no longer going to give you. And in cases with people with Alzheimer's, these decisions are going to be made. Is the phrase "death panels" in there? No, it is not, but...
BARNICLE: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Pat, David, wait a minute. Wait a minute. We have an update on Sarah Palin. She was invited to testify before the New York state Senate Aging Committee, but she refused. Instead of testifying, she submitted written testimony and she said, basically, that "death panels" would be included. She wrote, quote, "A great deal of attention was given to my use of the phrase 'death panel' in discussing such rationing. Despite repeated attempts by many in the media to dismiss this phrase as a myth, its accuracy has been vindicated."
BUCHANAN: All right...
BUCHANAN: Let me tell you exactly what she meant by these, which was in the bill and which Baucus says is now out of it. If you've got, say, some cancer and it spreads, say, to the liver, in that case, you get an authorized individual paid by Medicare who comes to your house and gives you your options. If you are alone, one of those options, one of those resources...
CORN: No, no, no, no!
BUCHANAN: Hold it. Now wait a minute! In Oregon...
CORN: This is...
BUCHANAN: ... they got a "death with dignity" law where they got to give them a pamphlet to visit those folks...
CORN: Pat—Pat, listen, I'll give you this piece I'm holding in my hand. AP, "No death panel in health care bill." The National Right to Life Committee that you usually agree with, Pat...
BUCHANAN: Right.
CORN: ... they say there are no "death panels."
BUCHANAN: I agree...
CORN: There's nothing mandatory. This is end-of-life counseling that is only voluntary!
BUCHANAN: Hold it!
CORN: There's no such thing as a "death panel."
BUCHANAN: It is...
CORN: Sarah Palin is not correct. The AMA, the AARP...
BARNICLE: All right, Pat, go ahead.
CORN: ... except you and Sarah!
BARNICLE: All right, Pat, go ahead.
BUCHANAN: Look, the "phrase death" panels is not in the legislation...
CORN: The entity is not there!
BUCHANAN: All right. The entity, you say, is not there. An individual who is authorized and paid by Medicare finds out that your cancer has spread, they're authorized to come and tell you what your options are...
CORN: If you ask!
BUCHANAN: ... in a legislation which is designed to cut health care costs in the last six months of life.
CORN: It's voluntary, Pat!
BUCHANAN: I don't care what it is...
CORN: ... ask for advice in end-of-life care, you can get it. That's all it says!
BUCHANAN: You don't ask for it. They come to the house!
CORN: No, it's voluntary!
BUCHANAN: All right, look...
CORN: You have to...
BARNICLE: Let me ask both you guys this, and let's get away from the specifics of what's in the bill, what's not in the bill, go to one of my cockamamie theories. Pat, you first. And here's my theory, that a large element of what's going on out there in the country right now has to do with the fact that there's structural change being suggested. And a lot of people don't like change of any kind, but structural change is somewhat threatening. And the threat of structural change, in addition to the dialogue and the rhetoric that's been pumped out over the last several months about it, has injected a large element of fear...
BUCHANAN: All right.
BARNICLE: ... in a lot of people in this country.
BUCHANAN: You're dead on, Mike.
BARNICLE: And fear seems to be driving the dialogue.
BUCHANAN: Mike, you're dead on. Here's what folks are hearing out there. They did hear the phrase "death panel." That's not in the bill. But what they're hearing is Obama says, you know, half of all expenses are in the last six months of life. We've got to cut those costs, $500 billion has got to be cut out of Medicare. And you got folks in their 70s and 80s, they're out there and they're saying, What is he talking about? And then you hear about these advisers going to come to your house voluntarily and all this.
If—that is what's causing the fear and apprehension, and Sarah Palin captured it when she used that phrase—admittedly, it's not in the bill. But Obama hasn't explained it and he says that part of the bill is going out! Why did they run away with it—run away from it if it's a good idea?
CORN: Pat, you're giving Sarah Palin credit for making something up that just happened to hit a chord with people who were worried. That's called demagoguery. That's not something that (INAUDIBLE) I mean, she's making stuff up! It can't be taken out of the bill because it was never...
BUCHANAN: It is in the bill!
CORN: ... in the bill!
CORN: You've already conceded that there's no such thing as a "death panel"...
BUCHANAN: All right...
CORN: ... that's in the bill!
BUCHANAN: All right...
CORN: . but to Mike's larger point—to Mike's larger point, I think Barack Obama did, indeed, represent change to a lot of people. I think not just change in health care, but change in the economy, in financial regulations, and lots of things.
And also I think cultural change. He represents—he has a different and a wider view of America that I think a lot of other people share. And this minority—it is still a minority, are responding against him in a very volatile way. And they're easily whipped up by Sarah Palin and by other conservatives.
BARNICLE: All right. Pat—Pat, let me ask you—let me ask you—
Pat, let me ask you, if you were in the White House—as fearful a thought that is, that should put a lot of fear into people.
BUCHANAN: All right. I've been in three of them, Mike. We survived.
BARNICLE: I know that. But if you were there today, how would you handle—how would you tell the president and his people to handle this threat, the rhetoric, the incendiary stuff, the polarization, the toxicity in our politics? How would you tell him to handle it?
BUCHANAN: Well, I think he has gotten behind the curve. There's a lot of things that are out there. And let's take these so-called advisers. He immediately said, that's going to be out of the bill, and so did the Finance Committee, those things are going to be gone.
The very fact they ran away from it, I think, contributed to the nervousness, to the apprehensions that this may be true. What I would have done early on, I think, Obama should have defined the bill himself.
He has got about five of them sitting out there. And there are things different in each of these things. And the opponents are going after him very effectively, hammering him, and he's on the defensive on all of these issues.
He has gotten behind the curve completely. I would advise him to do what he's going to do Wednesday night. But I wonder if it's not too late to get a majority bill.
BARNICLE: What do you think, David?
CORN: God, you know, I have to say that I agree with Pat Buchanan.
Now I'm waiting for the lightning bolt.
BUCHANAN: See?
CORN: But.
BUCHANAN: See, that's why you were well off when I was in the White House.
CORN: But the—one of the—I would add to that, that, you know, when Barack Obama had a chance to define the health care debate and define the health care plan as his, he didn't do that. Instead he allowed health care reform to become equated with Congress, which has approval ratings about half of his.
So he took the lesser popular political entity in town and said, they are the guys and gals who are really in charge of health care, not me. And I think that has hurt him from the get-go.
He was the one who had the standing and the popularity going into this episode to sort of say, hey, I have a plan, this is what I'm going to fight for, I'm going to explain it to you clearly, and I'm going to—you know, I'm going to push Congress as best I can to deliver what I think is best.
That would have been a much closer to winning strategy. And now without it, he's playing catch-up.
BUCHANAN: Mike, what has happened is, the opponents have taken pieces of it and defined the bill for the country. And the bill they've defined has been losing support steadily, going down, down, down, down.
BARNICLE: Pat Buchanan, who knew Mother Jones; and David Corn, who works for Mother Jones.
CORN: I think he dated Mother Jones.
BARNICLE: Thank you.
Up next, President Obama's big speech.
CORN: All right. Thanks, Mike.
BARNICLE: . tomorrow night. How can he unite his own party to agree on health care reform? "The Politics Fix" is coming up. This is HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
BARNICLE: Coming up, can President Obama get specific and rally support for health care reform? HARDBALL returns after this.
BARNICLE: Welcome back to HARDBALL. Time now for "The Politics Fix." David Gregory is moderator of "MEET THE PRESS." And Ron Brownstein is—you hear that? Atlantic Media's political director and a columnist for National Journal.
David, David, David.
BARNICLE: Let me ask you this. Now, it's as if I've come in and landed from another planet. I'm seeing the president of the United States attacked for basically telling kids to do their homework and brush after every meal. I'm being told that tomorrow could be a break or make night for his presidency on health care.
I heard Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, this afternoon basically saying the public option, maybe it will happen; and Speaker Pelosi standing alongside of him saying, no, it has to happen. What's the deal on tomorrow night? What does the president have to do? What's he going to do?
DAVID GREGORY, HOST, "MEET THE PRESS": Well, I think the primary thing that he has got to do is get the American people on board and try to persuade them and really drum up more for public support for this plan than now exists.
I mean, the problem with August is that the debate got off the rails. The White House knows it. The White House understands at this point that there is too few people in America who have any idea what the president wants to do about health care. And he has got to change that.
He has got to make it something that's simpler. He has got to be able to own it. And that, at its very core, is what tomorrow night is about. It's about reaching the American people. If he can do some of that, if he can turn that around, then he can apply a little bit more pressure primarily within his own party.
Republicans may be too far gone now. But within his own party he can wield a little bit more leverage.
BARNICLE: Ron, how is it that this most articulate of presidents, this guy who took the country by storm based largely on his ability to give a speech and communicate with the public, now has his this phrase "public option" out there and most people I know think it means something like either take the bus or buy a Prius, public option.
How did this happen?
RON BROWNSTEIN, POLITICAL DIRECTOR, ATLANTIC MEDIA: Well, first of all, it's important to recognize how tangential to the overall plan the public option really is. The best estimates by the Congressional Budget Office that David and I have talked about before, only 12 million people would be on the public option by 2019, compared to about 190 million people in private insurance, 16-1.
So for this to become such a litmus test for the left seems to me overstated. How did he get to this impasse? It was a fundamental tension or contradiction between his inside strategy, Mike, and his outside strategy.
By trying to learn from Clinton in '93, he did not want to be overly prescriptive in giving Congress tablets from which to legislate. He wanted to give them a lot of flexibility to find the water line in each chamber, basically make the agreements and deals that could get the bill forward out of the Senate and out of the House.
The cost of that—and that has worked reasonably well as an inside game up until August. The cost of that was he did not have a specific proposal that he could go to the country with and say, if you vote for health care, if support health care, you're going to get X, Y, and Z.
And so without that, the grassroots conservative opponents kind of filled in the blanks, even at a time when many of the big institutions that have fought health care reform in the past, including the AMA, including the insurance industry, including the pharmaceutical industry, were either supporting him or largely neutral.
So in many ways the outside game was hurt by the strategy they chose to pursue in the inside game.
BARNICLE: David, off of what Ron just said, facts—using facts, that only 12 million people would affected by the public option by the year 2019, I think those are the numbers you used, that practically begs the question of this White House, do they know what they're doing?
GREGORY: Well, I think the difficulty is that—I talked to an astute Republican today who made the point, this is like Social Security in this regard. There are so many moving pieces to it that you're trying to sell all at one time. And I think that's where the White House has gotten bogged down.
What is it that they're ultimately selling on this thing? Now I think you'll hear the president talk a lot about security and stability, which, by the way, was what President Clinton was selling back in '93 and '94 at the end when they got in trouble as well.
But I think that's right. I mean, the public option is a relatively smaller piece of it. There are two big pieces, which is, how many people are you going to cover who don't now have health insurance? And are you going to drive costs down in the health care system?
It doesn't look like it if the health care system is still out of control and now you just have more people who are going to be in it with insurance. So that's a fundamental problem.
But the president can't get bogged down on all of that. He has to find something that he can actually deliver, that he can sell and that he can deliver.
BROWNSTEIN: Mike—Mike, if I can just jump in. The irony is that on those two points that David mentioned, there's actually substantial consensus on how to proceed.
I mean, in terms of expanding coverage, the basic idea is that you have a mandate on individuals to buy insurance with government subsidies to help them afford it. And in return, the industry insurance has to undertake fundamental reform, like ending denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions.
The second front, how do you control costs in the long run? You—there's broad agreement on instituting a series of experiments in Medicare to move away from paying for quantity to paying for quantity, moving away from fee-for-service medicine and then creating this expedited commission that it would have authority to try to move the experiments that work more quickly into law.
Those—that basic approach has a lot of support not only within the Democratic Party, but among groups that in the past have opposed reform. And the challenge for Obama, I think, is to focus the debate back on that area of relatively broad consensus, which we'll see again tomorrow with the groups like Wal-Mart and the SEIU meeting to talk about their shared vision of reform.
To focus back on that and away from these very polarizing—real, but still secondary, I think, issues to the overall package.
BARNICLE: We're going to be right back with David Gregory and Ron Brownstein for more of "The Politics Fix." You're watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
BARNICLE: We're back with David Gregory and Ron Brownstein.
David, earlier in the show we had Congressman Gerry Connolly of Virginia on. He sort of likes the public option but he said it's not theology to him. And his main intent in any legislation is to get to yes.
And my question to you and Ron is, tomorrow night, how does the president of the United States get a majority of people in the House of Representatives, specifically, to get to yes and doesn't he have to get something out of this ordeal?
GREGORY: Well, look, I think the way he does that is he says to liberals in his party, look, look what we've got here. Are you going to be responsible for taking down health care reform? What we have in the way of an agreement now with the pharmaceutical companies, with the insurance companies, is something that the likes of Ted Kennedy couldn't achieve over three decades of trying. So let's not, you know, the cliche, let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
The other thing I think he's going to say, whether he uses these words or not, is, hey, guys, do you think it's going to get easier to pass health care reform next year? Do you think there is going to be more Democrats after the midterm election? It's not going to get any better. Let us pass something that's significant here and not take it down because we haven't achieved what we think is the only pure approach and try to build on it later.
BARNICLE: How pivotal is it, Ron, tomorrow night, in the terms of the next three years of presidency, in terms of his off-year elections a year from now?
BROWNSTEIN: I think the entire—the unfolding of health care is pivotal to the midterm and to the next three years. It's a test not only of his ability to lead the Democratic Party, it's a test of the Democratic Party's ability to be led.
Ultimately what has been clarified over the last month is that if this passes, it's going to have to be to be done almost entirely, if not entirely, with Democratic votes. And that really leaves them nowhere to look but in the mirror.
As David said, when you have all of these outside groups that have traditionally opposed reform being broadly supportive of the general direction, Democrats ultimately—the question is whether they can find a way to come together, to bridge their differences enough to govern.
And that is the responsibility of the majority party, especially in a period that is as polarized as this. Whatever else you think about that Republican majority from '95 to 2006, almost always they found a way to get to the majorities to advance their agenda. And now this is a test whether the Democrats in Congress can come together to do the same thing.
GREGORY: And, Mike, can I just add, what's important for presidents is that they do things. That's how they get judged. He has got to be able to do something he set out to do.
BARNICLE: Well, we have about 15 seconds, David. Off of that point, let me ask you, he comes to the nation tomorrow night as president of the United States, but in terms of the rhetoric, the language, the behavior, the body language, does he sound more like he did a year ago as candidate than he does—has as president?
GREGORY: Well, I thin he has got to reconnect with the leadership qualities that propelled him into office. He has got to get the middle of the country, the independents of the country believing in his leadership on this issue.
BARNICLE: David Gregory, Ron Brownstein, thanks very much.
Join us again tomorrow night at 5:00 and 7:00 Eastern for more HARDBALL. Right now, it's time for "THE ED SHOW," with Ed Schultz.
Transcription Copyright 2009 CQ Transcriptions, LLC ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material other than for research. User may not reproduce or redistribute the material except for user's personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon MSNBC and CQ Transcriptions, LLC's copyright or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.> transcript
Watch Hardball each weeknight
at 5 & 7 p.m. ET
Transcription Copyright 2009 CQ Transcriptions, LLC ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
No license is granted to the user of this material other than for research.
User may not reproduce or redistribute the material except for user's
personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed,
nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion
that may infringe upon MSNBC and CQ Transcriptions, LLC's copyright or
other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal
transcript for purposes of litigation.>
Watch Hardball each weeknight at 5 & 7 p.m. ET


text:
Swipe to the left
Posts tagged 'pool side'
By Blogger April 6, 2012
I love this time of year, unfortunately for us Texas we have a window of perfect weather for all about ooohhh two weeks give or take. This small window of time means the sun's shining but it's not too hot, it's warm enough to wear shorts but not so much where you start sweating and all the flowers are beginning to come out of hiding. Yes, I love Texas in the spring.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Loading some great jobs for you...
Home Instead Senior Care is looking for caring and compassionate CAREGivers to become a part of our team and join our mission of enhancing the lives of aging adults throughout our community. Home Instead Senior Care provides a variety of non-medical services that allow seniors to remain in their home and meet the challenges of aging with dignity, care and compassion.
Duties include, but are not limited to:
-Companionship and conversation
-Light housekeeping tasks and meal preparation
-Medication and appointment reminders
-Assistance with grooming and bathing
-Assistance with toileting and incontinence issues
-Alzheimer s Care
*Skills training provided by Home Instead Senior Care*
-Competitive pay
-Flexible hours
-Annual Evaluation with opportunity for merit increase
-Discounts with Verizon and Sprint
-Aflac Supplemental Insurance
-CAREGiver Recognition and Awards
Loading some great jobs for you...


text:
Some of the most compelling works of fiction rely heavily on reality (Jurassic Park, anyone?) New York Times best-selling authors James Rollins and Steve Berry are masters of weaving fact into fiction – and both will be at HMNS on Tuesday, Jan. 19 for An Evening of Thrills: How Science and History Make Great Thrillers. They'll each be signing their latest releases after the lecture; tickets are going fast – get yours here. Last week, Rollins gave us a sneak peak in his own guest blog; this week Berry talks about the upcoming lecture.
Fiction into reality? That's a little backwards for me. What I do is turn reality into fiction. I like to find something from the past—the Amber Room, the lost Romanov children, Charlemagne, the tomb of Alexander the Great—items or artifacts you may not know much about (but, hopefully, would enjoy exploring), then weave a modern day tale around them. The kind of stories I've always like to read have a mix of secrets, conspiracies, history, action, adventure and international settings. So it was only natural that I would write that same kind of story.
Every novel for me starts as a treasure hunt. I'm searching for bits of reality that somehow can be woven together into a coherent plot.
And it's not easy.
In fact, the challenge is to find the most unrelated stuff as possible, then relate them through a twist of the facts. While doing this, I have to always keep in mind that I'm not writing a textbook, it's a novel, whose primary job is to entertain. But that doesn't mean the reader can't learn some stuff along the way. I enjoy that aspect, and I've come to learn that my readers do too. I'm careful, though, with my twisting, and I make sure the reader knows where I played with the facts by including a writer's note at the end of each of my books.
In Houston, on January 19th, Jim Rollins and I will be discussing all of this. Jim's books are a little history and lot of science, mine are the other way around. But we both definitely like to tinker with reality. For me, every book involves around 200 -300 sources obtained from many trips to bookstores; lots of internet browsing; and at least one visit to a locale important to the book. I have, for days, sat in a German Cathedral (The Charlemagne Pursuit); roamed an abbey in Portugal (The Alexandria Link); scoured Paris (The Paris Vendetta); climbed citadels in southern France (The Templar Legacy); boated all over Venice (The Venetian Betrayal); and wandered through the Kremlin (The Romanov Prophecy).
But that's all part of the job.
So drop by January 19th to the museum at 6:30 and spend an evening with me and Jim Rollins. Have your questions ready. See you then.
An Evening of Thrills: How Science and History Make Great Thrillers will take place on Tuesday, Jan. 19 at 6:30 pm. Both authors will sign copies of their latest works after the lecture; copies will be available for purchase from Murder by the Book. Tickets are available here.


text:
But what an inspired rhyming couplet.
Ja Rule doesn't exist anymore, does he? Ashanti wouldn't even look at him now.
But what an inspired rhyming couplet.
Ja Rule doesn't exist anymore, does he? Ashanti wouldn't even look at him now.
you're right Ollie.
i don't think he's been around for a good year in the public eye.
What does Mr. Rule look like? Who allowed him out of the house looking like that?
youve disgraced yourself with crypto-fascist ravings over the last 5 years, i could hardly do anymore damage. im trying to restore your reputation as a sosphiticate and man of letters.
i'll prbably stick some soppy bits in too like this
Let me tell of memories, back a thousand lifetimes, or maybe many more.
I have so many memories. The world around me fades as eyes turn inward.
I have no name. No mother, no father. I am neither male nor female, young nor old.
Time has come to a complete halt. Its shape now visible in its entirity.
If I say to you
Terror, and exhileration, in equal measure
I think you will know what I mean.
The shining city is built, in the bosum of green hills. O! Happy City. Star trails in swirling night.
River with voice of laughing infants, tumbles down dale to heedlessly split the town in twain.
The wound is sutured with bridges, which leap gracefully over the river at regular intervals. Bone bridges of ivory. Bridges of spidery steel or silent white marble.
On hot summer days children press cheeks against the cool marble pylons.
Run through reeds in the shallows. Eels flit past tiny ankles. Herons watch over them with parental indulgence. An amused, loving concern.
Sky of swifts and swallows. Many fine old trees. The oldest trees are the towns most prominent and respected citizens. There is much sadness when one dies. A thousand years of continuity is broken and the limbs which were home to generations of birds and climbing children, are fallen on by woodlice and other creatures of rotten wood, warm rich decay.
The men are laughing in the taverns. There are people in the squares, reading, talking and ruminating, under the shade of birch and poplar.
You also walked its wide boulevards, in the afternoon sun, with all the other promenaders.
I remember you with fondness.Your smile. Your easy gait. You dont remember I know. It was too long ago, and such perfect happiness, hardly seems creditable now. But humour me, as I reminisce.
You loved Verlaine and recited his poems to me, by the river, in the long grass.
Les fluers des eaux referment leurs corolles,
Des peupliers profilent aux lointains,
Droits et serres, leurs spectres incertains;
Vers les buissons errent les lucioles;
and though I speak no French, I was moved to tears of joy. The heart swollen with giddy love. Your face was so responsive, so alive and untroubled. It registered everything which passed over it, every emotion and idea, every change in temperature, cloud covering and uncovering benevolent sun, every tendril of the delicious breeze
I remember distinctly just how wide your eyes opened. How sensuously you drew breath, how your features would melt into bliss, just momentarily, on the in-breath.
I recited long lines of Whitman, prayers of Rilke. It was that kind of day. The sun was shining, the world was young and fecund. You didnt realise, did you, just how wholeheartedly life can be loved?
the hard carapace of bone dissolves, sharp intake of breath as pleasures multiply.
insistent. singing in the cells. joy ruptures bone carapace. self melts, spine arches, head thrown back .
you have to get sentimental sometimes. demonstrates emotional depth y'see...
Doin' the Lambeth Warp New: DISSENSUS - THE NOVEL - PM me your email address and I'll add you
Luka, I know we can get your fantasy novel out there when it's done.
We just need to fabricate a good sales pitchy pull quote or glowing review from someone already famous in the genre, and paste it everywhere online. It would also help to create internet hype by having the right bloggers promote it and talk about how prescient/timely it is. Fantasy novel readers love the internet.
Are you looking for an agent? If I can sell a loperamide program to J&J, I can sell a fantasy novel to anyone.
10% non-negotiable
Ashanti is dating Nelly, btw.
Speaking of r&b artists whose careers are undead...
I'm writing a thing about time travel for a Canadian art fanzine at the moment; it's about the time I saw a picture of myself dancing with Jayne Mansfield (true).
Any time travel anecdotes or stories would be good. I'm not going to use them, it'd just be nice to read other people's experiences of time travel. If there are any...
If someone released an album featuring a photoshopped cover image of mistersloane dancing with a headless Jane Mansfield, I think that would probably be the best thing ever.
Doin' the Lambeth Warp New: DISSENSUS - THE NOVEL - PM me your email address and I'll add you
ok nomad you're on board, you get 20% if you write a couple of chapters for me.


text:
History & Archaeology
The Saxons, who had been converted to Christianity, conquered the ancient county of Somerset in the 7th Century. Their King was Ine of Wessex, who was widely regarded as one of the most important figures in the history of the abbey. He was a local man who boosted the status and income of the abbey, and it is said that he put up a stone church, the base of which forms the west end of the nave.
This church was enlarged in the 10th century by the Abbot of Glastonbury, St. Dunstan, who became the Archbishop of Canterbury in 960.
In 1066, the wealth of the abbey could not cushion the Saxon monks from the disruption caused by the foreign invasion and subsequent conquest of England by the Normans.
Skilled Norman craftspeople contributed much to the abbey by adding magnificent buildings to the existing Saxon Church. These were built to the east of the older church and away from the ancient cemetery.
The Norman betterment of the abbey was extensive. In 1086, when the Domesday Book was commissioned to provide records and a census of life in England, Glastonbury Abbey was the richest monastery in the country.
The great Norman structures were consumed by fire in 1184 when many of the ancient treasures were destroyed. One story goes, that in order to raise extra funds from pilgrims to rebuild the abbey the monks, in 1191, dug to find King Arthur and his Queen Guinevere; and bones from two bodies were raised from a deep grave in, the cemetery on the south side of the Lady Chapel. These bones were reburied, much later, in 1278 within the Abbey Church, in a black marble tomb, in the presence of King Edward I.
When the monastic buildings were destroyed in the fire of 1184, the medieval monks needed to find a new place to worship. There is evidence that the 12th century nave was renovated and used for this purpose for almost 30 years, until some of the work was completed on the new church. The monks reconsecrated the Great Church and began services there on Christmas Day, 1213, most likely before it was entirely completed.
In the 14th century, as the head of the second wealthiest abbey in Britain (behind Westminster Abbey), the Abbot of Glastonbury lived in considerable splendour and wielded tremendous power. The main surviving example of this power and wealth is to be found in the Abbot's Kitchen - part of the magnificent Abbot's house begun by John de Breynton (1334-42).
Privileged pilgrims might once have stayed in the abbey itself; excavations have disclosed a special apartment at the south end of the Abbot's house, erected for a visit from the English King, Henry VII.
In 1536, during the 27th year of the reign of Henry VIII, there were over 800 monasteries, nunneries and friaries in Britain. By 1541, there were none. More than 10,000 monks and nuns had been dispersed and the buildings had been seized by the Crown to be sold off or leased to new lay occupiers. Glastonbury Abbey was one of principal victims of this action by the King, during the social and religious upheaval known as the Dissolution of the Monasteries.


text: Shustoke Reservoir lies two miles east of Coleshill on the B4114 Coleshill to Furnace End Road, south of the River Bourne. At 1.5km west to east, the main pool is only 400m at its widest point. The River Bourne feeds the smaller eastern pool (8 acres), the water is then transferred to the main reservoir (92 acres). Disturbance at weekends can be a problem.


text:
Do financial incentives undermine the motivation of public sector workers? Maybe, but where is the evidence from the field?
This page in:
This expressed sentiment is in stark contrast with a prominent viewpoint that the introduction of an incentive program is ineffective at best and counter-productive at worst. A forceful summary of this view can be found in a 2012 editorial by Steffie Woolhandler and Dan Ariely, published in the Health Affairs journal blog. Woolhandler and Ariely conclude their editorial with the warning that "Few have countenanced the possibility that P4P (pay-for-performance) may simply not work in health care". Why may P4P not work? Their answer:
I'll review their cited evidence, but first it's instructive to summarize a dominant psychological theory, known as Cognitive Evaluation Theory (CET), and how it models the potential impact of incentives on individual motivation. In this framework, two broad categories of motivation spur our behavior – intrinsic and extrinsic. Our intrinsic motivation pushes us to pursue activities that provide their own reward, so motivation for these activities is not dependent on external rewards. On the other hand, the promise of external rewards (of any form – verbal, financial, in-kind) propels our behavior through extrinsic motivation.
Further, in the view of CET, we all have fundamental psychological needs for:
- Autonomy, defined as "the urge to be a causal agent of one's own life", and
- Competence, "the urge to master skills and control outcomes".
If an incentive disempowers an agent by reducing her perceived autonomy, then her intrinsic motivation is reduced (as her extrinsic motivation likely increases – this is why incentives are broadly effective in many economic settings). However if an incentive provides information on ability or achievement – i.e. "you did so well that you earned the big bonus" – then it can satisfy the need for competence and hence increase intrinsic motivation. A priori an incentive can have conflicting effects if it is perceived as controlling (thus thwarting autonomy) but also informational (thus enhancing competence).
So context matters a great deal. The incentive form also matters a great deal. We can broadly think of rewards as either task-contingent or non-contingent. Non-contingent incentives are something like paying a salary without any reciprocal requirement of work (a very weak incentive). Since task non-contingent incentives do not require engagement (beginning a task), completion (of the task), or performance (doing the task well), these incentives are neither informational nor controlling and therefore should not affect intrinsic motivation. These types of incentives are also fairly rare.
More common incentive forms, and those used by P4P, are task-contingent. Yet task-contingent incentives in turn are sorted into three sub-classifications: engagement-contingent, completion-contingent, and performance-contingent. As the incentive form moves from engagement- to completion- to performance-contingency, the degree of control asserted on behavior increases (potentially limiting autonomy) but so does the informational content conveying success and competence. Therefore the effect of the introduction of incentives on intrinsic motivation (as well as ultimate performance) is unclear.
So let's return to the editorial mentioned above. As evidence for the likely failure of P4P they cite numerous RCT studies that demonstrate:
- 56 college undergraduates given puzzles to solve were less successful when offered monetary reward than when given verbal reinforcement or no reward at all.
- Paying for blood donations actually reduced the quantity of blood donated.
- Swiss volunteers reduced the time spent in volunteer activities once they were offered payment for the same activities.
- Parents in Israel were more likely to pick their children up late from school once fines were imposed for late-pick-ups (as opposed to social disapproval).
- Both MIT students and villagers in India solved fewer complex puzzles when offered large incentives than when offered either small incentives or no incentives.
Finally Woolhandler and Ariely cite a masterful meta-analysis of 128 studies by by Deci, Koestner, and Ryan (DKR). (study 6- DKR)). This wide-ranging review concludes that incentives reduce intrinsic motivation especially when incentives are task-contingent and tangible (i.e. non-verbal).
Wow! That seems like a lot of compelling evidence. But…
Note that all of the studies involve a contrast between a non-incentivized control group and (some form of) incentivized treatment group. Indeed DKR explicitly restrict their meta-review to studies that involve an experimental group compared to a no-reward control group. Further all off these studies were done either in a laboratory or under well-controlled laboratory like conditions and virtually all of the 128 studies were conducted on children, teen-agers, or college students in the US or Europe.
There is surely much to learn, in general, from research that experimentally introduces incentives into a previously non-incentivized environment. But are there clear implications for the P4P? I'm not sure. In fact, I am skeptical.
Why? First note that health workers are already in an environment where incentives are used to control behavior (this situation is commonly known as "work"). P4P reform is only a change in the form of incentive. To be more precise, P4P reform is a movement along the contingency axis of incentive type. In developing countries, P4P typically involves a switch from engagement- to completion-contingency incentives, while in richer countries the switch is more typically from completion- to performance-contingency.
Why is this distinction important? Precisely for the theoretical reasons sketched above – there are contrasting effects on intrinsic motivation as we move along the contingency axis. It's important to note that the DKR meta-analysis finds no difference in the negative effect of incentives on intrinsic motivation whether they take the form of engagement- or completion- or performance-contingency. If anything, the DKR meta-results suggest that performance-contingent incentives impact intrinsic motivation the least (as CET theory predicts since performance-contingency contains the most information on competence). So the best guess on the basis of this definitive meta-review is that P4P reforms introduced in the public sector will have no net effect on worker's intrinsic motivation.
And there are other differences that get in the way of generalizability from the research cited above. Results can vary depending on whether the task is easy or difficult to measure, or if the incentivized task is interesting or boring. The activities in these studies may have been either mundane or fun, but none of them come close to the repeated activities that one would conduct in a profession like health care. Further none of the study groups are adult professionals and, yes, all are WEIRD populations with questionable generalizability to public service workers in developing countries.
I am quite open to the idea that P4P reform reduces the intrinsic motivation of health workers. It may very well do so, at least in some contexts. But these studies don't directly touch on this issue. Furthermore, even if P4P reduces intrinsic motivation, by definition it should increase extrinsic motivation – and so the net effect of reform on worker performance can still be positive even if intrinsic motivation is reduced. From the policy stand-point, it's the net effect we care about first and foremost.
Yes I know that there are questions about long-term sustainability. We know next to nothing about the long-term effects of P4P. It is indeed possible that the gain in extrinsic motivation is short lived while the reduction in intrinsic motivation is permanent. This would be a bad thing. But if we are open minded we should also consider the opposite hypothesis: perhaps a new incentive scheme is first seen as controlling because it is a change from business-as-usual, but then no longer seen as controlling as the scheme becomes more familiar. Also, perhaps over time there will be selection into the health work force of individuals more responsive to extrinsic motivation and more resilient to lower perceived autonomy in the work setting.
The fact is we don't know the definitive answer to any of these questions. We will assuredly know more in the coming years given the explosion of research on this topic. Until then, any conclusion is pre-mature.
Join the Conversation
"ne qualitative data point has stayed with me throughout these weeks, the paraphrased words of one clinic worker"
There's nothing I like more than when a randomista bases an argument on a qualitative anecdote...
Hi Bob, thanks very much for your comment. We do believe in mixed methods on this blog, although I only use the quote you mention to frame the discussion and not ground the argument. Eventually there will be numerous quantitive evaluations of P4P in low- and middle-income countries -both RCTs and rigorous quasi-experimental IEs - so we should learn a lot.
Great post. I've been wondering about intrinsic/extrinsic motivation when it comes to policy makers in developing countries pursuing rigorous evaluation to guide their thinking, and this has given me a lot to think about especially wrt to the way the technical aspects associated with rigorous evaluation may disempower some. I hope your opposite hypothesis holds.
Thanks for this very stimulating post.
You wrote, "Also, perhaps over time there will be selection into the health work force of individuals more responsive to extrinsic motivation and more resilient to lower perceived autonomy in the work setting."
This is a really interesting point, but it seems to touch on an area that opponents of extrinsic incentives (in health, or education in the U.S. debate for example) are concerned about.
The outcomes incentivized are subject to a measurement problem as in all principal-agent settings. There might be adverse selection into these jobs (of those who are not motivated for the "right reasons"). These may be individuals who are more willing to game the system; more subject to multitasking problems (will only work on the rewarded measures because they don't have a strong intrinsic incentive to work on other areas).
This suggests that the planned RCTs of these schemes should gather detailed information on what kinds of people enter and exit the jobs. This is in addition to other longer-term effects like learning to game the incentive.
I look forward to hearing more about ongoing work in this area.


text:
Student group trips
On this page...
This section provides an overview of how student group trips operate at the Lizard Island Research Station. More detailed information for organisers of group visits is provided elsewhere (Planning your Trip).
The Lizard Island Research Station provides all the necessary facilities for a successful, safe and exciting field trip.
Lizard Island is a granite continental island with an extensive fringing reef, numerous patch reefs and magnificent beaches. It is an excellent location for safe snorkelling and boating activities. The diversity of marine life is enormous with hundreds of species of corals and over a thousand species of fishes. Very low tides occur during winter and these allow opportunities for reef-walking.
The island is relatively large (seven square kilometres in size) and has a variety of non-reef habitats. Of particular interest are the mangrove communities, dry sclerophyll woodlands, and sand dune successions. By walking up to the peak of the island at Cook's Look (360 metres elevation), students can encounter a variety of landforms from exposed steep granite slopes with swamps at the base, through woodlands to the summit with its stunted heath vegetation.
The presence of reptiles and birds on the island has been recorded since Captain Cook's visit in 1770. The large goanna for which Cook named the island is one of 12 species of lizard on Lizard Island. There are also five species of snake and two species of tree frog. The only mammals on the island (apart from humans) are two species of bat.
About 10 species of bush birds are resident on Lizard Island, as well as numerous seabirds. Many migratory birds pass through, and regular visits are made by others. Nesting colonies of seabirds are established on nearby Bird Islet, and Osprey Islet. These include terns, gulls, reef herons, osprey and sea eagles. Ample reference material is available in the Station's library for identification of the fauna of Lizard Island.
Educational program
Institutions that send student groups to Lizard Island Research Station are responsible for the content and delivery of the educational program. Student groups must carry out a genuine educational program to be eligible to use the Station's facilities.
The education provider is often a biology teacher or lecturer at the students' institution, who is also the leader of the group trip. Alternatively, a company can be engaged to provide an excellent educational program as well as logistic support including boat drivers, snorkelling supervisors, meal planning and food ordering. Contact the Research Station for details of this service.
A typical daily program involves a lecture or briefing and one or two snorkelling trips, followed by workbook or library research. Initial field outings typically focus on snorkelling procedures and general observation. Once students are comfortable in the water and gain some familiarity with the environment, more focused studies can be introduced as appropriate to the students' academic level. Presentations and/or reports are usually required of students at the end of, or following, the trip.
Collecting specimens or manipulating the environment at Lizard Island (and throughout the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park) requires one or more permits. Most student groups conduct worthwhile observational studies without the need to obtain permits. More about permits
Groups usually schedule half a day during their trip to hike to the summit of the island, Cook's Look. This activity traverses numerous terrestrial habitats and invokes the island's interesting Aboriginal and European history.
A half-day trip to the outer reef, about 20 km from Lizard Island, is very worthwhile. This can be arranged by chartering a dive boat from the Lizard Island Resort. Enquire at the Research Station during the planning stage of your trip for the current charter fee, and for booking the boat.
Size and composition of groups
Student groups must comprise between 10 and 22 people in total, including an appropriate number of suitably-qualified and experienced adult supervisors. For secondary school students, there must be at least one supervisor for every five students. For university groups, the student to supervisor ratio can be higher.
Configuration of accommodation (quad- and triple-share rooms) may restrict groups to a lower maximum size if separate rooms are required for male and female students and for supervisors. This is normally the case for secondary schools, where 20 people is the usual group size: 16 students (with each gender represented by multiples of four) and four supervisors.
All group members, including supervisors, should be competent swimmers.
Adult supervisors must be fit and active. A suitable number of them must be qualified and competent to drive small outboard-powered boats. They must present a current boat licence issued by any Australian state and they must demonstrate competence on arrival. Boat drivers must have a moderate level of prior boat driving experience.
One supervisor will be the snorkelling coordinator who has responsibilities as outlined in the Station's snorkelling regulations for groups. To meet these responsibilities, the coordinator must have adequate snorkelling and boating experience. One or more of the supervisors must hold current qualifications in first aid and in provision of medical oxygen.
Duration, timing and cost of visits
A visit of at least six nights is advised so that students get beyond the "gee whiz" stage and really start noticing things. Student groups must stay for at least four nights to be eligible for the highly subsidised student group fee. Because research usage of the Station is greatest over the Australian summer, student groups are unlikely to be accommodated between October and February. The busiest time for student group bookings is during the Australian school holidays in April, June/July and September.
Student group bookings are taken up to 13 months in advance. A small deposit must be paid at the time of booking, 50% of the fee must be paid four months before the start of the trip, and all other costs must be paid within 30 days of departure. Current costs
Accommodation and food
Student groups are accommodated in Kirby and Suntory houses. Each house has three bedrooms (two quad-share and one triple-share), two bathrooms and a large kitchen/ dining area. More about accommodation
Groups must order food in advance for delivery by barge, and cook and clean up after themselves. Cooking is done and meals are taken as a group in one of the two houses. The best way for groups to organise meal preparation and cleaning up is by roster. This should be arranged with participants before the trip. More about ordering food
Boat usage
A group of 20 people will use four small outboard-powered boats. The group must include a competent and qualified adult driver for each boat. People with a boat licence but little practical experience in driving boats will not be accepted as boat drivers. A thorough induction will be provided to suitable boat drivers. Boats are well-equipped with safety equipment and a there is a formal sign-out procedure for daily boat use. More about boating
Snorkelling and diving by student groups
Snorkelling is a major attraction for student groups at the Lizard Island Research Station. To enhance safety, formal snorkelling regulations for groups apply. Personnel requirements for snorkelling by groups are outlined in the link below.
High quality snorkelling equipment, including wetsuits, is available for hire at the Research Station and many student groups take advantage of this facility.
The Station is fully equipped to support SCUBA diving by researchers but this activity is not usually offered to student groups because the Station operates under occupational scuba diving regulations. These exclude people younger than 18 years, require specific training that is not available through most recreational diver training agencies, and require a substantial level of diving experience.
For student groups whose members do qualify as divers under the Station's scuba diving regulations, additional requirements may be imposed by the Diving Officer depending upon the level of experience in the group. As well, additional fees will apply. More about diving and snorkelling
Groups are met at the airstrip and transported to the Research Station by 4WD vehicle and tractor, a distance of 2 km over a rough, sandy track.
After settling into the accommodation and sorting out food supplies, the group meets with a Director of the Station for an orientation talk. This covers domestic arrangements, snorkelling, boating, use of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and the Lizard Island National Park, and visitors' responsibilities. Hire of snorkelling gear can then be arranged, and designated boat drivers will be given detailed induction.
Research Station staff are always available to assist with planning the day's activities and to advise on field sites. One of the Directors will be happy to give a presentation to the group about reef life, research or reef issues one evening.
Things to bring
Travel to Lizard Island is by light aircraft and baggage must be kept within the allowance as advised by the charter company. As there will be four people sharing most bedrooms, it is more comfortable for everyone if luggage is kept to a minimum. Each person should bring:
- Beach towel and bath towel
- Torch with spare batteries
- Shady hat that can get wet and will not fly off during boat trips
- Sunglasses (polarising lenses are MUCH better than others for seeing into the water)
- High SPF sunscreen
- Long-sleeved shirt or rash vest for sun protection
- Snorkelling gear including a wetsuit (if already owned, otherwise hire it at the Station)
- Shoes and socks for walking
- Shoes for getting wet on reef walks
- Personal insect repellant
- Soap and other personal items
- Camera
- Swimsuit
- Summer clothing
- Light sweater for cool evenings
- Writing materials
- Small day pack or bag
- Water bottle of about 1 litre
- Appetite for learning, plenty of enthusiasm and a cooperative spirit!


text:
Websites help dwellers remodel with just a click
Do you long to reboot your decor, but you don't have the time or money to hire an interior designer, or just don't know where to start? Three new easy-to-use interior design programs aim to help you find that perfect new chair, transform your kitchen or even remodel your entire home with a tap of your keyboard.
Gretchen Wolfe Hansen, a former consumer products developer, co-founded Decorist after struggling with her own design dilemma. "I didn't want to spent a fortune on a designer - like most women, I wanted bite-sized help," the San Francisco mother of three says.
How it works: Services range from a quick free assessment of your style to a $169 mini-makeover. For the makeover you upload pictures of your room and describe your style challenge and budget. Within five days, one of Decorist's 20 designers will create a customized and interactive board with all the ingredients for a room, and a clickable shopping list.
Best feature: The website is beautifully laid out and fun to use. For the free service I was asked to select my favorite pieces from seven boards of sofas, chairs, rugs, mats, etc. to create a living room. I was then asked to sign in using my e-mail address (not something I usually like to do) after which I received a half page assessment of my style, including phrases like "less is more, modernist, ethnic accents, worldly look."
Bottom line: Spot on. (Though I must admit to being a bit miffed that the nuances of my design sensibilities could be discerned so easily.) This does lead to weekly e-mails suggesting furniture pieces and ideas tailored to you, but you can unsubscribe.
Home Advisor, a website connecting homeowners with pre-screened home repair and improvement professionals, has just launched DesignMine, described as "Pinterest with a purpose." Users create personalized design boards from 30,000 photos that can be shared with anyone. From there you can search for home professionals who might share your style. It's available online, though until March 24 the mood board is only accessible through an iPad app that requires at least iOS 6.0.
How it works: The website lists five styles and 20 spaces. I selected Contemporary and then Kitchen, which brought up 2,056 photos, some of which were dark and not high quality, with listings for the professional who provided the image. Clickable links are provided for Home Advisor's pre-screened professionals. The app is better; photos appear slightly brighter, with 32 styles and 37 spaces. You can also draw and write on the photos.
Best feature: Making a mood board was simple. (Your e-mail address is required.)
Bottom line: It's a useful tool for organizing ideas before you meet a professional designer, but not to identify specific items, though they are currently working with manufacturers to provide that service.
www.homeadvisor.com/designmine. Also available as an iPad app: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/designmine-home-design-ideas/id625335650?mt=8
Furnish is a simple way to gauge if a particular chair is perfect for that corner in your living room without hauling it home or subjecting yourself to the nightmare of assemblage. The app is free for iPads, iPhones and Androids. Though it was first launched at the end of 2012, Furnish was recently remodeled for easier use, and 100 more products will be added to the existing 450 in the next couple of weeks.
How it works: It allows you to use your phone or tablet to superimpose images of furniture - from Ikea, Herman Miller and Crate and Barrel, among others - onto the backdrop of your room along with the ability to buy immediately. Just touch the furniture image and hover your phone or iPad over the space where you're considering it. Furniture can be scaled and rotated.
Best feature: I could see a red Eames rocker was perfect for the seating area of our kitchen, but the color needed to be orange, and the black stand of a Crate and Barrel lamp was too heavy.
Bottom line: Money saved, but I guess that's not really the purpose at all.
Jody Brettkelly is an Oakland freelance writer. E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com.


text:
In the global marketplace, one size does not fit all. That is especially true for today's vibrant, diverse, and competitive startup ecosystem. Oracle is reimagining enterprise and startup relationships through true partnerships that foster collaboration and codevelopment while inspiring global innovation.
Oracle's mission is to build a thriving global startup community to drive the digital economy based on collaborative partnerships that enable next-generation growth, business development, and drive cloud-based innovation for startups throughout all stages of growth. The Oracle Global Startup Ecosystem works with startups at various stages, from founders in university-affiliated incubators to early stage to scaleups.
Each startup is unique, and this program is tailor-made to get you up and running in a short period of time. Program elements include:
Applications are open year-round on a rolling selection basis. Go here to apply: oracle.com/startup/apply.html


text:
Spotlight On...
In the event of an emergency or if there is important information that we need to convey to our residents or businesses, we want you to stay connected with the City of Malden. Sign up for our Emergency Alerts and never miss important information again. No need to fear excessive calls to your phone, on average you will receive an Emergency Alert from us about 15 times per year. Some of the alerts you can expect to receive are:
- Snow Emergency Declarations
- Public Safety Emergencies
- Severe Weather Alerts
- Seasonal Parking Restriction Changes
- Water Service Alerts


text:
Gateshead Council
Site Search
Welcome to Gateshead Libraries!
Please note, you do not need to log-in or register with our website to view our content or catalogue, or to renew or reserve books.
To reserve or renew your books, download eBooks, eAudio, and eMagazines or to access some of the content in our eLibrary, you will need your library ticket number and four digit PIN. Your PIN is available from your local library. For security reasons PINs are not issued over the telephone.
Please note that CDs and DVDs may not be reserved or renewed online.
The registration and log-in facility below is for staff only
Gateshead Central LibraryPrince Consort Road, Gateshead, NE8 4LNTel: 0191 433 8410
© Gateshead Council 2011 | Terms | Privacy & Cookies : Find out More| Site Map


text:
Avoid at All Costs. They Bad Mouth Other CEO's and Provide No Value.
Fund: CincyTech
Posted by Anonymous on 2011-05-23
PRIVATE: Members Only (1623 Characters)
Feedback: Members Only - Sign-up
TheFunded.com is an online community of over 20,000 CEOs, Founders and entrepreneurs to discuss fundraising, rate and review angel investors and venture capitalists, and discuss strategies to grow a startup business. Enjoy the site, and be sure to join us at our Founder Showcase events to meet the community.Sign-up for Membership


text:
I've been referred to as an agent of change quite a number of times in my professional career. Not just since I moved into online marketing, but long before, when I worked in broadcast media. Much as broadcast was a very fast-moving medium, it never seemed to change direction much. You had to wait for major innovation such as cable and satellite and digital to see real change being effected.
I came online with my first internet consultancy business way back in 1995. It suited me well, although it was way ahead of its time, because, taking clients online involved a huge amount of change. Change in technology, change in culture, change in relationships.
Some people easily accept change and some people simply don't want to. If you've read the book "Who Moved My Cheese" (where the headline to this blog post is taken from) you'll know exactly what I mean.
So, having been responsible for helping to effect change with my clients for almost fifteen years online and ten off, it's time for my own big change. And that's why, seemingly out of the blue, you find me making my first of many posts to come here at Search Engine Watch.
I'm extraordinarily proud to be making a major move from the agency world to the world of publishing and events by joining Incisive Media's interactive division.
I've long been associated with its three online-powerhouse brands, Search Engine Watch, ClickZ and the global conference and expo series Search Engine Strategies. As a long-standing contributor as both writer and speaker, I'm delighted to have been offered an executive position working with this hugely talented team.
And the timing is perfect. As I gaze into my crystal ball I see change, change, change in the online marketing world. No more so than in the field of search marketing. As one surge of technology that got the industry off the ground gives way to the next, change is inevitable. It is perhaps the most exciting period in search to date.
And as the industry changes, we'll change with it, covering new developments in business and technology. As will ClickZ and Search Engine Strategies. We'll look different with a new coat of paint, start to sound different, and strengthen our thought leadership in the industry.
But wait… Before I hear the gnashing of teeth from those who don't feel comfortable with change and like things just the way they are, nothing's going to happen overnight. This is subtle and gradual change, so all your usual goodies and faves are going to be exactly where you expect them to be.
But as I work with my colleagues Matt McGowan, Stewart Quealy, Anna Maria Virzi and Kevin Newcomb (names most readers and conference goers will be familiar with), we'll be spearheading new initiatives and developing the most timely and relevant content as the industry races ahead.
And for me, it's a feet-first exercise as I jump on board just as the largest search marketing extravaganza on the planet is about to begin. This annual San Jose event is the biggest and brightest of its kind on the West Coast, and is always a highlight in the marketing conference calendar.
As literally thousands of industry folk converge under the glorious California sunshine, we'll be presenting the usual vast array of tracks, sessions, speakers and topics. If it's happening in search, you can bet we'll be talking about it next week.
And I, for one, will surely be talking to as many people as I can. Search Engine Watch is the granddaddy of SEO/SEM newsletter/blogs, Search Engine Strategies is the longest running event of its kind,and ClickZ is royalty in the online marketing space. So what would you like to see change, or hang dearly to your bosom and never let go for that matter?
I'm pumped up and raring to go. And totally thrilled to be part of future new developments with the Incisive Interactive crew.
SES next week – be there!
Related reading
The middle ground for single keyword ad groups (SKAGs)
SKAGs is the practice of placing single keywords in an ad group. With Google's user intent evolution, is it still worth it?
Five ways blockchain will impact search marketing
Five major ways blockchain will impact search marketing, and how advertising professionals are already beginning to master this disruptive technology.
New visual search innovations tap human emotions and biological buying triggers
Shopping on social media channels is spreading quickly as the next big thing. The rise of visual search is powered by people's desire to discover brands.
Kenshoo Trends Report – The state of search advertising in 2019
The search industry's interest goes beyond Google, Apple Search Ads' on the rise. Kenshoo reveals insights and key stats on social and search advertising.


text:
Book chronicles how the Gov 2.0 movement is slowly becoming a reality
We've known for years how social media and Web 2.0 have been transforming the way political campaigns are run, the way we interact with big institutions, the way news is reported and distributed — indeed, practically all facets of modern society. So it comes as no surprise that social technologies are slowly transforming the way government works.
What is surprising is that editors Daniel Lathrop and Laurel Ruma and O'Reilly Media have managed to make a potentially wonky topic like Government 2.0 accessible, fresh and actually interesting. Open Government: Collaboration, Transparency, and Participation in Practice is a big (432 pages), beautiful book, from the gorgeous, sumptuous cover to the breadth of ideas and angles inside. In its collection of 34 essays written by thought leaders and practitioners in government reform, the book offers dozens of examples of a new approach to government: open, democratic, distributed, bottom-up, shareable, data-driven and focused on making "we the people" a reality again.
Tim O'Reilly, CEO of O'Reilly Media — the best computer book publisher in the world — carried the same message in a webcast today that proved so popular my browser crashed four times. O'Reilly has been at the forefront of the open government movement and contributes the key second chapter, "Government as Platform." O'Reilly Media co-produces the Gov 2.0 Expo, coming May 25-27, and Gov 2.0 Summit on Sept. 9-10, both in Washington, D.C.
In today's "The Power of Platforms" webcast, O'Reilly touched on Apple's iTunes Store, saying that Apple programmers had written only 15-20 apps for the launch of the iPhone but by opening up the platform (relatively speaking) to third-party developers, there are upwards of 200,000 apps in the store. "That's the magic of the platform," he said. He said governments need to take a similar approach, creating emergent platforms "instead of building finished solutions."
O'Reilly cited a number of great examples (and the live chat contributed a few), ranging from Ushahidi in Haiti to the U.S. State Department on Twitter to the local businesses in Hawaii that decided to fix a key road themselves instead of waiting two years for government contractors. (I had already included a few of these examples in my upcoming Mobilize Your Cause Bootcamp at Personal Democracy Forum on June 2.) The webcast should be live soon — it's worth a look Continue reading