The hilarity of politics.

A lot of people ask me "Why do you watch politics?", "Why do you watch that stuff?", "What do you get out of watching those liars?", etc, etc.... Well, other then you know, knowing what's going on and being informed on what the "liars" are doing. I like to be able to have an intelligent conversation when I come across an intelligent person. That's not saying that people that don't watch politics aren't intelligent, that is saying they're uninformed. I suppose there's nothing wrong with being blissfully unaware, it's just not something I like to be. I like to see the train before it hits me, maybe I can even get off the tracks. But that's not what this post is about, no this isn't about that. This is about some of the funny levity that comes up when watching some pundits, todays example, Chris Matthews...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/vp/35881265%2335881265

Now let me show the key portion that actually made me laugh....

"(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, “FOX NEWS SUNDAY”)

ROBERT GIBBS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Whoever sits here this time next week, you all will be talking about health care reform not as a presidential proposal, but as something that will soon be the law of the land.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEWS: You know what? I thought Axelrod was better than the president this weekend. That will get him in trouble, but he really was. He was a mensch. He was human—human. I‘m from Philly. And he really seemed to make the case.

You don‘t think you have lost the moral high ground here? How would you like to be a person who says, I don‘t want working people to have health care; I want them to just take their chances in the emergency room; to hell with those people; if they can‘t pay, live with it?

(CROSSTALK)

HARRIS: You sound like Alan Grayson. I don‘t know of a single Republican who says anything remotely close to that.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Maybe that‘s a crude way of putting it.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: What is your position...

(CROSSTALK)

MCMAHON: No.

(CROSSTALK)

HARRIS: Look, our position...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: The 30 million people without health care, what are you saying to those people? Forget it?

HARRIS: Our position is that there a lot of things that both parties can agree on, and we ought to start by passing those.

MATTHEWS: OK.

HARRIS: Both parties get to claim...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: There‘s one thing you don‘t agree on.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: This party wants to insure the 30 million people that don‘t have health care, and you don‘t.

HARRIS: No, no, no, no. What we don‘t agree is on a 2,300-page, trillion-dollar bill that‘s not going to solve the health care crisis in this country.

MATTHEWS: How long was the Social Security bill?

HARRIS: I have no idea how long...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Neither do I. Why are we talking about this number?

(LAUGHTER)

MATTHEWS: Anyway, thank you, Steve McMahon.

Thank you, Todd Harris.

(LAUGHTER)

MATTHEWS: How long was the bill that took us to the war in Iraq? I don‘t know. It doesn‘t matter. We went to war. "

He totally nailed it, talking about the number of pages is kinda stupid, complaining about the content is debatable, pointing out sections, making a valid point, I can go along with that. I'm even willing to debate a point and listen to the other sides argument. But yeah, talking about somethings too long to read when that's... kinda your job, that's funny.

A business model for Twitter: Pay up | Outside the Lines - CNET News.com

I'm a Twitter user and i think it's a pretty neat service so i read the following Cnet article by Dan Farber .

A business model for Twitter: Pay up | Outside the Lines - CNET News.com

 

I like a lot of the things Mr. Farber says in a lot of his articles, but the monetization pholosophy that so many people try to insert into web culture prompter me to post a reply.  I'll post my reply in full right here:

by Trapfnder May 16, 2008 2:56 PM

 

Interesting Web 2.0 philosophizing in the article, "Hey, pay for it", here's the problem I find with this argument. Everyone likes free, some people like subscriptions, most people wouldn't mind paying, and noone likes being ripped off. Twitter serves a basic function that's fast but doesn't offer anything "new" persay; it's a modded InstantMessenger with a public directory. I already use 6 Instant messengers, I like Twitter, but contrary to what the technorati wants everyone to believe, Twitter is a dirty, fun pleasure,not an addiction. Jaiku and Pownce both offer cool stuff that Twitter doesn't but Twitters easy and fun. People like to monetize everything and yeah its the capitalist way but the old bait and switch is nothing new. If you want to monetize something then start it off as a paid service. What's wrong with that? Using the public for a testing ground then saying "Well, people like it, though we started it free, time to make them pay but only because it's popular" rarely works. You'll get some hangers-in, but for the most part the rest of us will migrate elsewhere. Sure, that thinking sucks, but that's the way it is, sucks or not.

 

Instead of most pundits who gripe about how people don't like to pay, I submit that people are just tired of paying 2 or 3 times for things so they look for alternatives. As a consumer I pay for a movie, jacked up snacks, then I'm subjected to commercials (not movie trailers) actual TV adds which are supposed to subsidize free content like um... network TV shows?!? But that's ok somehow, I pay for content and then an advertiser gets to freely STEAL my time and I don't care that it's 30 seconds it's MY 30 seconds. If I did that at work it wouldn't be acceptable, so why is the consumers time acceptable to steal? The music industry seems to think charging me multiple times for the same item in different formats is great, so why shouldn't my food at home follow the same premise? I buy hamburger meat but I decide to make a casserole, that's another charge, or meatloaf, which is another charge, yeah, that's about as much sense as the record industries argument makes. The movie studios aren't any better when it comes to DVDs. Now, i admit I go along with the premise that, there's a certain amount of money involved in the production of mass market DVDs. I like the packaging and i usually only buy the "Special Edition" because i like watching the behind the scenes stuff after I enjoy a film. That said, what's the deal with me downloading movies for about the same cost as a DVD and having it "delivered digitally"? DVDs cost money, albeit, nowhere near the amount they gouge me for, and I'm usually willing to pay. Are you trying to tell me that it's perfectly to charge me the same premium on a product that requires no ink, no plastic, no stamping process, oh and a lot of the times, no extras??? Are you kidding me?

 

But that's capitalism, that's what people will say. Other people will say.. "Well, what can you do?" What can i do? I can refuse not to pay, I can look for free and cheaper alternatives, and that's what happens with these Web 2.0 plans. The consumer is just tired of being scammed. There seems to be some double standard where consumers are wrong because they find something offered for free then they argue when it's monetized. There are plenty of reasons why alot of business models can not be applied to certain things. Twitters simplicity and it being free is its success, it's that simple, take away one or the other and people get bored and frustrate and move on. I summarize my argument with this: If you went home and enjoyed sex with your wife/girlfriend for free and you found value in it and then one day she decided to monetize and charge you for services @ $5 a pop would you do it? Or like so many other services in life would you look for the free alternative? (Maybe I should have written my own article... eep...)

 

Maybe you agree, maybe you don't, but feel free to comment.