In an editorial titled "Leading with His Lip," the LAT, a resolutely Democratic editorial page, gets tough on Howard Dean.
Howard Dean has become the Russell Crowe of the Democratic Party. But unlike Crowe, who has been profusely apologizing for beaning a hotel concierge with a telephone in a fit of bad temper, Dean shows no signs of contrition for the intemperate rhetorical blasts that he sent flying in the direction of the GOP last week.
Dean presents a conundrum for embattled Democrats, who have lost control of the White House and Congress. There are two ways for them to think about him. One is that he's a reckless, emotional politician whose fiery remarks will stir up debate and help the Democratic Party. The other is that he's a reckless, emotional politician whose name-calling cheapens the national debate on issues and hurts his own party.
Judging by Dean's preposterous comments about all Republicans being rich and idle, and mostly white Christians to boot, the latter is inescapably the case. You can't be a good salesman if you spend your time insulting prospective customers, in this case people who haven't been voting Democratic.
Ah, the good old days of Ron Brown.
Posted by Virginia Postrel on June 13, 2005 • Comments
The Army has missed its recruiting goals for four straight months--hardly surprising since a) alternative jobs have gotten more plentiful b) the downside of Army service--not just danger but separation from family--has gotten worse and c) compensation hasn't significantly changed. The drop in recruits isn't a crisis. It's a normal market reaction. And the military's response, like a private employer's, should be to beef up compensation and, if possible, widen the pool of qualified potential employees. Today's WaPost article on the subject suggests that the Army wants to do just that:
Projecting even bigger problems next year, the Army is preparing to ask Congress to approve higher incentives and legal changes to broaden the pool of candidates. The Army has leveraged incentives "right to the legislative limits in every category," Rochelle said. Proposals under consideration in the Pentagon include doubling the maximum enlistment bonus to $40,000 for troops in high-demand jobs such as intelligence, infantry, special operations and civil affairs, as well as linguists, Rochelle said.
Another proposal would raise the age limit for active-duty Army recruits from 35 to 40. The Army raised that limit for its reserve elements in March, but increasing it for the active-duty force requires congressional approval. Rochelle said the change would bring in soldiers with greater experience and maturity, while making little difference in terms of physical abilities -- saying that today's 40-year-olds are in better physical shape than they were when the law was written.
Sounds good to me. Unfortunately, too many supposed doves are salivating for a draft, which makes neither economic nor strategic sense. The only way they'll get one is to make volunteer service as unattractive as possible.
Posted by Virginia Postrel on June 13, 2005 • Comments
Reader Roger Thompson calls my attention to this funny take on too much choice, from cartoonist and interaction designer Kevin Cheng, who also has some interesting thoughts on designers' responsibility for limiting choices.
Lots of choice accommodates pluralism. As I wrote in my Reason article
Since different people care intensely about different things, only a society where choice is abundant everywhere can truly accommodate the variety of human beings. Abundant choice doesn't force us to look for the absolute best of everything. It allows us to find the extremes in those things we really care about, whether that means great coffee, jeans cut wide across the hips, or a spouse who shares your zeal for mountaineering, Zen meditation, and science fiction.
The challenge--to designers, marketers, entrepreneurs, and anyone else who offers choices--is to preserve the benefits of choice without forcing each of us to navigate an overwhelming number of choices.
Shortly after the Reason article went to press, I read this report (.pdf file) on a survey by the marketing firm WSL Strategic Retail. Respondents classified product categories like cereal, shampoo, or jeans into four groups: "Lots of choice organized in store so I can find what I want," "Lots of choice but organized in store to make it hard to find what I want," "Too Little/ Few choices," or "I always buy the same product so choice is not important." The results confirm many of my arguments, noting that "Shoppers want abundant selection, and most have figured out how to navigate the shelves to make the right choice." But the survey also points out that not every product category is equally easy to navigate. There's plenty of room for improvement in merchandising and (presumably) design. Among the most confusing offenders: jeans and cell phone plans, two frequent targets not only of anti-choice social critics but of overwhelmed consumers.
Posted by Virginia Postrel on June 10, 2005 • Comments
Todd Seavey explains s.f. fans' need for midrash.
Posted by Virginia Postrel on June 10, 2005 • Comments
In response to the post below on how service providers stifle mobile-phone innovation, reader Michael Radanovich writes:
As someone involved in antenna design for cellphones, I see firsthand the network operators' stultifying effect on handset design. In particular, the greatest obstacle to further progress minaturizing phones is the continued need to support the original 800 MHz band. (Maybe the WSJ article covers this...it is a pay site so I can't see.) I've seen pendant designs, wristwatch designs, and Zippo-sized flip-opens die because it is impossible for antennas to operate well at 800 MHz. Lower frequency means longer wavelengths...remember how long those 33 MHz CB antennas were? No way around it.
New entrants to the market are particularly prone to getting whacked: sensing the demand for a smaller handset, they come to us, only to later discover that they can't meet network operators' RF specs in their oh-so-cool form factor, after wasting both their & our engineering resources (miniature antenna design is a laborious and inexact art; you don't know exactly how much you can squeeze the size down until you try).
If the operators would permit PCS-only phones (1900 MHz), consumers would flock to their heretofore unattainably small sizes (starting with people who have to wear formal/business attire often). The market pressure to convert the lower frequency networks would be tremendous. (Sprint is PCS-only, but the CDMA protocol they use presents different barriers to minaturization...the effect of the two opposing forces is that they about hold even with the GSM phones.)
As it is now, handset makers compete by piling on cameras, smartphone features, etc. into a form factor that hasn't really shrunk in years. Granted, it's nothing like the the old Ma Bell days...thank God for that.
On a semi-related note, I use Sprint PCS and often find myself without service while people all around me are yacking on their cell phones. Should I switch? And, of so, to what network?
UPDATE: I switched to t-Mobile. Thanks to everyone who wrote in with advice.
Posted by Virginia Postrel on June 08, 2005 • Comments
When I visited the dentist yesterday, they gave me a new incentive to keep up my regular checkups (as though all the dental work I suffered through after not having regular checkups weren't enough): free whitening for life. This approach suggests a whole new approach to promoting preventive health checks. Since their behavior suggests that most people care more about their immediate appearance than their long-term health, maybe doctors should offer discounts on Botox (or Viagra?) to get patients into the exam room.
Posted by Virginia Postrel on June 08, 2005 • Comments
Or would that violate Vermont law?
Posted by Virginia Postrel on June 08, 2005 • Comments
On this blog, I've often opined on the enduring problem of sugar protectionism, which drives sugar-using businesses out of the United States and stifles growth in developing countries that produce sugar far more economically than American farmers. Beet farmers and cane growers have tremendous political clout, even greater than environmentalists, Coca-Cola, and Hershey (not to mention free-trade advocates or consumers, who count for almost nothing in Washington).
Recent reports in the WaPost and NYT, however, suggest that maybe, just maybe the sugar lobby has overstretched. Here's the Post account, which focuses on beet farmers--the sugar lobby's secret weapon, or so I'm told by someone who unsuccessfully took them on some years ago.
"We should not allow the very tiny minority of U.S. agriculture that believes it will be negatively impacted to derail this agreement," said Rep. Wally Herger (R-Calif.) at a House Ways and Means Committee hearing last month, noting that farmers in his district who produce rice, almonds, walnuts and other crops have enthusiastically backed CAFTA, which they feel offers important new export opportunities.
The specter of CAFTA collapsing over sugar is particularly galling to economists who have long criticized federal restrictions on sugar imports. "Sugar is a prototypical case of a policy that favors the few at the expense of the many," wrote Kimberly A. Elliott, a research fellow at the Center for Global Development, in an analysis last month....
To critics, that's an argument against the U.S. sugar program. "It's true that beet farmers don't make much money, but that's because it's inefficient to produce sugar from beets -- the rule of thumb is that it's about twice as costly as cane," said Donald Mitchell, a World Bank economist.
According to a study Mitchell authored, eliminating the distortions created by government policies in the United States, Europe and elsewhere could create 1 million jobs in developing countries that are more efficient sugar producers. And American consumers would benefit; workers in sugar-using industries might benefit, too.
The Times report emphasizes "big sugar," ignoring the beat farmers. Here's the opening:
At the Ferrara Pan Candy Company, confectioners of everything from gummy bears to red hots, rail cars used to deliver three million pounds of sugar a week to its bustling plant just outside America's candy capital here.
Today, the trains bring only half as much, barely enough to fill the factory's 65-foot sugar silos. That is largely because Ferrara, in an effort to avoid the high cost of government-protected American sugar, has been moving some of its century-old operations to Canada and Mexico.
The reason for this decade-long shift can be traced to global economics and the domestic sugar industry, which is fast being branded as a spoiler nationally and internationally. "Big Sugar" is in trouble not only here in Chicago, where it is losing some of its customers, but also in Washington, where it is losing some of its longtime political allies.
Rightly or wrongly, the sugar industry is being blamed for an assortment of evils: undercutting the American food industries that rely on sugar, fighting global diet guidelines that aim to improve children's health and curb obesity, and, most recently, for hurting the chance for passage of the Bush administration's top trade priority, the Central American Free Trade Agreement, known as Cafta.
"More and more people have begun to realize that this is an indefensible program from a trade policy standpoint," said Clayton K. Yeutter, a former United States trade representative and agriculture secretary, who is now senior adviser to the Food Trade Alliance, which represents companies in food processing, retailing and restaurants that are lobbying in favor of the agreement. "Beneath the surface one can sense that the house of cards has begun to shake a bit."
From your mouth to God's ears, Mr. Yeutter.
BTW, if you follow the links to my earlier discussions, you'll need to scroll down the page to find the entries. To keep the number of files manageable, my older archives don't break out separate posts.
Posted by Virginia Postrel on June 08, 2005 • Comments
For reasons I'll explain at a later date, I'm looking for good examples of breakthrough innovations in 2004 or 2005. (They could have been invented, tested, or marketed in this period.) These should be applied inventions, not theories, but they don't have to be fully developed products. Some recent breakthroughs are obvious--most notably Burt Rutan's SpaceShip One--but not every important innovation gets international press. I'm hoping readers can help me find some overlooked gems. Email me with your ideas, vp-at-dynamist.com. Thanks.
Posted by Virginia Postrel on June 08, 2005 • Comments
Prompted by Canadian reader John Campbell, I've joined Amazon.ca's Associates program, so that Canadian Amazon customers can share Jeff Bezos's wealth with Dynamist.com. Click on the link below (or the Amazon.ca ad to the right) to place any Canadian Amazon orders.
Posted by Virginia Postrel on June 08, 2005 • Comments