The Week That Was: April 28 - May 4

Microsoft eyes Yahoo takeover

Microsoft announced it was in talks to buy internet giant Yahoo. Frustrated with its inability to compete with Google, Microsoft is looking for an acquisition that will keep it relevant on the internet. While the deal is an excellent one for Microsoft, it can only spell disaster for Yahoo. Microsoft's continuing stumbles outside of the operating system and its office suite will overwhelm Yahoo's properties and propel Google further. The move smells of desperation, which is never a good way to make business decisions.

Digging its own grave

News site Digg was overwhelmed by DRM opponents posting the latest discovery on how to break copy-protected HD-DVDs. Digg received a cease-and-desist order from the HD-DVD consortium, which it tried to comply with. Digg's audience overwhelmed the company's ability to remove posts until it finally gave up. The incident showcases why user-controlled news sites are unreliable. Digg users weren't interested in news, just stealing content. Newsflash: despite being repeated ad nauseum, information doesn't "want" to be free. People (and companies) who create intellectual property have the right to license just the uses they feel like licensing. Spending $20 on a movie doesn't mean you can do anything you want with it. While some of the DRM systems out there impose draconian conditions on their use, and the RIAA has apparently gone lawsuit happy, that doesn't make this right either.

Bush vetoes war funding bill

Just as he promised, President Bush vetoed the war spending bill that Democrats tied into withdrawal terms. Congress and the President will go head to head until the war is funded. However, Democrats in Congress are losing credibility by the minute as they try to micro manage the war. Speaker Nancy Pelosi blew off war briefings this week, claiming she didn't have time for them. If you're going to make decisions about the war, you need to know what's actually going on.

Imus not finished yet

Embattled radio personality Don Imus is striking back with a lawsuit against CBS. Suing for breach of contract, CBS has encouraged Imus to push the line in the past and therefore can't then fire him for doing what they expected. Past the lawsuit, Imus is expected to take the summer off and return to the airwaves, either on broadcast or satellite, before too long.

And that was the week that was.

The Greener Apple

Much ado is being made about Steve Jobs' message about Apple's environmental policies, but I found the coverage on the Greenpeace site even more interesting. The first thing I noticed is that apparently, Greenpeace can't read.

Steve Jobs used the phrase "So today we're changing our policy." According to the mangled quote on Greenpeace's website, this means Apple is changing it's polluting ways and Greenpeace is more than happy to take credit for forcing this change in policy.

Read the statement.

It doesn't say that Apple is changing it's environmental policy. It says it is changing its policy about not talking about future plans. Steve Jobs then goes on to talk about what Apple has already done. Apple has been green for years, its just that the idiots at Greenpeace weren't aware of it.

Of course, Greenpeace isn't about the environment. They don't care about the environment, they care about power. "Basically, they are using sensation, misinformation and scare tactics." Who said this? Patrick Moore, founder and past president of Greenpeace. Patrick Moore is someone who actually cares about ecology, which is why he left Greenpeace.

"The environmental movement was basically hijacked by political and social activists who came in and very cleverly learned how to use green rhetoric or green language to cloak agendas that actually had more to do anti-corporatism, anti-globalization, anti-business and very little to do with science and ecology," he stated on Penn and Teller's Bullshit.

Greenpeace targeted Apple because it's a high profile, trendy company. Not because there was any real environmental issue there.

The State Of The Newspaper

I am loathe to read all of the reports announcing the death of the newspaper. Granted, I am biased on the issue, having written and edited for several newspapers I have a soft spot for them. On the other hand, I am also guilty of getting most of my news (at least the news I don't get from my own sources) from web sites, albeit most of them are newspaper sites. All that being said, the newspaper world got a boost from two recent events.

Rupert Murdoch made an unsolicited takeover bid for Dow Jones. This sent newspaper stocks climbing as it showed the pundits claimed it showed the value of the newspaper. To a certain extent it does. Dow Jones has a vast library of newspapers, magazines, and web sites, but its crowing glory is the Wall Street Journal. But the value of Dow Jones isn't the form it puts information into, its the information itself. Dow Jones, while best known for financial information, is one of the premier news gathering organizations on the planet. While its business news is legendary, it also covers politics, science and technology, entertainment and more, and does it all phenomenally well. That information has been the center of the newsroom since newspapers began and Dow Jones has kept that at the center of a media empire. That's the value of the newspaper. It isn't the paper itself. It's the news gathering organization behind it.

The importance of the news gathering organization was spotlighted in another story, that of Digg.com. Digg tried to remove stories about HD-DVD and the fact that the Digital Rights Management encryption that keeps you from copying them had been broken. Digg users revolted and for a short while, Digg became HD-DVD news central. The problem is that what was posted wasn't news. The initial story, that the encryption was cracked, was news. After that it just became a group of people using Digg to distribute how to crack the DVDs. This is the problem with user centric "news" sites. There is a difference between what is important and what is popular. Sites like Digg always stick to what is popular, whether it is important or not.

Newspapers , whether in print or online, need to serve as watchdogs. To report the unpopular as well as the popular. As long as the news gathering organizations can adapt to new media, the companies behind them will survive. After all, radio and television were supposed to eliminate newspapers too.

The Key Word Is Illegal, Not Immigration

One year ago today, hundreds of thousands of people marched for the right of illegal immigrants to stay in the United States. One year later, protests are again scheduled to take place but far fewer people are expected to participate.

The atmosphere has changed dramatically in the past year, and not in favor of the illegal immigrants. Deportations are up 20%. Enforcement at the borders is much greater, and as a result fewer people have gotten into the country illegally. Raids have been conducted on factories that employ illegal workers. In short, the crack down on illegal immigrants has already begun, and has been successful.

The idea of the protests is mind boggling. Would anyone support protesters who were claiming that shoplifters had the right to steal? Would anyone support drunk drivers who protested for the right to be on the road while intoxicated? Of course not. So why do people feel that it is fine to break immigration laws with impunity?

One person who is in the country illegally was interviewed in the New York Times. He stated that he and his wife came here illegally because it is too hard to get into the country legally because so many people want to come here. People are literally dying to get into this country. What makes this man think he deserves to get in faster than anyone else? There are people trying to get into the United States who will be killed if they stay in their own country. They should have to stay out so that this man, whose only reason for coming here is to get a better quality of life, can come in?

While it is noble to want to provide a better life for your children, how is living like a criminal setting a good example for them? Everybody wants a better life. But the United States government has an obligation to the people who live here legally. Social services such as unemployment, social security, etc. are stretched as it is. The people who pay into the system deserve to get the benefits of the system. Illegal immigrants put a strain on emergency room care, fire and police departments, emergency medical teams, etc.

People are quick to point out that our country was built by immigrants. They're right, but it was built by immigrants who came here legally, learned English, and became citizens. The key word in this debate isn't immigrant, it's illegal. Come to the country legally and the welcome mat is out. Many illegal immigrants claim that they should be allowed to stay because they are law abiding people. They are not. They broke the law by entering the country illegally and they continue to break the law by staying illegally. Like any crime, they must pay the consequences. Then, they should be able to start over with a clean slate.

The Myth Of Carbon Offsets

"Carbon Offsets" are all the rage, as environmentalists push them as a way to slow global warming. As the poster child for global warming, Al Gore has made a big deal about the carbon offsets he has purchased to make up for the fact that the mansion he lives in uses more energy than many small towns. Essentially, if you don't want to make a sacrifice to reduce your own impact on the environment, you can buy forgiveness in the form of a carbon offset. It's a lot like the system the Catholic Church used, prior to the time of Martin Luther, in which people could buy "indulgences" to offset their sins.

The way these are supposed to work is that the money spent on the offsets is used to fund alternative energy projects to help reduce carbon dioxide. However, recent investigations by the Financial Times and The Center For Investigative Reporting have found that the truth is very different. In the best of circumstances, the projects funded MIGHT have an impact. In most cases, the "funding" is going to projects that were already funded anyway and don't really benefit much from the offset money. That's the best case scenario. The worst case is what the Financial Times found:

The FT investigation found:

• Widespread instances of people and organizations buying worthless credits that do not yield any reductions in carbon emissions.
• Industrial companies profiting from doing very little, or from gaining carbon credits on the basis of efficiency gains from which they have already benefited substantially.
• Brokers providing services of questionable or no value.
• A shortage of verification, making it difficult for buyers to assess the true value of carbon credits.

The truth about carbon offsets are that a few "green" companies are making a fortune. They make the wealthy feel better about themselves without actually having to do anything. As for their impact on the environment, take your deposit bottles back to the store and you've made a bigger impact than the offsets.