Skip to content
thepete.com - » greed thepete.com

TheAdvertising:
:gnisitrevdAehT

Diamonds are for Terror: My Favorite Part About the Yes Men Parody of the New York Times

by ThePete 9:47 pm 2008-11-19

So, you have probably heard of that parody version of the New York Times the infamous Yes Men gave out recently in Times Square (of all places).  Well, they went full tilt and put up a website for it, too: http://www.nytimes-se.com/

If you're not aware, the Yes Men are high-end pranksters that don't just play dumb jokes on people, they play jokes on entire corporations.  Democracy Now's Amy Goodman reported on the Yes Men's NYT parody last week, explaining that "One previous prank had a Yes Men member posing as a Dow Chemical
spokesperson to announce responsibility for the Bhopal chemical
disaster, forcing the company to remind the world it had done anything
but."

Whoops!

Obviously, I dig these guys.  They've got a movie and a book that goes into more detail regarding their activities, so I'll stick to the depressing stuff.

While their humor is pretty much brilliant (and a little dry–they way I like it), one of the sharper jabs I'm sure got missed by most folks checking out the http://www.nytimes-se.com/ was the ad for De Beers diamonds.  This was great–it promised that "Your purchase of a diamond will enable us to donate a prosthetic for an African whose hand was lost in the diamond conflicts.  De Beers. From her fingers to his."

Zowee.  See, what corporations do (this is true of other corps, not just De Beers) is go into 3rd world nations and effectively bribe the governments into letting them take most of a particular resource and most of the profits made from that resource, as well.  The people of the country see little or no change in their standard of living and in the case of the the diamond conflict, were caught in the middle.  Rebels rose up against governments and tried to convince locals to work with them, not the government.  According to Amnesty International, Sierra Leone's Revolutionary United Front's "signature tactic was amputation of civilians: Over the course
of the decade-long war, the rebels have mutilated some 20,000 people,
hacking off their arms, legs, lips, and ears with machetes and axes."

AA also reports: "People had their hands chopped off by RUF units and were sent wandering hopelessly to spread the message of terror."

Weee!  God damn!  Is greed a horrible thing, or what?  Those rebels may have represented the interest of the people in wanting their piece of the diamond pie (like Alaskans get of the Alaskan oil pie) but the RUF and all others in positions of power took things way too far.  You may feel the urge to suggest that De Beers has "got the right to make a living" but can you say that when other people are dying for that living?  Or are being horribly mutilated?

The selling of high end gems taken from mines in countries where poverty is rampant is unfair, cruel and just plain shitty.

When are we going to start talking about greed being reeeeally bad?  When is De Beers going to start talking about making up for their greed?

Well, thanks to the Yes Men, they might just have an opportunity to be guilted into doing it right now.

Don't buy diamonds.  They're pretty, but pricey in more ways than you probably want to consider.

Posted by email from thepete’s posterous

Access Government on Your iPhone for a Price

by ThePete 10:42 pm 2008-09-29
utterli-image
Before I get into this, I just want to say that I believe in the general concept of making money. I also think charging for an app that you’ve put real effort into is fine. However, The Unnofficial Apple Weblog just posted today (here: http://www.tuaw.com/…r-pocket/1 ) about an app that seems so cool and so lame at the same time.

First off, let me tell you about the app. It’s called "Congress+" and it basically rocks. It allows you to find out who your representatives in DC are and gives you their contact info. According to the description, it even looks like you can call or email your reps right from the app. That’s a nice touch.

What’s not a nice touch is that the developer is charging ten bucks for the app.

Most apps are cheaper than that–even really good, useful apps are cheaper than that. Then, the fact that this app allows you to partake in the democratic process more easily bugs me, too. Not that I think people should have to work to take part, but because it should not cost anything to interact easily with your elected representatives in Washington.

I know what some of you are thinking: "But, ThePete, the developer obviously put a lot of effort into the app–why shouldn’t he be justly compensated for his work?"

Well, he should be justly compensated for his work, but not at the people’s expense.

Taking part in democracy should be free no matter what.

If I were him, I’d have gone to the department of the government that is in charge of the information website for the USG. I’d have asked them if they’d be interested in hiring me to write an app like this. If they said no, I’d hound them for a bit. If they still turned me down, I’d go ahead and do the app on my own.

However, I’d consider it a service to my country and charge a dollar. At that price, I wouldn’t look greedy and everyone would be like "yeah, cool–I’ll take it!"

Instead, the developer is charging more than most developers do and seems to be taking advantage of our current economic situation to make even more money. Luckily the developer did respond to other folks criticizing the price in the comments of the TUAW.com post. In a comment outlining how this app is better than a website that would give you the same info, he includes the following line in a comment he left on the TUAW post before I left mine:

"…won’t allow you to email key staffers directly. Often they are more accessible than the standard webform and are tracking what constituents think — like on this $700B bailout."

To me, bringing in the bailout is pretty skeezy stuff.

I exaggerated what he’s doing there in my own comment to the post in order to make a point:

"Hm, seems to me, the developer is using the current situation with our economy to help sell his app–better to charge less in light of the economy and seem a bit less greedy. It’s like he’s saying:

"Ooo, WHAT a mess in Washington!! You should contact your representatives in Washington and let your voice be heard! I’ve got *just* the app for you! $10 please!"

Of course, he could say:

"In light of the current economic crisis, we’ll be giving away our app for free so everyone can have easy access to their representatives in Washington. Once the bailout bill is passed or is down for the count, we’ll go back to the regular price."

That would make the developer look like a prince and inspire a lot of positive reviews to help sell future copies of the app.

Just my 2 yen…"

Yes, I was a bit harsh, but I’m making a point here. As Americans we should be making it easier for each other to get information. Not making money off of exploiting people’s interest in finding an easier way to take part in the process.

When Marc, the second commenter, to the post pointed out that iPhone users could just bookmark http://votesmart.org/ the developer responded with an irksome list of reasons paying $10 for his iPhone app was better than just using one’s iPhone to pull up VoteSmart.org. Here’s the developer’s list with my commentary:

Marc, you could bookmark that site but it

(1) doesn’t give you access when you don’t have an Internet connection

So, that’s like never, right? Maybe us subway riders would find ourselves without the ability to reach info about our representatives from time to time. But I think I can handle waiting until Columbus Circle to grab some Pinkberry and look up Hillary Clinton’s phone number.

(2) doesn’t have correct and updated information all the time (Joe Lieberman’s Chief of Staff recently resigned, many candidates are just plain wrong)

There’s always the USG’s own websites for such info. It may be a bit more work, but $10-worth? Meh…

(3) doesn’t give you iPhone Google map links to the office locations

Which is great because I’m not capable of remembering the addresses and entering them myself.

(4) won’t allow you to email key staffers directly. Often they are more accessible than the standard webform and are tracking what constituents think — like on this $700B bailout.

Once again, it’s not that hard to remember information in the old biodrive mounted in your skull. Of course, if Steve Jobs had many gigs in his own biodrive he’d have Apple implement fricken cut and paste in the damn iPhone, already.

(5) we are launching a $1.99 version that will not provide updates for folks who do not want to spend $10.

Ah, so poor folks get inaccurate info. That’s definitely inline with democracy! Did I say democracy? I meant corporatism.

FYI, the paper version is $17.95 and you only get it for one year (now). We give it to you for $9.99 through 2010.

Ah, so you point out the government sucks but that you suck less? Good advertising ploy. Let me guess, you’re a Republican, aren’t you?

(6) looks like blech on an iPhone.

Hm, this looks OK to me:

Discover Simple, Private Sharing at Drop.io

Sure, any site that doesn’t have a mobile version is going to be a little annoying to deal with, but hey, get a computer, right?

The funny thing about VoteSmart.org is that, if you look in the center toward the bottom of that screencap, you can see that they’ve announced their API. An API allows developers to access the service provided on a website via other websites or other applications. So, odds are, there just might be some competition to the Congress+ app for iPhone soon.

You might want to save your $10 just in case something else comes along that’s a bit cheaper. Since the responsibility to research will be on VoteSmart.org’s plate, all developers will have to do is work on writing the app. That means they’ll be able to charge a heckuva lot less.

Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterlireply-count Replies.

Moron the US Economy–I mean–More On the US Economy

by ThePete 7:10 pm 2008-08-19

I was inspired to write this post by a combination of things. First, my post on that IMF guy saying another of our banks was going to withdraw itself from existence and then a reply to said post on Utterz by Maharet (listen to it here: www.utterz.com/u/utt/u-NTEyNTkzOA#utt-NTEyNTkzOA ).

As I responded to Maharet’s post, I realized something about the complexities of what our country is facing. In fact, I recognized that there are NO complexities to these problems at all.

Sure, the news likes to talk about sub-prime mortgages and greedy lenders and people who can’t pay their loans back and selling off bad loans as investments and blah, blah, blah, but I think it’s much more simple than all of that.

I feel like the strongest, most stable systems are the most simple systems. Our system is not simple.

In a nutshell, though, the problems, themselves do seem very simple. Check it out:

Unending inflation (devaluing of the dollar) combined with unending outsourcing (devaluing of the American worker) equates to an empty country, economically speaking.

Unemployed workers with no money (or money worth very little) to buy with, leaves the United States completely wiped out as any kind of economic power.

It seems to me like that scenario does in our very way of life.

Not that I want this to happen–hell, I don’t even want to be right on this. But to me, I feel like a few failed banks should not crush our economy like they seem to be threatening to. If our economy was strong, and hadn’t given away most of its jobs and much of the value of it’s currency, we’d have, you know, an actual foundation to stand on in case the scaffolding of banking falls on our heads. Since we don’t have a solid foundation of value and labor in our country, when our banks fail, there’s nothing else left.

PLEASE TELL ME I’M WRONG!!

I really want someone to tell me I’m wrong!!!

Just make sure to include clear explanations a child could understand. I went to film school. ^_^

Why Must the RIAA Harm All that is Good?

by ThePete 12:13 pm 2008-08-19
utterz-image
This morning I saw a Twitter post that said simply "Say it ain’t so, Muxtape!"

My heart skipped a beat–Muxtape.com is my favorite site for sharing music. It allows users to upload twelve songs from their computer, then creates a playlist and a URL they can share with there friends. I’ve been dutifully waiting for their iPhone app to arrive but after seeing the above screencap, can we believe we’ll ever see an app or even their website again???

Why must the RIAA be so draconian? I understand protecting copyrights, but I’m not sure how Muxtape makes their money, so I can’t imagine what grounds the RIAA has for threatening the site when all it ends up being is a site that allows users to share mixes of the favorite audio tracks–hell, at http://thepete.muxtape.com/ I have a handful of straight audio clips that aren’t even music.

And is it me, or does behavior like this from big business just make them look bad? What about the folks that actually buy music that they hear for the first time on Muxtape?

Something similar is happening with Pandora.com. Rather than looking at the site as a massive commercial for music, Sound Exchange (the group in charge of collecting royalties for musicians) is now demanding royalties so high from online music sites that the peole behind Pandora are considering shutting down.

Pandora is a site that allows you to create your own custom radio station based on the artist or song name you enter. Essentially, it’s exactly like the process you go through when choosing a traditional radio station–you know, you pick the one the plays mostly music that you like (if you can find one). Pandora.com does this all for you–pretty cool, huh? Except the royalties Pandora.com has to pay, I’ve heard, are twice what traditional radio stations have to pay. I think the excuse is that on the web so many peole can listen to the music.

I’m just going to come out and say it: fuck the free market–it is stifling the growth of music and is cutting off innovation.

The system as it is now creates boring, unrisky, music that doesn’t push art (and therefore humanity) forward. I gave up on traditional radio over a decade ago and have been getting introduced to new music through movie soundtracks and friends who are musicians. Thanks to sites like Pandora and Muxtape, I’m actually listening to new music again. Well, I WAS.

Who thought greed would be a good business model, anyway?

Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterzreply-count Replies.

Nate Ritter: How to Beat Time-Warner Hi-Jacking

by ThePete 12:17 pm 2008-02-29

On Monday, I blogged (here: http://thepete.com/…y-internet ) about how Time-Warner Cable (aka "Road Runner") was hi-jacking (high-jacking?) web searches. Essentially, if you type in an incomplete on incorrect URL each browser is supposed to do what you want in that situation. In the case of Firefox (the only browser I use), I believe, it defaults to using google to make a best guess as to what you were aiming for. T-W recently started usurping this feature and instead funnels you to an advertising-rich page (seen at the above-linked, uh, link). Internet savior Nate Ritter has come up with a solution.

Here’s what he says in a recent post on his site (here: http://blog.perfectspace.com/…erception/ ):

I really hate their page. It honestly sucks.

So, I turned it off. I disabled it.

If you have the same issue and don’t like it, you can disable that setting too. Here’s how. Go to http://ww23.rr.com/prefs.php and choose “Disable” for the option labeled “Web Address Error Redirect Service: This preference allows you to opt in or out of Road Runner’s non-existing domain landing service.” Then click the “Save” button.

I did it and it worked for me. Have a look at the screencap above to see what the page looks like.

Be sure to swing by Nate’s blog if you have a mo’ and any interest in "community, entrepreneurship and business strategy". He’s a great guy–during the San Diego fires last year he live-Twittered the entire experience. I found his Twitterstream infinitely more informative (and engrossing) than the news I would get from CNN or any other mainstream news source. Follow his Twitters here: http://twitter.com/nateritter
Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterz Replies.

Time-Warner Cable Hi-Jacking My Internet

by ThePete 2:05 am 2008-02-25

So, one of the cool geeky things about using Firefox as a browser (as a scifi fan) is that if you want to get to the official website of Doctor Who, you just type in "dr" into the URL field and hit return. Doing that usually sends me right to http://bbc.co.uk/doctorwho

Well, tonight I tried it because I wanted to find out if they had announced the air dates in the UK for the new series of the show only to discover that Road Runner Internet (the official name for Time-Warner Cable) had cut me off at the pass and shoved a bunch of ads in my face instead of giving me what I wanted. See the above screencap to see what I saw.

So, we pay for cable TV and get programming with commercials. We pay for cable broadband and we get Internet… with commercials.

Does anyone else think this might be getting a little out of hand?
Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterz Replies.

UPDATED: thepete.com/nate-ritter-how-to-beat-time-warner-hi-jacking

Is America Getting Copyright/Patent Crazy?

by ThePete 11:33 am 2008-02-22

The above screencap comes from a TUAW.com post (here: http://www.tuaw.com/…ion-cards/ ) on a lawsuit being brought against Apple Inc for violating a patent on "retail point of sale for online merchandising"–aka gift cards you buy in a store and redeem online. This is a seriously absurd idea to me–does someone own a patent on gift cards you buy in a store and use in a store? Does someone own a patent on buying things with a credit card? How can you patent a concept so common and logical that you’d expect that it’s just a natural part of evolving commerce?

A few weeks back, I posted the first part of my vlog series on waiting for my XO laptop to show up (see it here: http://tv.thepete.com/…-day-4-pt1 ). I posted it to Revver who, at first, rejected it because it contained footage of me on hold. What’s that got to do with anything? Well, the hold music was copyrighted. They didn’t want to get sued if the copyright-holder of the crappy music got mad. Of course, my video is a documentary, technically, so the music was part of the event I was documenting–so, it falls under fair-use. Still, it was enough for Revver to be paranoid. After telling them to send any interested lawyers my way, they let the video get posted.

Then, while shooting another Vlog entry just a few weeks later, I wondered if my footage of Hollywood Boulevard would get my vlog entry rejected from Revver because of all the copyrighted logos I was capturing outside the Hillary/Obama debate that night. The vlog post didn’t get rejected and you can see it here: http://tv.thepete.com/…and-barack

Still, it made me think about one of my favorite shows on TV–"Mythbusters" and how every time they have a brand name logo on a T-shirt, bucket or anywhere else, the post-production guys have to blur said logo out.

Then there was the case of the YouTube video that inspired Prince’s lawyers to send a C&D letter because one of his songs played in the background of the video which featured a baby doing something cute.

It’s one thing to protect yourself or your company from a genuine loss of business, revenue or reputation. However, to me, suing because of any of the above examples seems idiotic and greedy. Not EVERY use of copyrighted material or patented processes equates to lost revenue or a ruined reputation.

Remember that time Oprah said she wouldn’t eat hamburgers ever again?

First off, yeah RIGHT.

Second off, she got sued by a bunch of meat industry guys.

So much for free speech, huh?

I mean, I HATE Oprah–her saying she’d never eat a hamburger again made me WANT to eat more burgers!!

Publicity is publicity, guys. Unless you’re some fool who decided patenting a process as basic as selling gift cards you redeem online. That’s just the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Why not patent coupons?

Here’s an idea, let’s patent "the process of displaying logos, products and slogans with the intent to entice monetary transfer in exchange for product or service included in display."

We’ll call it "ADVERTISING!"

Sorry, I tend to be cranky in the mornings.
Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterz Replies.

We Shell Out and Shell Oil Rakes in Huge Profits

by ThePete 1:02 am 2008-02-03

The above screencap comes from: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/…/news.html

Haha, dig that pun in the title for this post!

Anyway, so the article is pretty self-explanatory as is the headline. Just because the price of oil goes up it doesn’t mean their profits should go up as well. In fact, unless they’re hiking up prices even more, their profits should be going *down* not up.

See, what is happening here is that Shell is charging us more for their product–but they’ve increased the price of gasoline at a rate that is not commensurate to the price-increase oil has gone through.

In other words, they’re getting greedy.

One of the theories of the Free Market goes like this:

You can charge as much as you like for your product so long as the market will bear it.

Another way to put this is to say: As long as people are buying, your price isn’t too high.

What the Free-Market-thing doesn’t really take into consideration is that sometimes people will buy something they need even if they can’t afford it.

Housing is a good example. Health care is another. So what happens when you can’t afford to buy those things but you need to anyway? You take out a loan.

We know how that goes. The number one reason people declare bankruptcy these days is because of health care costs. Another popular reason? Housing loans. Perhaps you’ve heard of the recent sub-prime mortgage mess?

So, some of us (even those of us who don’t drive SUVs) are paying in excess of $30-$40 (and even $50) to fill our tanks up. A friend of mine who does drive an SUV pays $350 a month on gasoline. That’s a car payment or in some areas of the country a month’s rent.

So, are we going to start taking out loans just to buy gas? I’m not suggesting that–I bet we’re going to end up sacrificing other things instead. That new suit for work, or the new TiVo or better car insurance, health or life insurance, those nice things you want to buy your family and friends on birthdays, nights out with your significant other–that sort of thing.

There are a lot of "little" things we can all sacrifice so that companies like Shell can keep all that cash coming in.

And we’ll have to sacrifice a lot of them just to keep our cars running. What choice do we have?

Of course, companies like Shell *could* reinvest their profits into diversifying their products. They could spend some of those gobs of cash on alternative fuels–solar, wind or hydro power for cars.

They could quite easily do that–What, you don’t think $28 billion would go a long way to developing other power sources for cars?

What about the profits of the other oil companies? What about car companies? Shouldn’t *all* cars be hybrids or better by now?

We consumers can’t change things like this–only the oil and car companies can.

I guess they’re not just greedy but lazy, too.

Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterz Replies.  mp3

Free Lunch by David Cay Johnston

by ThePete 2:18 pm 2008-01-23

http://www.amazon.com/…1591841917

I just listened to a great interview Bill Moyers did with the author of "Free Lunch", David Cay Johnston (read about it here: http://www.pbs.org/…ofile.html ).

One of my running theories about why things are as screwed up as they are in the world right now is because of our government has been bought up by private interests (forget "special" interests!) and made to do the bidding of corporate America. Johnston has written a book that has stacks of evidence backing this theory up.

Check out the blurb:

How does a strong and growing economy lend itself to job uncertainty, debt, bankruptcy, and economic fear for a vast number of Americans? Free Lunch provides answers to this great economic mystery of our time, revealing how today�s government policies and spending reach deep into the wallets of the many for the benefit of the wealthy few.

Johnston cuts through the official version of events and shows how, under the guise of deregulation, a whole new set of regulations quietly went into effect�regulations that thwart competition, depress wages, and reward misconduct. From how George W. Bush got rich off a tax increase to a $100 million taxpayer gift to Warren Buffett, Johnston puts a face on all of the dirty little tricks that business and government pull. A lot of people appear to be getting free lunches�but of course there�s no such thing as a free lunch, and someone (you, the taxpayer) is picking up the bill.

Johnston�s many revelations include:
� How we ended up with the most expensive yet inefficient health-care system in the world
� How homeowners� title insurance became a costly, deceitful, yet almost invisible oligopoly
� How our government gives hidden subsidies for posh golf courses
� How Paris Hilton�s grandfather schemed to retake the family fortune from a charity for poor children
� How the Yankees and Mets owners will collect more than $1.3 billion in public funds

In these instances and many more, Free Lunch shows how the lobbyists and lawyers representing the most powerful 0.1 percent of Americans manipulated our government at the expense of the other 99.9 percent.

With his extraordinary reporting, vivid stories, and sharp analysis, Johnston reveals the forces that shape our everyday economic lives�and shows us how we can finally make things better.

—–

I need to read this book!

And since I’m talking about books, I might as well link to mine again ^_^:

http://snurl.com/thekeybook
Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterz Replies.

TheBlurb: "How can one talk about life without saying sometime it's going to end? It makes the value of life all the more precious."
updated on 11/01/08 14:45:18 Change it! Archives