Target audience?

While doing some very serious online research prompted by Anne's post about tupperware, I came upon this:

The
Gladware
Interlocker
Game

How much do you think Glad paid the makers of Bejeweled to produce this little gem? When it comes out of beta I would suggest less obnoxious music.

Also, isn't it just like humans to create such a boundless invention as the internet and then fill it with crap like a tupperware game?

The story

Tonight while noodling my way through St. Paul to avoid the now ever-present traffic on 280, I heard a really interesting show on MPR. It's called The Story, and features lengthy interviews with regular folks.

Yup, that's it. Regular folks...telling their stories. According to its website, the show tries to get at major topics of the day--like Iraq, health care, and politics--by letting individual soldiers, doctors, and voters talk about their lives. They intentionally do not interview think tank people, market analysts, or politicians.

While listening to a woman named Nancy talk about growing up in the family business, I realized how truly disenchanted I am with mainstream news. Perhaps finally disenchanted enough to seek out alternatives. I just feel like there is a gaping hole--so much beneath the surface of every issue that doesn't come out in most news coverage. I finally understand why my dad has turned to current event blogs and cannot fathom why I still rely mostly on newspapers. But I find those blogs are often full of even less-informed punditry than the mainstream media stories. A recent FutureTense story got me thinking that citizen journalism may meet my needs more. The brief story highlighted how actively citizen journalists are covering the bridge collapse, and it rang very true. I had already turned to citizen journalists to fill in the gaps in news coverage--by searching youtube videos and reading personal blogs.

Seeking out more individual stories/citizen journalism could help with one of my main beefs about mainstream media. Most news outlets are under such pressure to get stories out quickly, those stories end up developing on air or in print. So the facts seem to change from moment to moment, making the final version much less credible. Citizen journalism and individual stories seem like better ways to fill the need for immediate information. Since they're obviously and intentionally subjective, they don't need revision like factual news stories. People's own experiences and initial interpretations will still be valid regardless of the facts uncovered later.

So (long-winded, wandering) story short: I obviously need newspapers for the basic facts, but I think I'll try out this world of citizen journalism and individual stories to see if it fills the gaping hole left by mainstream media--particularly while waiting for regular news outlets to get their stories straight after major events.

Speaking of new frontiers

For all you omnivores and connectors out there, here's an interesting news story. Since one of these links will inevitably break, here are a few more: MPR, CNNMoney, and TechLawBlog. I don't know quite what I think about all this yet (especially because I don't use internet on my cell phone), but the Google rep on MPR-Marketplace was pretty convincing.

It is fascinating to watch government regulators react to the rapidly changing technology landscape. We seem to get these whiplash like swings between protecting semi-monopolies and then breaking them. Given the speed of technological development, and the network effect inherent to the tech market, I find the protectionist arguments offered by the cell providers hard to swallow.
_________________________________________________________________
FYI: since the original post, the FCC issued new rules that appear to be a compromise between the Google/openess folks and the Cell phone industry folks.

State Fair fun

Tonight on Fresh Air, Terri Gross interviewed Frank Owen, the author of a new book on meth. I find meth fascinating (and not just because of the fabulous “Life….Or Meth” billboard on Snelling). I only caught part of the segment, so I did not get my most burning question answered: it seems like there was a huge meth craze in the mid-80s, a relatively long lull, and then another big craze starting in the late 90s-early 00s. Just what happened in between? Am I imagining the lull?

However, Mr. Owen did share an interesting tidbit that may be related to my question. Apparently the meth of yesteryear (which year exactly is unclear despite some half-hearted internet searches) was produced from phenyl-2-propanone (P2P). This complicated process required sophisticated lab equipment and a certain amount of expertise. Since moderately ineffective government intervention is the cornerstone of any good drug story, the federal government launched a successful ban of P2P, prompting the endlessly creative illicit drug manufacturers to change tactics—devising a much more potent form of meth made from everyday medicines in simple home laboratories.

So how does this relate to the Great Minnesota Get-Together? Why, because it is home to the meth information booth of course. Sponsored by county attorneys, the meth booth provides loads of information about meth addiction and the illegal meth trade. There are even former addicts roaming around to answer your own burning questions. I dragged a few friends there last year, but they refused to go inside. Their loss, because it was truly fascinating. Especially when a former addict explained to me the variations of meth you can find in different parts of the state.

Long story short, I plan to read Mr. Owen’s book and report back on what I learn. But in the meantime, visit the meth booth at the State Fair. It’s right next to the sweet corn--you can’t miss it.

(photo courtesy of MN County Attorneys Association)

New frontier?

Last night I received a spam text message. Apparently some stock (PBHX?) is about "to go through the!"

I'm assuming "roof" was accidentally omitted. The message indicated it came from AOL, but the specific sender was identified only by a series of digits that do not comprise a full phone number.

This seems like an inefficient way to get the word out about a favored stock. Is text messaging the new frontier for spam? Is this a common occurrence?

Elevator trauma and other stories

Riding the elevator is the most traumatic part of my job for two reasons:

First, while most of the budget folks work with agencies safely ensconced in other buildings, my agencies are largely housed in our same building. This means I cannot park my car, ride the elevator, or go to the cafeteria without awkward conversations. If I decide to wear jeans on Friday? Of course I run into commissioners from my agencies. But the elevator encounters are definitely the worst--because there is no escape.

Second, our building is full of stalkerish creepy guys who enjoy the twenty-something budget ladies. And they seem to spend a lot of time in the elevators. Case in point: we were enjoying a rare lunch in the first floor cafeteria, when one of the ladies spotted a creepy stranger from another agency who had struck up an elevator conversation with her a few weeks prior.

Creepy stranger: Hi, how are you doing?

Budget lady: Uh, fine.

Stranger: So, how do you like working here?

Budget lady, wondering how he knows where "here" is: Uh, fine. How do you like it?

Stranger: Well, I like it okay but I've been here six years already. You've only been here about two years, right?

Budget lady, now thoroughly creeped out: Yup.

Stranger: That must mean you're leaving soon--the young women around here usually leave after a year or two.

Budget lady: Oh, look, there's my floor.

A few days later they shared another awkward elevator conversation, at which time she pointedly brought up her long-term boyfriend. Almost that same day, I had the following exchange in the elevator:

Creepy stranger: Hi, did you get Lasik surgery?

Me: Uh, no. I'm just wearing contacts.

What I really wanted to say was, "So YOU must be the creepy guy that tracks our movements!" But since his name badge indicated he works for one of my agencies, alas, I did not.

In related news, overly friendly IT guy stopped me in the hall today to say, "Curly! I like it!" in reference to my new hairdo. It was uncomfortable, and I'm pretty sure I heard two other budget ladies snickering about it in a nearby cube afterward.

Picking a horse

On Saturday, Maggie and Rachel showed me how to bet on the ponies at Canterbury. This was especially kind of Rach after she endured a day-long tour of the entire operations of the state agency that regulates horse racing. Seriously, ask me anything about regulating a racetrack--I have now seen it all.

While playing the ponies was fun and exciting, it got me thinking about the more daunting work of picking a candidate for president. While I am still smarting from the last few times state and federal Dems chose candidates (um, can you say Mike Hatch and John Kerry?), I am cheered greatly by the fact that I don't hate any of the current front-runners for president. But I am struggling to chose a favorite among them. Here's where I am right now--any thoughts on the matter are most welcome.

Johnny Boy - As most of you know, I threw in with this guy early on last time and still do not regret it. While reading his billionth quote about"Two Americas" in the paper last week it hit me--his antipoverty stance must be totally sincere. Last time around an antipoverty platform helped catapult him to success (with some help from nice eyes, great hair, and a drawl). This year it is barely making headlines. If it wasn't sincere I think he would have changed tactics long ago. It's really too bad no one gets jazzed up about alleviating poverty, and there's the whole being a millionaire lawyer problem. But I can't help it, I still like the guy--and his politics. I can also tell you from personal experience that those caucus-going Iowans love good ol' Johnny Boy like he was their long-lost grandson.

Ms. Rodham - I just have such mixed feelings about her. On the one hand she is the only front-runner with enough experience to really understand Washington. But this doesn't seem to help her get much done. I think she's a really smart lady, and am not ashamed to admit I'd vote for her solely because she is a woman (and it doesn't hurt that she's married to Billy). But I can't help feeling like she is the John Kerry of 2008--and given how much I thought he sucked as a candidate that comparison is really bringing her down in my book.

BaRock! - I like that he's one smart dude, and the most Clintonesque well-spoken. Bonus points for being (somewhat) midwestern. I know they're all lawyers, but his particular focus on civil rights and constitutional law would be a good mix for a president. I'm marking him down on electability, though, because I think he is the Edwards of 2008. Even if he is qualified to be president, people will think he isn't and choose the "experienced" candidate who so totally lacks pizazz to the point where all a Republican has to do to win is walk upright unassisted.

So, there you have it. These early thoughts are obviously based on broad generalizations about the candidates--which would normally be enough to weed out a few folks this early in the race. But perhaps that won't work this year, and a closer look at policy positions is required. Too bad folks who run for national office typically avoid policy positions.