Archive for the ‘reflection’ Category
global warming: solved »
Monday, October 5th, 2009
You may think it odd I can make such a claim, solving the prevailing issue of our days. We haven’t met, call me Draynd.
Anyway… For all those with smog-filled dreams, fret not. I have good news. (Of sorts.) Global warming is likely unavoidable but the blow will be softened. By oil.
Well, technically the lack of it. Black gold has turned Econ majors into bumbling morons. Demand has garnered no supply and has failed to produce viable alternatives, as predicted.
Here are a few fun notes:
- Four million barrels per day (BPD) less come out of the ground each year.
- There are no new worthwhile reserves to make that up (much less add to it to meet demand).
- Producing countries are fudging reserve estimates (probably because their production quotas are based on them).
- ANWR won’t produce 800k BPD until 2028 (even if all environmentalists are shot tomorrow). The US currently consumes 19 million BPD.
- More natural gas use means wells are losing pressure with maturity, proving we’re almost out of dino-puddles.
- Off-shore drilling is a pipe dream (har har) with rigs that barely stand up to category three storms.
- Gulf drills are still producing 250k less BPD than they were before Katrina.
- Producing countries are using more and more oil themselves, reducing exports.
Wind and solar power are far too inefficient. Any talk of hydrogen as fuel should be muted by its exponential cost and that it takes more energy to produce it than it provides, rendering it useless.
(Ethanol is too big a joke to laugh at here. Food costs, scarcity, nutrient and resource depletion, etc. Every subsidized ounce ruins our future. Rapidly.)
Food will be more expensive, exported jobs may return and travel will be cost prohibitive (any variety). “Think global, buy local” will be reality (not a hipster, ironic t-shirt slogan).
Cheap energy looks more like the last bits of milk shake than the mile-high gushers. With it goes the wholesale polluting that started the climate change mess and it will probably slow before the worst comes.
Global warming averted. World saved. What’s next?
Photo courtesy GreenPeace.org
open letter: tourism bureaus »
Thursday, March 5th, 2009
I know what you’re thinking: Another open letter? Really? Yes. Really. I had a couple conversations this morning along these lines.
Dear Most of You,
There you are. You’re the be-all, end-all for your destination. You’re where people turn to book their trips, learn about your locale and plan their travel. Except for one thing: you’re not.
Don’t get me wrong, your sites are pretty, filled to brimming with helpful. Some find a lot of value in that but more find value in TripAdvisor (and ilk) with hands-on visitor feedback. Many travelers are going to Travelocity, Priceline, etc. to book their trips.
You’re letting your expertise be siphoned off. There are thousands of sites more specifically pertinent and millions of travelers looking for more.
We’re in an age of conversation, not broadcast. If you’re not talking with us you’re talking at us. We’re ignoring you. Your audience will dwindle as more become internet-savvy.
How large is your staff? 20? 40? 200? Even a small destination’s site could have hundreds of visitors per month. Put them to use; who doesn’t like talking about their travel?
Use Twitter, Facebook, etc. to relay useful tips and articles about your destination to followers. Ask visitors where they like to shop, eat and be entertained. Allow for comments and discussions.
Soon, creating a blog, loading Flickr images and sending tweets to both won’t be enough.
There are political obstacles. Keep your booking engines and link exchanges. If you’re funded through membership, even partially, have your users to mention your name when out and about. (Deals? Incentives?)
Your voice, while important, is not what travelers want to hear. They want to hear the voices of others or to be able to share theirs. Facilitate that conversation, adding your wisdom where appropriate, and your credibility will rise.
Or, you could keep on keepin’ on. You’ll weather the downturn only to be overshadowed. With so many free or cheap options out there to increase your status as a premium source of information, it’s on you.
Good luck.
Draynd
Sidenote: How many of you knew tourism bureaus existed or that you could book travel through many of them? Yeah… exactly my point.
[facebook] free for all »
Friday, January 16th, 2009
I’ve forgone the typical ‘free for all.’ Didn’t notice? Word, thought so. Moving on…
While I don’t personally add applications to my Facebook profile(s), some are all about it. They’re ass deep in “Which Reservoir Dog Am I?” and “All the Places I’ve Been You Haven’t” boxes. Which brings me to the “Whopper Sacrifice.”
Facebook is famous for its cluttered friend lists. Some are still friends with folk they met while filling their URC‘s or those hot girls they met at freshman orientation. (With entire self-tagged albums in bikinis, tagged with “gross” or “fat,” desperate for contradictory comments.)
Why not exploit it? I think the Whopper Sacrifice is a smart concept (read: best they can do; lame). It takes commonality and provides branded incentive to address it. It’s better than the Angry Whopper or [insert recent BK campaign/promotion here] (sans, maybe, the King). And more thoughtful than JCPenney’s “Doghouse.”
Facebook shut it down, citing privacy concerns, and missed the viral publicity. (They have no financial model; you’d think they’d be keen on ideas like this.) The only infringement is a notification to the “sacrificed” they’ve been dumped for a chance at a Whopper, which is different than clearing an inflated friend list.*
For Facebook to take a stand on privacy is hypocritical at best. Their incentive is to make the site more public (promotions, growth) so the bulk of the privacy settings are near-hidden, convoluted to the point of useless (if used at all; not to mention the bugs). The default settings aren’t private.
It’s another in a list of blunders no one remembers. They’ve posted anything you were doing on third-party sites with an opt-out model (because they’re idiots), added the news feed (again, opt-out after backlash) and stupidly redesigned with an option to revert to the old site.
Facebook’s obviously blinded by dumbass so it shouldn’t surprise that they’d miss the whole point of the Whopper Sacrifice. (Is “hope no one realizes we’re inept” a business model?) To think otherwise is Memento-esque.
… Actually, show of hands: before this, how many of you knew about Whopper Sacrifice? Were pissed about the redesign for a week and then forgot how the old one looked? Remember the pre-news feed days? Knew FB and BlockBuster and others are being sued?
Seven, all, none and none of you? Hmm. Well… whatever. Still worth it.
Note: More on the Whopper Sacrifice on I’m Just Sayin’ Show. Inspired by all the projects at PhizzPop last night that were made possible by Facebook’s short-sighted, infringing adaptations.
* The de-friended could easily re-friend the de-friender after s/he’s enjoyed her/his over-sized morsel of near-beef. Whether the now re-friended is subsequently de-friended (again), without their immediate knowledge, is entirely up to the de-friender. (Follow all that? Things got a little rough toward the end there.)
how to pitch prosperity »
Monday, December 22nd, 2008
The economy sucks taint. Stores have slashed into their prices (and profit margins) because people aren’t able or willing to buy. But what does that mean?
You’re making as much as (or less than) your parents did when they thought bell bottoms were rad. An entire subclass of humans has been created to make clothes and Blackberries for pennies a day. Congress scolds big box retailers for their labor injustices instead of instituting laws that would change things.
Our economic model ignores resource depletion, waste production (read: real cost) and barriers of entry (information, competition, etc.). States are running wicked deficits, slicing programs and funding (education, police, etc.). Wall Street is handed $700 billion* without explanation.
I don’t mean to spark guilt or confusion; both are worthless. But, was the economy that great to begin with? We were rich but that was generally based on our ability to shift responsibility and accountability out of sight (read: overseas). Have we run out of scapegoats?
Thursday’s “Earl,” while slightly humorous, turned out to be a half-hour ad for Jane Seymour’s Open Heart necklaces. We’re fast approaching the most consumerist of mutated holidays and all media is saturated with desperate pleas to buy things we can’t afford.
Will marketing and the economy adapt? Will we still rely on the poor to buy beyond their means so our 401Ks don’t tank? How would a marketing pitch go for something that creates genuine prosperity? What’s the guerrilla campaign for renewable electricity (not based on valuable crop misuse)?
* Minus the $17 billion just given to the auto industry because Chapter 11 would have provided just as many layoffs but would have dropped share costs for stockholders.
partnership of convenience »
Thursday, December 11th, 2008
Sen. Huckabee was on The Daily Show the other night. When the Stewart and Co. were here for the RNC, I attended and he was the guest then, too. Huckabee and I are close like this, like brothers or fire and ice.
Sure, religion is virtue because without we’d be animals. Phrases taken literally (without context) from a book of metaphors is the path to pomposity. But, the marriage thing confuses me.
Here’s how I understand it and you can (but won’t) call me out where I’m wrong.
It was born of necessity. We birthed the weakest offspring (ex: giraffes pop out walking) and needed familial structure to survive until we could fend for ourselves (currently, about twenty-four years). Symbolism manifested, conventions were established.
Marriage was arranged, without love and until death (like diamonds). Romans had man-man, woman-woman and pool-boy-anyone relations. Catholic priests could wed until they passed their wealth to children or wives instead of the church. (They’re still marriage counselors, which makes sense if your neurons misfire.)
Polygamy was legal, interracial marriage wasn’t. Divorce is as popular as American Idol. Merriam-Webster already has a secondary definition for “marriage” as same-sex unions without legal sanction.
Marriage has been changed many times. Social environments demand such alteration. Where’d the inflated, righteous concept come from?
The arguments are stale. Procreation ignores the millions of children in shitty homes or awaiting adoption. Our eroding family ignores the lemming-like divorce rate. Religion dismisses much of our history, most of The Book and common sense. (You’d need to do the same if you argued verbiage.)
It seems Huck just thinks homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. To him, it’s akin to wearing pre-faded jeans or misogyny. But we have a black president-elect, so do the progressives just have to wait it out?
These anti-gay folk are getting pretty old. Maybe that accounts for their fervidity. They need to push laws so generations can enjoy the same oppression they remember fondly from their youths.