[Music] Seth Godin talks. You should listen.

Via BB, an excerpt from an admittedly long talk:

So, what’s next? And where do we go from here? I want to start by saying this really clearly. Music is not in trouble. I believe more people are listening to more music now than any time in the history of the world. Probably five times more than twenty years ago...that much! But, the music business is in trouble. And the reason the music business is in trouble is because remember all those pieces of good news?...every single one of them is not true anymore. Every. One. Now, if you want to, you can curse the fact the Solomon’s couldn’t figure out how to keep the tower going. You can curse the fact that it’s really easy to copy a CD. You can curse the fact that we don’t care about the American top 40. You can curse the fact that there isn’t top 40 radio that matters. What good is that going to do? Or, we could think about the fact that you have more momentum and more assets and more talented people than any body else. [And], at the very same time that people are listening to more music than ever before. Thats really cool. And, so when we think about transitions what we know is that timid trapeze artists are dead trapeze artists. And, that the only way you get from here to there is to just do it. Now, you might be wrong but the alternative is you WILL be wrong. There is no way to go from the perfect music business to the new music business with guaranteed ROI and written assurances-it doesn’t exist. So what will happen, I will guarantee this to you, is that 90% of the people in this industry will timidly start walking their way over and they will all fail. Thats why when you go to look up something online, you don’t go to RandomHouse.com, you go to Google.com.

It's a wonderfully concise talk. Check it out.

[LT] Jay Jackson redux

LT has a great post on the ongoing saga of Jay Jackson.

Check it out.

[Hasso Hering] Best. Headline. Ever. (Almost)

A recent Hering editorial headline:

Why prisons are full: Crime

Seriously, what the hell? I get that headline space was likely short, but COME ON. I. CAN'T. TAKE. IT. ANYMORE.

Oh, and then there's the actual editorial, which was shockingly decent:

The answer to the swelling prison population is not to relax the sentences but to seek ways of preventing crimes from being committed in the first place.

When I read that, what's left of my tiny little brain melted. It's easily the most sensible thing Hering has ever said, as far as I can tell.

So kudos, Hasso. This editorial - except for the headline - doesn't get mocked. It proposes a decent solution to a problem you illustrate with facts.

UPDATE: I forgot about the very last line. It suggests something I think is flat-out wrong:

Instead we have to make a more fundamental change. We have to get back to a system of values in which it is the height of virtue — which is looked up to and rewarded — not to harm other people and to leave their property alone.

Reverence for property is most certainly not the answer. But it is very consistent with Hering's other writings. Valuing people, on the other hand, would be nice. Maybe we could start by changing US policies as an example?

P.S. This, of course, is the best headline ever.

[Eugene] Remember Margaret B. Jones?

Turns out she was embellishing a little.

I posted on her here.

As bitchphd says:

Of course, in cases like this--where part of the interest in the book is based on its claim to represent a particular point of view--people can feel betrayed when they find out that the pov being represented is fictional (or fictionalized). But. I would be very interested in reading the book anyway, and I hope it doesn't disappear completely. The problem of authors writing fictionalized (or partly fictionalized) memoirs/history is as old as literature itself, and runs the range from pure fabrication to metaphor to generic embellishment to the inevitable fact that narrative shapes experience.

I concur.

[RIAA] Evidence? Who needs evidence?

From a Slashdot summary:

The issue at hand is whether the RIAA's investigator SafeNet now needs to disclose its digital files, validation methodology, testing procedures, failure rates, software manuals, protocols, packet logs, source code, and other materials, so that the validity of its methods can be evaluated by the defense. SafeNet and the RIAA say no, claiming that the information is 'proprietary and confidential'. Ms. Lindor says yes, if you're going to testify in federal court the other side has a right to test your evidence. A list of what is being sought (pdf) is available online. MediaSentry has produced 'none of the above'.

The fact that this is even being debated blows my fucking mind.

A private entity can sue someone in civil court and not reveal their evidence and collection methodology and not get laughed out of the courtroom?

People, we have ceded entirely too much headspace to corporations.

Or, as one /. commenter puts it:

These legal claims by the RIAA just blow my mind. I'm in the physics community, and I'm just trying to picture how these type of statements would play out in my arena.

Me: ...and as a result, we have discovered [blank].
Physicist in audience: Sorry, can you explain your methods?
Me: No
[5 seconds of silence]
Entire conference hall bursts into laughter

I think that's as a good as illustration of the laugh test as I've ever seen.

[LCSD] A Thought on Superintendent Reviews

The DH story revealed something:

Fisher criticized Robinson’s evaluation, saying it shouldn’t be possible to rate Robinson so low when he’d had exemplary evaluations as recently as last year.

He called Robinson “a man of vision” and commended his efforts to raise achievement in Lebanon through programs such as “Beyond LHS,” a college-credit opportunity.

But Wineteer and Shimmin said they felt compelled to act on community anger over some of Robinson’s policies and procedures over his entire tenure, not just in the past year.

1. Robinson's review was supposedly for only the previous year's performance.

2. Wineteer and Shimmin were clear that they were not evaluating Robinson based on only the previous year.

3. Does this create a problem? Is the board required to evaluate only the previous year's performance, or are they allowed to do what appeared to happen here?

4. If yes, then.... is this unfair to the board?

Let's spin out a little thought experiment. For example, say a sitting board approves of a decision made by the superintendent. A big decision.

Then an election happens, and the composition of the board changes significantly. The new members have very different opinions and beliefs about the decision the previous superintendent made - so different, in fact, that their evaluation is far worse than the previous year's.

(Note: This scenario is a little different than what's actually happening, but it's a hypothetical and I'm allowed to do that.)

Should the board then be allowed to incorporate things that happened more than a year ago into the evaluation, since they've never had a chance to weigh in on those issues?

If the answer is no, how does the new board express an opinion on things that happened before they were elected? Board members should have the ability to do that, right?

I'm not particularly thrilled with this little experiment, because I think there are good reasons to officially prohibit a board from retroactively slapping someone's hand (note that such a prohibition does not stop the board from changing a district's direction in the future), and my hypothetical seems to suggest that something like what happened here is legitimate. (To be clear, I think the negative evaluation and vote to nonrenew was sketchy, at best. But still.)

What am I missing?

[LCSD] DH story on Robinson's non-renewal

It's a good one.

More later.

UPDATE: Link fixed.

[LCSD] Lebanon School Board Votes 3-2 Against Renewing Superintendent's Contract

UPDATE @ 11:45 PM: I just heard the vote was 3-2 to nonrenew with Shimmin, Alexander and Wineteer voting as a block.

(The offer to post any first-hand accounts, anonymously or otherwise, still stands. Email me or leave a comment that includes a note that you want it posted on the main blog.)

Where we go from here is anyone's guess - though since I don't have a first-hand account of the discussion, I'm hesitant to offer a concrete analysis. Call this one fuzzy...

Possibilities (not mutually exclusive by any means, and not all that carefully considered, either):

1. Robinson sues for breach of contract, or breach of state law, etc (I admit I've not followed the possibilities of a lawsuit that closely). The district spends money on legal fees, which is money not spent on students. I do not buy the argument that this makes Robinson a bad person, especially if he's found to be correct in his (potential) suit. Rather, it would make the three board members who voted to nonrenew look like idiots, since I'm sure the district's legal counsel predicted this.

1a. Robinson wins a lawsuit; what happens? Does he end up with a rolling three-year contract again? How does that work? Does the court reinstate the rolling bit? Does the LCSD eat crow for a few hours and change their vote? (If this happens, it will certainly look like Debi Shimmin learned nothing from Robinson's suspension.) Does Robinson decline the third year and instead get a legal settlement?

Most interestingly at the moment, how does Jim Robinson reconcile the following: a) Robinson supports education and children, and knows exactly how much money the LCSD does not have; b) Robinson is not going to simply let the Board do this, knowing full well that it sets an ugly precedent/Robinson is not going to let the Board do this because he is personally invested in Lebanon and has no intention of leaving without a fight; so c) What happens when those two collide, i.e. when/if justice for Robinson means spending money on his case that would otherwise be spent on students? (Is that even the right way to frame this? I ask because one could also argue that the Board pushed Robinson into such a position in the first place.)

1b. Robinson loses the lawsuit. He still has two years on his contract, and it's entirely possible that there will be big changes to the board by this time next year. I could see him getting renewed next year for one or even two more years. Definitely too early to tell - though I did suggest a rolling two-year contract in a comment at LT's place not too long ago, and that doesn't seem out of the range of possibility.

2. Robinson does not sue.

2a. Despite not suing, there is a backlash against the board's actions, and when next year rolls around, for whatever reason, there is a vote to renew for at least a year, and possibly even get back on the three-year cycle.

2b. No lawsuit, more non-renewal. Robinson goes away. The LCSD gets a tool for a Superintendent. Mirroring the national scene, the district spirals down in flames under the 'leadership' of some individuals who have no idea how to run anything larger than a push mower.

3. A recall is initiated for one or more board members - my guess would be Rick Alexander, then Josh, and least likely Debi. Said recall either a) succeeds, in which case the recall crowd would undoubtedly run the antithesis of Rick Alexander. Without Rick, the board's shenanigans calm down considerably. Or, b) recall fails - and then what happens?

I think I'm about out of steam for the night. Be sure to check the DH tomorrow - Moody's story is usually the first thing out, and it's usually pretty good. I intend to post a link to it as soon as reasonably possible. (Hint hint - would it kill the DH to post things on the web as they are done, not when they make it into the print edition?)

I knew the lull in insanity was too good to be true. Everybody wearing their seat belts? Good - because the crazy train is leaving the station.

Not a proud day to be from the Willamette Valley...

Website here.

Lebanon Express story on the, um, phenomenon, here.

[Hasso Hering] Getting it (mostly) right

Hering:

As long as the University of Oregon wants to act like a private company where athletics are concerned, maybe the Legislature ought to make it official and turn the athletic department into a private enterprise.

The university refuses to disclose how much it is being paid under a new athletics marketing contract. The office of Attorney General Hardy Myers has agreed with the university. The AG rejected a request by the Portland Oregonian that the payments be disclosed under the Oregon Public Records Act.

“The state has an economic interest in maximizing payments made to its universities pursuant to sports marketing contracts," the AG’s opinion said. “Would-be contractors who know exactly what the UO or OSU agreed to accept in the past might offer less than they otherwise would have offered.’’

By that reasoning, none of the contracts made by public bodies in Oregon — from individual small fire districts and city governments to the giant Department of Transportation — should be open to public inspection.

I agree with him - the reasoning behind the decision to make the contract info a secret is weak. And wrong.

Privatizing college athletics is a giant can of worms he's obviously not thought through (what happens to the status of the student-athletes who participate? Do they become even more exploited once the veneer of interest in their academics is even further stripped away?), but hey, at least this editorial is coherent and genuinely seems to be in the public's interest. Hooray for that.

.... the more I think about this, the stupider Myers' decision is. Really? Sports marketing? I get that it might actually lead to more revenue, but hey - it's a state institution, and that means it should be public information. That's how it works. Yes, there are costs to that, but the benefit (the possibility of democracy) should easily be seen as outweighing the money.

Should, anyway.