Does Scotland deserve a second chance?

No, not the country, which seems fine, but the Attorney General of the same name. As the saga of her employment of a housekeeper whose visa had expired unfolded, I fell to muttering about there being one law for politicians and one for the rest of us. As indeed did most of the country. But Michael White, the Guardian‘s Political Editor, has an interesting take on it in this morning’s paper.

As I noted here the other day, of the two couples in this tale, three of the four people – Scotland, her barrister husband and Tapui’s British solicitor husband – are all lawyers who ought to have been more careful to secure her residential status, a relatively easy thing to do for someone with a British spouse.

So only the non-lawyer in the case has lost her job. But should Scotland, who helped pass the relevant legislation as a Home Office minister and is the cabinet’s legal adviser, lose hers, too?

Phone-ins and chatrooms have been crowded since this morning’s announcement of the administrative (not criminal) penalty, with people complaining that it’s one law for the rich, another for the poor. Is that true in this case? I doubt it.

The laws against employing illegal immigrants are designed to deter people who do it systemically – either in business or their own homes – to gain cheap, malleable workers who can’t complain much.

I don’t think that motive will have applied to either party here, do you?

So what it’s really about is whipping up negative feeling about immigrants, legal or not, and the jobs they do in our economy, often because we won’t do them ourselves (or at least not for the money on offer).

Quote of the day

“If the experience of the Third Reich teaches us anything, it is that a love of great music, great art and great literature does not provide people with any kind of moral or political immunization against violence, atrocity or subservience to dictatorship.”

From the Preface to Richard Evans’s The Coming of the Third Reich.

Openness is the key

It’s nice to be cited. Today, in a speech to the FCC on “Preserving a Free and Open Internet: A Platform for Innovation, Opportunity, and Prosperity”, Julius Genachowski, the Chairman of the Brookings Institution, said this:

Why has the Internet proved to be such a powerful engine for creativity, innovation, and economic growth? A big part of the answer traces back to one key decision by the Internet’s original architects: to make the Internet an open system.

Historian John Naughton describes the Internet as an attempt to answer the following question: How do you design a network that is “future proof” — that can support the applications that today’s inventors have not yet dreamed of? The solution was to devise a network of networks that would not be biased in favor of any particular application. The Internet’s creators didn’t want the network architecture — or any single entity — to pick winners and losers. Because it might pick the wrong ones. Instead, the Internet’s open architecture pushes decision-making and intelligence to the edge of the network — to end users, to the cloud, to businesses of every size and in every sector of the economy, to creators and speakers across the country and around the globe. In the words of Tim Berners-Lee, the Internet is a “blank canvas” — allowing anyone to contribute and to innovate without permission…

It’s an excellent speech. Worth reading in full.

Keynes redux

I’ve been reading Robert Skidelsky’s new book on Keynes, which is absorbing and well-written. I never accepted (as most of the neo-con economists did) that Keynes had been overtaken by history, as it were and Skidelsky backs that up by picking out three Big Ideas from Keynes which, he thinks, have an enduring resonance. They are:

1. The future is unknowable, so economic storms, especially those originating in the financial system, are not just external shocks which impinge on smoothly operating markets, but part of the normal working of the market system. (This is something an engineer would know intuitively, so it’s always been a source of amazement to me that economists and investors seem unaware of it. Market capitalism is an intrinsically unstable system.)

2. Economies wounded by these ‘shocks’ can, if left to themselves, stay in a depressed condition for a long time. (As the Japanese know to their cost.)

3. A moral critique of societies which worship the pursuit of money and efficiency above all other objects of human striving. I thought of this while passing the Cambridge Arts Theatre, which Keynes was instrumental in founding. In a way, it’s the most profound of his ideas, and the one most flagrantly ignored in the last two or three decades.

Skidelsky has a lovely Coda in his Preface in which he writes:

“Once I started writing this book, on 1 January 2009, I stopped reading the newspapers on a daily basis to avoid filling up my mind with ‘noise’. Any coherence my argument may have stems from this act of self-denial.”

No wonder I am sometimes incoherent. I read too many papers.

Amazon close to achieving Bezos’s dream?

I’ve always believed that the business Jeff Bezos wanted emulate was Wal-Mart. He started with books simply because they were objects that people will buy without having to handle them. But in recent years I’ve bought an increasing number of non-book items from the UK store. Today, the NYT is claiming that Amazon is closer to realising the Bezos dream than many of us realised.

Fifteen years after Jeffrey P. Bezos founded the company as an online bookstore, Amazon is set to cross a significant threshold. Sometime later this year, if current trends continue, worldwide sales of media products — the books, movies and music that Amazon started with — will be surpassed for the first time by sales of other merchandise on the site. (That transition already occurred this year in its North American business.)

In other words, in an increasingly digital age, Amazon is quickly becoming the world’s general store. Alongside the books and CDs and DVDs are diapers, Legos and power drills, not to mention replacement car clutches and more arcane items like the Jackalope Buck taxidermy mount ($69.97).

“Amazon has gone from ‘that bookstore’ in people’s mind to a general online retailer, and that is a great place to be,” said Scot Wingo, chief executive of ChannelAdvisor, an eBay-backed company that helps stores like Wal-Mart and J.C. Penney sell online. Mr. Wingo envisions e-commerce growing to 15 percent of overall retail in the next decade from around 7 percent. “If Amazon grows their market share throughout that period, and honestly I don’t see anything stopping it, that is pretty scary,” he said…

And that’s ignoring the whole new S3 cloud-computing business that Amazon launched a while back and which now seems to be powering every major Web 2.0 service. In a way, Amazon is a more astonishing company than Google, because it has to deal directly with the public all the time. And it’s very good at what it does.

Update your FaceBook profile. Then go to gaol

This is almost too good to be true.

According to The Journal in Martinsburg, W. Va., a local resident came home to find that a burglar had broken in through a bedroom window and rummaged around, making off with a pair of diamond rings worth more than $3,500. Apparently wanting to travel light, he did not take the victim’s computer, but he did use it. To check his Facebook page. And he forgot to log off. Jonathan G. Parker, 19, of Fort Loudoun, Pa., was arraigned Tuesday on one count of felony daytime burglary and remains in custody in lieu of $10,000 bail, probably wondering what kind of grief his Facebook friends are posting on his wall.

Simple pleasures

It’s been one of those perfect September days — sunny and warm and incredibly peaceful. Late in the afternoon my daughter and I went out into the local hedgerows to pick blackberries for supper. It’s one of the loveliest pleasures of this time of year — getting one’s hands sticky with berry juice; deciding which ones to eat and which to bring home; wondering about the injustice of the law which determines that the best, juiciest blackberries are always out of reach.

The crop this year has been simply wonderful. In the end, we had to tear ourselves away — otherwise there would be no crumble for supper. But in the 20 minutes or so we were out we picked two punnets’-worth. Effortlessly.

The (apple & blackberry) crumble’s in the oven as I write. Mmmm…..

LATER: Lovely email from a reader:

Reminds me that today, September 21st is St Matthew’s day. My mother used to tell me that on the next day, Sept 22nd, the Devil casts his hoof over the blackberries, and from that date onwards the blackberries became more and more insipid.

Google displays its hand

This morning’s Observer column.

The scariest question a venture capitalist can ask a company seeking funding is: what if Google enters your market? For years, this question has haunted folk in mainstream advertising. They had already seen Google collar an overwhelming share of the targeted-advertising market via its AdSense and AdWords technology, the system through which small, hopefully relevant, text ads appear alongside the results of internet searches.

On the back of this, Google become a money-printing machine and now has nearly 70% of the paid-search market. This is nice for it in the short term, of course, but raises a strategic issue. What would the company do when the paid-search market was saturated? Where would the next growth area be?

What Google did next

If you were wondering why Google bought DoubleClick, then look no further. It’s moving into the display advertising business.

Three principles underpin our approach to the display advertising field:

1. Simplify the system for buying and selling display ads: For example, our DoubleClick ad serving products help advertisers and publishers manage campaigns and ad formats across thousands of websites and from thousands of advertisers.

2. Deliver better performance that advertisers and agencies can measure: We're building a host of new features to help advertisers to run display ad campaigns across the Google Content Network (comprising hundreds of thousands of AdSense partner sites) and on YouTube. We're also developing better measurement and reporting technology so they can figure out what's working and what's not.

3. Open up the ecosystem: We want to democratize access to display advertising and make it accessible and open, like search advertising. We recently launched the Display Ad Builder to help businesses easily set up and run display ad campaigns. 80% of advertisers who use that product have never run a display ad campaign before.

We’ve been working hard to put these principles into practice, and today we're excited to announce the new DoubleClick Ad Exchange, a step towards creating a more open display advertising ecosystem for everyone. The Ad Exchange is a real-time marketplace that helps large online publishers on one side; and ad networks and agency networks on the other, buy and sell display advertising space.

If I ran an advertising or media agency, this would have ruined my breakfast. Most agencies made their money by having (or claiming to have) expertise in a highly inefficient and opaque marketplace. Suddenly, the game has begun to change.

The first casualty, though, (as the NYT points out) is likely to be Yahoo, which up to now had the display-ad exchange space almost to itself.

Republican psychosis

What’s going on in the US now is really scary. The attacks on Obama make the ‘Revd’ Ian Paisley — even in his bigoted heyday — look like a bleeding-heart liberal. At the root of it is a sense of frustrated entitlement: it’s as if the Right in America simply cannot believe that its God-given right to run the country has been denied as a result of a liberal swindle. We saw some of this in the Clinton era (witness the continuous campaigns to harass and even impeach him), but what we’re seeing now is something else. It’s psychotic.

In that context, Andrew Sullivan has an interesting blog post this morning. Sample:

The pattern is now clear: the imperative to play the political game has won on the right. The longer-term pattern is just as clear: a faction of congressional Democrats sometimes backed Bush on his initiatives (such as his tax cuts). No one in the Congressional Limbaugh-run GOP will back anything this president does. Not only that; they will assault him, race-bait him and insult him in a continuous reel of populist bile.

It seems to me that the GOP was once recognizable as a human personality. It had an id; but it also had a series of responsible egos – Eisenhower, Reagan, Bush I and, to some extent, Bush II; and it had a super-ego – some kind of conscience that made it think of the broader society over partisan warfare. What we've seen in the last few years is the removal of both ego and super-ego.

What you have now is just the rage at the world and its confounding trade-offs and compromises. The knowledge of the Rove right’s total failure in the last eight years has only made the far right more fervent in its theo-ideology. Do they have a plan to balance the budget? To salvage or cut losses in Afghanistan? To integrate illegal immigrants rather than use their lives as political fodder? To get the working middle classes reliable healthcare insurance? Not that I can see beyond utopian platitudes.

But they do know that anything this president does is a threat to them. And the noise they can make and violence they can foment is out of all proportion to their numbers…

It reminds me of the old definition of ‘fanatic’ as someone who keeps bombing after he has forgotten the objectives that bombing was supposed to achieve.