And that monkey rides that pig backwards.

I have no commentary for this. I guess that’s kind of the point.

Sarah, Sarah, Sarah.

This particular episode of Family Guy was watched by 6.4 million people. O’Reilly rebroadcast it to another 3.4 million people, many of whom didn’t see the original airing. Using a liberal [not the amoral kind] estimate of the overlap (and let’s be honest- these are very different demographics), your stint on The O’Reilly Factor likely exposed the offending video to some 2 million people who hadn’t seen it. And, as Bill sheepishly points out, not everyone in his audience “has a computer,” so they wouldn’t have otherwise viewed it online. You have, in essence, spread the virus to find the antibody. Pretty kinky.

Let’s move on to the next gem of public service you spit at us: the whole “R-word” thing where Rahm Emanuel should give up his job for saying it vs. Rush Limbaugh’s use of the word being acceptable because [not unlike Mark Twain] he’s a “satirist.”

First, let’s make one detail perfectly clear: Rahm Emanuel said ‘retard’ once in a private meeting that included perhaps a dozen people. Rush Limbaugh used the word over and over while intentionally speaking into a microphone that he’s well aware broadcasts to millions of people daily (I didn’t research the number, as it would only depress me). So, you were a dominant force in exposing someone’s bad manners to millions who would have otherwise never heard them.

Now we get to the part where you defend Limbaugh on the basis that he was using the word “satirically.” Both Seth MacFarland and Rush Limbaugh have used satire to entertain their audiences, one arguably more effectively than the other. By defending Rush and knocking Seth, you’ve reduced your argument to a matter of comedic taste.

So, I guess you’re on a crusade to rid the world of a prejudice by making sure that as many people as possible hear it, but then afterward see your shrewd, disappointed scowl over silent video feed. But you are being realistic here: you know you’ll never succeed, so you will settle for the slurs to only be used in satirical references that the American people can truly appreciate.

I guess that at least one solution that could relieve your anguish is to establish some sort of Federally-controlled Commission to ensure that broadcast Communications don’t offend the American public. Then, you could totally complain to them when something like this pisses you off.

But, I guess that would be a product of Big Government, wouldn’t it? And you’ve spent too much time at too many Holiday Inns riling up these Tea Party folks to combat superfluous, federally-funded agencies just like this.

Sarah Palin… what is it that you want? You’re consistantly hiding behind the very wall you’re trying tear down- and it makes you look like silly to anyone actually paying attention.

Sorry- thanks for letting me get that off my chest.

U.S. astronauts have just completed work on the Tranquility module aboard the International Space Station, including the ultimate accommodation… an observation deck that offers panoramic views of the surrounding universe. According to USA Today:

Tranquility’s unique feature is the Italian-built cupola, a domed-shaped annex with seven windows and a 360-degree view.

Not even Trump can top that one.

Underwhelmed.

It’s an eBook reader that looks hard to hold. Also, no multitasking. Apple seems to be attempting to break into the gaming market here as well, but I’m not sure that I see myself playing my favorite video game via an interactive picture frame.

Oh, and I’m willing to risk being wrong about this… but no one wants to use iWork- even on a touch screen.

Methinks that the individual publication apps and video-based content will be the saving grace for this thing…

(A thumbs-up to Joshua Topolsky of Engadget for a great live blog of the announcement.)

Another kudos for first developing it for the Windows 7 crowd, which will likely consist of people upgrading from Windows XP and taking their first step into the live web experience. The whole development model looks very well thought-out.

The one fundamentally frightening issue is that apps such as Seesmic could mean that our PC-comforted parents might finally sign up for Twitter accounts. Following @jennajameson and hastags like #howwastedwasilastnight could become a relic of a freer, more frivolous era of social networking. Remember what your MySpace account looked like? Sigh.

As a Late Night fan from the very beginning, lately I’ve been excited to see the original Conan attitude again. Not unlike the mid-90s Late Night, when O’Brien was constantly teetering on the verge of cancellation due to his inexperience, Conan’s red pompadour was a beacon of comedic brilliance last night as the carefree butt of his own jokes. O’Brien got his mojo back in a role that fits him perfectly: the readily pummeled victim of the identifiable corporate bully that has been NBC.

The next show will feature Conan as the dethroned king of Late Night. Not only does that give Conan a nemesis in NBC, but also that “not yet ready for the big leagues” attitude that works so well for him. That cocktail should make for a nightcap that might even have Letterman worried about Conan as competition (assuming he’s on at 11:35).

While I’ll miss the characters he’ll have to leave in the vaults of NBC, as well as the theme song, I can only be excited that the departure from The Tonight Show has popped Conan right back into his groove.

While solid editorial writing should come at a premium just like everything else, the power of great columnists can’t possibly be enough to push a readership that hasn’t had a newspaper subscription for years into paying for their news.

Given the massive amount of publishing display devices at CES this year, as well as Apple’s probable announcement of a tablet Mac next week, it seems to make more sense for the Times to suck up last quarters’ losses and hold off for six months to eye developing a compelling “virtual newspaper” cloud app based on API used by at least one of these new devices.

Magazines will most certainly take advantage of this technology… and I predict will fast become exclusive to the new medium (the transition will likely be quick… magazines putting out tablet editions would essentially have to publish two editions per issue if also putting out the traditional paper edition). It seems more plausible that Times readers would be more apt to subscribe to something that is tangible as an edition rather than a series of web pages. Consumers still know the web as a free source of information, no matter how expertly crafted.

Everyone who wants to know knows that broadcast television is getting it’s collective ass handed to it in terms of ratings. Some say it’s due to an oversaturated market… a plethora of cable nets and online content have made the competition so stiff that audiences naturally “even out” among the channels of distribution. The more cynical claim that it’s the content. TV is crap- you know the argument.

I think it’s a little of both. And something can be done about it.

Let’s take a quick look at the first argument. Namely, let’s analyze the competition, starting with cable TV. The primary difference between cable and broadcast channels is the niche, or an ability to attract a target demographic and hold their interest over a period of time. Discovery is for science junkies. Bravo is for the culture freaks. Lifetime is for the ladies. Online content is even more specific, given that it’s usually little more than a single series, like Fred or The Guild. It also has the tremendous brand benefit of being tagged with keywords, directly accessible via search engines and often available over many distribution outlets.

So, who or what does ABC appeal to? What about Fox? While you can throw a rather broad blanket over any broadcast network, you’ll always find a show that slips out from underneath. A show that’s experimental, or trying to “hit a new demo.” Point being: they have no collective brand in terms of their content.

Argument two is quality of content. I would argue that, if someone complains that broadcast TV content is crap, then why do they watch it? And how did they arrive at that conclusion if they don’t? We all watch it, we’re just not loyal to it. While broadcast networks have certainly had their share of misses, so have cable networks. What makes the broadcast network duds stand out is that they’ve specifically brought in a demographic that isn’t naturally attracted to them, and they’ve disappointed them. It’s like going to a brand new restaurant because you want to try a specific dish, being disappointed with that dish and then telling all of your friends that the restaurant sucks. You aren’t being unfair, you’re just being marketed to incorrectly. The restaurant should have advertised the restaurant, not the dish.

So how do broadcast networks act more like cable networks? How do they advertise their entire, diverse package of content as a niche brand? Well… the irony is that they already know how. Because they used to do it.

Everyone who watched TV in the 70s and 80s remembers Battle of the Network Stars. Every American Gen X-er remembers ABC’s TGIF lineup. These were network packages- miniature universes in which all of their shows and the characters in them could exist simultaneously. Urkel knew Balki, and Topanga and Sabrina the Teenage Witch hung out on the weekends. When the shows spoke to one another, they became a branded community. And you could only find this specific community on a specific network.

Further, many people don’t remember that networks used to do a “fall lineup special,” in which broadcasters would give you a sample platter of all the shows they planned to release in the upcoming season. That’s right, broadcast nets once committed to their schedules before the season began. Why would they ever do a silly thing like that? Because they crafted their shows to compliment one another. They branded their programming blocks, and they did it well. If a show failed, that group of characters simply moved out of that broadcast network’s neighborhood and another group moved in.

There’s hope for the Big Four yet, but unfortunately it means that the networks will have to gather their hatchlings and get their collective ducks in a row (that’s 2 duck analogies) the way they did over a decade ago. The nightmare lies within- corporate culture at the broadcast networks is dog-eat-dog, and playing as a group might be the most difficult task at hand. As a network exec once told me, “In this place, there’s no ‘i’ in ‘team,’ but there’s definitely ‘a me.’”

I’m moving my office, which for anyone who has had the delight knows is a testament to doing as much work as possible with as few tools as necessary. Generally, my Macbook Pro takes care of pretty much anything I need to access, design, produce or add up when I’m on the go… but, as I found out today, I really need a good place to sit down and a decent amount of elbow room. It’s a testament to the contemporary work environment that high-level computing needs to be accessible while standing.

One might argue that an iPhone, Pre, Blackberry or any other high-end smartphone are essentially standing-room-only-environment office replacements… and that’s true as it relates to wireless communication.  But I interact with clients on a personal level with my machine- specifically with regard to sketching designs or creating documents in real-time. Even if an app existed for this and was available to any smartphone on the market, it would be impractical if not for the processing power required to run it, but  because of the size of the display.

I used to be opposed to the idea of Apple creating yet another notebook solution in what’s already a self-saturated market. The Macbook is fine, the Macbook Pro heavenly, the Macbook Air little more than an experiment, the iPhone a revolutionary and the iPod touch a little underwhelming without VoIP capability (coming soon). I always thought that a tablet would be better served as an accessory… a microcomputer that docks with a host and connects with it wirelessly for extra data. But after today’s experience, I have to admit I’m a little ashamed to have not considered an Apple tablet’s potentially tremendous impact upon industry as a stand-alone machine.

Think of your package delivery service guy’s little electronic signature machine, the clerk’s register at Macy’s or any cabbie’s meter and (separate) navigation system.  Think of how much the companies who have to purchase those proprietary devices must pay for them.  Now think about how easily all of those systems could be replaced with (and revolutionized by) an Apple tablet and the appropriate software. Now think of all the small businesses who can’t afford the aforementioned systems, buy currently have a spiffy little iMac running behind the counter as their company machine.

So, why haven’t they released such a thing? I mean… how difficult of a thing could it be to develop?

I think it’s all about per-unit cost.

A Mac tablet’s price point would need to be LOW. How low? Well, one would think that Apple believes that it would need to be less than $1,800- which is what the most comparable product, the Air, runs for with the solid-state hard disk (and there’s been no traditional Apple cost-lowering for it, which I take to mean that it’s always been a fixed-price item). And then there’s the touch screen, which I assume would easily push the basic model cost up to at least $2,000.

Now, Apple isn’t very shy about rolling out high-price tech. That’s because they know that their rabid fan base will consume new product wildly at the upstart, and then praise it in their metagospel afterward… relying on the trickle effect to create consumer interest, and then gradually lowering the price to attract the latecomers and skeptics.

But I don’t think that the consumer is the target for this one… I think it’s businesses. And I think they know that. That means that Apple has to get to the bottom line upon roll-out… and that means getting the introductory price down to it’s fighting weight.

So, does that mean that an Apple tablet could be the company’s first step into the world of the business machine?  Would they ever tread the stomping ground of their antithesis IBM? Well- if they don’t, Google will.

We will be the first generation with a full psychological archeological record.

To me, this is absolutely fascinating… and also perhaps frightening in the now. Our society is so incredibly open to the rest of the world. I wonder if sharing our every thought to a global audience will amount to awareness or chaos.

They say that those who do not know history are destined to repeat it, but at what point does our capacity to report outweigh our future ability to absorb? A lot of us can’t even get through a concisely-produced History Channel documentary- so how are our ancestors supposed to be expected to troll through billions of tweets?

While we can’t blame ourselves for reporting the mundanity of our everyday lives any more than we can blame our dad for making that excruciating 2 hour home movie of the family decorating the Christmas tree, we should probably go out of our way to note the stuff that we think really matters.

That’s where I think popularity sites like digg and Facebook’s ‘Like’ button really come into play. The way we earmark our information, or our group consensus on our likes and dislikes, will inevitably be the way our generation presents itself to our children and beyond.