Evan Rudowski: Web Transplant

Hollywood: Stop Killing Parents

Why is it that so many children's movies feature a dead parent?

In each of the last three films to which I've taken my five-year-old son, one of the parents was dead. Not away on a holiday, or just left out of the script -- but actually, irrevocably dead.

In The Water Horse, set during the Second World War, the father of the lead character, Angus, has died in battle. In Nim's Island, Nim's mother is dead (swallowed by a whale, according to the father's story). And in Underdog -- Underdog for chrissake -- the mother of Jack, the teenage protagonist, is also dead -- cause unknown.

All these movie deaths are troubling to a five-year-old boy. "Will Angus' father come back to life?" my son asks. "Is Nim's mother still alive inside the whale?" By the time we saw Underdog, it was apparently unremarkable to note one more dead parent and so I was spared any tough questions.

And how should one answer such questions? I tried honesty: "No, Nim's mother is not still alive inside the whale," I told my boy.

"Well what happened to her then?"

Chewed to bits by a whale did not seem like a good answer, so I opted for repetition: "I don't know, she just got swallowed by the whale."

"Well maybe she is still alive inside the whale, then," my son offered hopefully.

"Yes, maybe she is," I said, trying to put the matter to rest.

But five-year-olds are not so easily dissuaded. "Will she come back to Nim then one day?"

"She might," I replied. It occurred to me that this might be inconvenient for Nim's dad, who had subsequently fallen for Jodie Foster after she washed up on the beach one day. Even my son appreciated the complexity of the situation. "Then Nim would have two mums," he observed. I changed the subject by pointing out a passing red car.

Really, Hollywood, can we try to come up with some films in which both parents are alive? I realize that this makes it more difficult to score some cheap emotional points by washing new parents up on beaches to bring completeness to the lives of child protagonists and their surviving widowed parents, still struggling to come to grips with the emptiness in their lives -- but give it a try.

Let's see you earn those big Hollywood paychecks. Get creative. Because I am tired of explaining parental death to my otherwise happy-go-lucky kid. We go to the cinema for escapism. So why are you giving us dead parents?

Please don't tell me it's healthy for kids to learn to face reality. Yes, they will have to face it one day. But frankly I see it as my job to keep my young children in fantasy-land for as long as humanly possible. And Hollywood, you're not helping.

Hello, Indali

I had the pleasure tonight of attending a preview party for the new restaurant being opened by my friend Tej Lalvani and his father, Kartar, at 50 Baker Street in London.

Indali Lounge will serve healthy Indian food, made with the finest ingredients and with a minimum of the butter, oil and other artery-clogging elements that glop up so much of the food found at your average Indian restaurant. Tej's father exuded great confidence and enthusiasm as he boasted of their approach -- their version of Butter Chicken, for example, will be made without butter and will taste much better for it, he said assuredly.

Based on what my friends and I tasted, this approach is likely to work. The flavors of the foods we sampled were delicately balanced; the spices clear to taste but subtle and never excessive. And this is no surprise coming from the family that built Vitabiotics (Wellman, Wellwoman, Pregnacare and more) on the same philosophy of the highest-grade, healthiest components.

Given London's large Indian community and the love of almost any Brit for a good Indian meal, when Indali Lounge opens in a few weeks' time I'm sure it will be a great hit. And I'll be calling Tej to see if I can get a good table whenever I'm in London.

Obama: Don't Wanna, But Gotta

It now seems pretty likely that Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee. If that's so, I guess I'll have to support him -- however grudgingly.

Obama seems to have many admirable qualities; he would certainly be an improvement over the current president. He'll be readily embraced by the rest of the world, especially after the eight-year-long, two-fingered salute delivered by Bush and company. So why am I so ambivalent?

In part it's his lack of experience relative to Hillary Clinton. To a small extent it's the Reverend Wright issue -- not so much what Wright has said as Obama's equivocation; we know what Wright believes, but what does Obama believe?

But mostly it's the way so many of Obama's supporters turned so viciously on Hillary Clinton, vilifying her to an extent that made her former right-wing Republican antagonists seem like lovebirds. These Obama supporters, full of blind zeal -- and who presumably at one point would have gladly supported Clinton as their nominee -- instead turned on her and painted her as a virtual anti-Christ.

And Barack Obama, with his high-minded ideals and his message of change, nevertheless tolerated this and benefited from it. At best, he remained silent while many of his supporters turned on the woman who wanted to lead their party to victory in November. At worst his campaign participated in painting a picture of Hillary Clinton that encouraged and stimulated this venomous outpouring against her.

Why should he not have? He undoubtedly stood to benefit; he is a politician and he is trying to win. But that's the point -- Barack Obama has proven to be a politician no different from any other. The ideals, the messages of hope and unity, were not borne out in practice. He sent his rhetoric soaring to the heavens, yet encouraged his supporters to get down and sling the mud. Given the success of his campaign compared with Clinton's, he is arguably a better politician than she.

If Barack Obama is no different than any other politician, I'd rather elect a politician with some experience. That would be Hillary Clinton. But it seems that this is not to be.

I'm angry at Barack Obama for playing this game. It's been cynical and disingenuous. But if Hillary Clinton might manage to look past it, and perhaps throw her support to Obama, I guess I might too.

Because after all, that's politics.

Ed Bott Misses the Mark

Ed Bott blogged last week about a pay site for programmers that frequently shows up in Google search results and irritates him and others because they find themselves at a pay wall when they click through to results. His somewhat heavy-handed solution? To ask Google to remove all pay sites from its index.

Of course there are many subscription websites that provide very useful knowledge and expertise to their communities. There are many sites worth paying for because they provide unique, actionable and valuable information, frequently updated, from trusted sources. We know because at SubHub we provide the publishing platform for many of these sites and we see the communities that have grown around them.

There is no reason why these sites should not be findable via Google for those who would find them relevant. If Google were to remove them from its index then Google itself would be providing an incomplete picture of available information sources, and would be failing at its mission of indexing all of the world’s information — not just all of the world’s free information.

What is interesting is that despite the complaints Botts' commenters seem to have about the specific site in question, many of the comments then go on to explain how to game the system using caching or blocking of cookies in order to get the information from the site for free. So it’s not that the information is not valuable, it’s that some people don’t want to pay for it.

I will leave it to others to comment on the ethics of doing this, but it strikes me as a bit dubious. If you don’t believe in paying for the information, fine, but don’t steal it. Many of Botts' readers seem to be programmers who presumably would object if someone swiped their intellectual property — their code — so why would they be comfortable swiping someone else’s intellectual property — their content?

What they seem to be saying is that they agree the content on the pay site is indeed valuable to them professionally, but they are too cheap to pay for it. Which does not lead to the conclusion that Google should remove such sites from its index, but rather that pay sites use solutions that do not make it quite so easy to get at the paid content.

Obama's Capital Gains Bombshell

Barack Obama said in last night's debate that he would consider raising the U.S. capital gains tax rate from its current 15 percent to as high as 28 percent, as reported in this New York Times article. Hillary Clinton stated that she would not raise it higher than 20 percent.

Given that he is willing to nearly double the capital gains tax rate, I wonder why Obama seems to be the darling of much of the Silicon Valley set?

Blogging It

I haven't blogged for a while, since about a month ago when I asked Paul McCartney to marry me (he hasn't replied yet, but I'm a patient man).

I'm now trying out TypePad's new "BlogIt" tool via Facebook and if it works as advertised it should be a lot easier and quicker for me to blog, so I hope to do it more often.

Now if only someone can come up with an app to cure long-windedness, I'll be all set.

Dear Paul McCartney: Will You Marry Me?

Dear Sir Paul: will you marry me?

I heard that your now ex-wife, Heather Mills, got £700 for every hour she was married to you. Shameful!

Sir Paul, I’m a lot cheaper than that. My usual consulting rate is £5,000 per day, but let’s face it, we all know that’s a retail rate and subject to negotiation.

Here’s what I suggest. If you’ll commit to 12 months minimum along with exclusivity (you won’t marry anyone else during the term of the agreement) we can get it down to around £2,500/day. And let me assure you, Sir Paul: I work a solid eight-hour day. Nor will I charge you for nights and weekends, which I imagine Ms. Mills did.

Overall then, marrying me works out to around 200 days, or a simple £500,000 for the full year. On an hourly basis, that’s £312.50 per hour. That’s less than half of your previous spouse’s rate.

As for all of this talk about traveling A-class or B-class, Sir Paul, trust me: I’m well prepared to travel B-class. You won’t even need to buy me headphones for the airline flights (between you and me, last time I flew I pretended to be asleep when they came around to collect them after the film ended).

Admittedly, this proposal contains some unconventional elements. First of all, yes, I’m a bloke. But I know, Sir Paul, that you experimented a lot back in the late 1960s so perhaps this may not be an unfamiliar scenario. Maybe with Sir Mick or someone? You don’t have to answer; I’m just speculating. But of course, as your spouse, I can assure you your secrets will be safe with me.

Should you want to have children, well I would gladly bear your child if I could – but sadly we both know this would be biologically impossible. I may be able to arrange to subcontract this activity, at cost plus five percent – a very modest mark-up as I am sure you would agree.

I am also well prepared to serve as your creative muse. I imagine that this would involve my sitting there serenely, looking off into the distance somewhere, while you gaze upon me, tickling the ivories and singing as you may be so moved. However, if you have a different idea, I’m open-minded. Perhaps an interpretive dance?

I have some musical ideas too, but let me assure you I’m no egomaniac. I am happy for your name to go first in all songwriting credits. I know how irritating the whole Lennon-McCartney thing was to you. Personally I think it would trip off the tongue more easily if my name were to come first. But really, it’s your call.

I know that you’ve only just resolved the situation with Ms. Mills and the emotions may still be raw. I just want to say, Sir Paul, I understand. I am willing to wait for you. In the meantime, do you happen to have Sir Mick’s phone number?

Earning British Citizenship

The British Government today has proposed new rules for migrants who wish to earn British citizenship.

Luckily my wife, J, and I got in under the wire a few years ago before the issue came up. We didn’t need to pass any tests although we did have to go to one of the newly introduced American-style swearing-in ceremonies.

It was American-style except perhaps for the giant portrait of Her Majesty the Queen serenely gazing upon us. We were required to swear, or affirm (our choice), our loyalty to her – which we didn’t mind much, as she’s a fairly likable old lady.

Under the new rules, migrants will be required to demonstrate proficiency in the language. J and I have got this covered – we already say “trousers” rather than “pants” and when I am in a traffic dispute I instinctively give the two-fingered salute rather than the raised middle finger of my hometown, New York.

Still, it’s useful sometimes to take on a more American tone such as when a taxi bumped me as I was walking in front of Bath Spa station and the driver said something like, “Watch where you’re going, you wanker,” to which I turned around and shouted “asshole!!” in my most disdainful New York accent.

That shut him up, along with the majority of people milling around nearby. It was so easy to do there in Bath Spa, knowing the odds of being shot at for it were so much lower than back home.

While (or whilst) I’m on the subject: although we are now speaking British English, I have to admit that the term “wanker” merely makes me giggle, whereas it’s apparently quite a severe insult to the British ear. Maybe that’s because in New York “asshole” is on the mild end of the spectrum of potential insults and in that context “wanker” almost seems like a term of endearment.

For a while I did have trouble telling "bollocks" from "bollards." This caused some confusion once when I was driving with my business partner M and I cautioned him to avoid bumping into the nearby bollocks.

I have subsequently come to understand that bollocks are really very different from bollards. In this particular case, it is not all much of a muchness, as the Brits would say. Actually, they’re like chalk and cheese. You may want to look them up yourself.

Back to the proposed new immigration law. The Government wants migrants to “prove their worth.” The Prime Minister -- who may or may not be a wanker, depending on who you ask -- argues that migrants should make a “demonstration of commitment” to the UK. They can do this by proving they are “active” citizens, perhaps engaging in charity work or becoming involved in their local communities.

Let’s hope they do not apply this standard to natural-born British citizens, or millions of people are going to need to be cleared out.

Still, it is true that new citizens are often more committed to their adopted country than natives. They are more appreciative of the opportunity afforded them by their chosen home, and they try to make the most of those opportunities.

On this basis, the new proposals are not necessarily a load of bollocks. Or bollards. Whatever.

When a VC is Untrustworthy

What happens when a VC turns out to be untrustworthy?

My start-up recently held extended discussions with a reputable VC firm. Although we did not proceed with an investment, we felt we liked the VC and we agreed that we'd remain in touch.

As part of the process we of course introduced the VC to our team. The lead partner was particularly impressed with one role we had created and the person in the role. The VC partner told me he had encouraged another of his portfolio companies to create a similar role.

So guess what? About two weeks after the conversation ended, our team member received an email from the private address of the founder of one of the VC's portfolio companies. The same VC partner is on their board. The founder did not name his company, but said he had heard of this team member through "the grapevine," and said they were looking for someone like this person to fill a similar role at his "well-funded start-up."

It did not take Sherlock Holmes to figure out this person's company, or his connection to the VC. Since our team member does not circulate much in the sector, nor in the geographic area where this company is located, it seems pretty clear that the lead came from the VC himself.

Maybe I'm naive, but I thought we could assume some level of integrity from the VCs with whom we speak -- or is all fair in love and business? Obviously it would not be helpful to the VC firm's deal flow if they were to be seen as likely to poach from companies in which they do not invest (presumably this is why they clumsily decided to cover their tracks with an email from the founder's personal address rather than the company itself).

You can bet we won't be talking to this VC again in the future -- or do they all behave this way? Is this surprisingly underhanded? Or commonplace?

Barack Attack

How ironic that Barack Obama turns out to be the primary beneficiary of the unrelenting right-wing hate campaign against Hillary Clinton.

As we have seen on the campaign trail, Obama is happy to use this to his advantage by continually reminding us of Hillary Clinton’s “baggage.” How cynical, when he should be condemning these right-wing politics of destruction.

Obama claims to be the candidate of "change" -- whatever that means -- but he is happy to advance his candidacy by echoing the worst of American politics. The many fabrications and right-wing slanders that could not stick to Hillary previously now become reality as Obama reminds us of how encumbered Hillary is by them.

To advance his own personal aspirations, Barack Obama willingly allows himself be the tool that the Hillary-haters use to finally deny her the presidency. He may claim to be untainted by Washington politics, but his deft manipulation of Hillary's supposed negatives suggest he may be a better politician than her.

Many of Hillary's own natural supporters, like this blogger, are increasingly buying into this rhetoric and abandoning her. It's not that they think Hillary is unworthy, they say, it's that she can't overcome her negatives. How sad that they are making themselves complicit in the right-wing hate campaign to destroy Hillary's presidential aspirations. When they voted for Obama for this reason, I hope they appreciated the irony.

Barack Obama claims to possess none of Hillary's alleged negatives, but the fact that he has engaged in this brand of politics should be a big negative to anyone who may be drawn to him. Hillary has run a straightforward campaign. Obama has been the manipulator.

The right-wing attack dogs must be gleeful at how the end game for their years-long anti-Hillary strategy is finally playing out. They will dispense with Hillary, who rightly reminds us how battle-tested she is in facing down her attackers. Instead they will get the young, unproven Barack Obama, who has yet to turn his platitudes into policies -- and with Hillary out of the way they can start unloading on him. Watch out.