It talks about the new penguin mail update and there are some new current events.
On July 25th, the music party is coming back and so is the penguin band!

And the second party is my 1,000 hits/40 Subscribers  party!

Heres the info:
When: Saturday at 9:00 AM PST (12: 00 Eastern, 11:00 Central, and 10:00 Western)
Server: Frozen
Where: Harbicoil45's igloo
Why: To celebrate 1,000 hits, and 40 subscribers!

Cya there!

-Harbicoil

Between my housemates, workmates, hairdressers and friends I found myself flicking through the following list.

• Cosmopolitan - UK publication of the annoying monthly featuring airbrushed US celebs on the cover with "fun glamour" and "hot tips" on applying your makeup/spicing up your sex life/flirting/buying the right pair of jeans. All the important things in life...right?
• Glamour - Exactly the same as Cosmo, slightly lower budget
• Marie Claire - Not as terrible as Cosmo but only just. Slightly more environmentally and globally aware. Oh and you will never be able to afford any of the clothes advertised, unless you have a high paying job where you work so much that you don't have time to read this magazine advertising these clothes. Sorry!
• Grazia - Similar to a weekly version of Marie Claire
• Look - Cheaper version of Grazia
• Heat - Gossip magazine revolving around the shameful lives of (mostly) local UK celebrities
• Closer - Exactly the same as Heat
• Hello - Thicker version of Heat or Closer, generally featuring anyone in or with connections to the Royal family. Lots of photo spreads featuring rich football players showing of their new homes/wives/children/cars.
• OK! - Exactly the same as Hello

If you can't tell yet, none of these magazines made it onto my 'list'. Here are my two UK faves.

Woman & Home

For a great treat every month, check out Woman & Home - the magazine with a brand new attitude for 35-plus women who don't want to be pigeon holed. Every month, it's full of ideas - all given the unique w&h spin. Why not read a copy and discover why it is such a brilliant read. We know you'll love it!

The above is their own description of the publication and you know what? They are spot on! If you've been reading along, you'll note that I've only just turned 23 and do not yet fit into the 35+ bracket yet. But I love this magazine. And if I'm being truely honest, they usually do a fashion spread for each age group (20's, 30's etc) and I generally prefer the clothes they pick for the women in their 40's or 50's. When reading this magazine I don't feel like I'm lowering my IQ and I always come away with a great new idea or two.

Pro: Great clothes for real women of all shapes and sizes; amazing monthly features on inspitational female entrepreneurs from different business sectors; helpful health information which never includes fad diets

Con: Can sometimes be a bit hit-and-miss with their celebrity cover stories.

eg. Susan Sarandon: Intelligent, political activist, Hollywood legend - YES.

Penny Smith: Annoying, giggly news reader on GMTV - NO NO NO NO NO NO AND WHY?

Psychologies

Psychologies is the first women's magazine that's about what we're like, not just what we look like. If you're interested in the ways we think, behave and connect, then this is for you. Whether you want to develop your own potential, or become a better parent, partner or friend, we'll bring you the ideas, insights and inspiration to help you do it.

Again, spot on. Their tagline is "Get what you want and and love what you've got." I get a real kick out of this magazine and that line. This publication is all about helping you to appreciate what you already have. Instead of coaxing you into buying it, the writers let you know that you don't need that super expensive handbag or D&G sandals. They help with budgets, better personal behaviour and physical health. So you might not NEED that handbag, but if it's within the budget you have diligently made, if you've made a personal break-through (be it physical, mental or emotional) and you feel you deserve some positive reinforcement then go ahead! However Psychologies is much more into rewarding yourself with things like a quiet night with a book or a day out hiking, which suits me just fine anyway. But you get my point. (Sorry for the super-long analogy there.)

Pro: 'Thinking' celebrities; Dossier; The Five Senses; always has a great selection of new books (both mainstream and psychology-centred) and an intently followed book club.

Con: The only thing I don't like about this publication is that they tend to have a test/quiz in most issues, usually located in the Dossier. This is just a personal thing as I can't stand tests in magazines.

So there you go, not wildly in-depth but they're just my opinions. If you're in the UK and want a good, glossy read pick up a copy of w&h or Psychologies. If you're anything like me, you won't be disappointed.

Cheers.

With Bill Gates preparing to retire next month, the Microsoft chairman gave his take on the future of the software maker's online strategy – search advertising.

“You make these bets and you stick with them for more than five years," Gates told an auditorium filled with Microsoft advertisers last week at the company's Redmond, Wash., headquarters. "You bet on graphics interface, you bet on Internet browsing. Here with search, we believe that we can take it and embed it in a broader experience."

But some observers say that Microsoft (MSFT) is gambling its future on the wrong type of online advertising. If Microsoft really wants to be a market leader, it should focus its efforts on display advertising.

“Display is a much more wide-open and fragmented market," said Paul Levine, marketing vice president of AdBrite, a leading online ad network. "There’s an opportunity to be a real leader. The display market today is where search was five years ago. No one has a winning formula yet.”

Display is the preferred method of brand advertisers to broadcast messages through images and videos rather than text ads.

A Microsoft spokeswoman says the company is working equally hard on its display advertising efforts. The company has bulked up its display advertising presence in the past year with the purchase of marketing firm aQuantive and by signing partnerships with Viacom and social media sites Digg and Facebook. It also bought YaData, an Israeli startup that serves banners ads based on the way Internet users browse sites, and rolled out a new analytics service called "engagement mapping" to let advertisers know which of their online ads - display or search - are most effective.

Still, no one has yet found the way to dominate display advertising the way Google has done with search. Not even Google (GOOG) is there yet. "It's fair to say that Google is not the leader in display ads," Google CEO Eric Schmidt admitted to CNBC's Maria Bartiromo in an interview last month.

Microsoft doesn’t hide the fact that it desperately wants to compete with Google in online advertising and that it bid $47.5 billion for Yahoo in an effort to catch up to the market leader. Google market share rose to 61.6% in April with Yahoo (YHOO) at 20.1% and Microsoft at 9.1%, according to comScore.

Though Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer withdrew the offer to buy Yahoo earlier this month, he's reconsidering a deal to acquire Yahoo's search business.

Analysts don’t think that’s a good idea, either. “It makes more sense for Microsoft to work with Yahoo on display because it’s a much more open market and it will attract brand marketers,” said David Hallerman, an analyst with research firm eMarketer.

While Microsoft is pouring billions to catch up to Google in search, its competitor is investing billions to make its mark in the graphical display market.

Google's acquisition of DoubleClick and YouTube are widely seen as ways to buy into the untapped market of delivering ads when people aren't searching online. According to eMarketer, the U.S. search ad market is expected to double to $19 billion by 2012 while the display ad market, which also includes videos and rich media, is projected to triple to $18.7 billion.

With or without Yahoo, Microsoft is forging ahead with plans to chip away at Google's dominance of search advertising. "A pure keyword search has its limits," Gates said last week. "People want refinement. When a search doesn't work, they want to know how they can go to that next step." Gates said Microsoft will focus on delivering better results in specific search domains like commerce, travel, and images.

Microsoft's first stab at taking search to the next level is through its "cashback" program, a rebate scheme that will pay Internet users money whenever they buy products like cameras and electronics through Microsoft's Live Search engine. Microsoft is banking that as more people spend time buying on Live Search, more advertisers will promote their products, and Microsoft will grab a bigger slice of the paid search market.

AdBrite's Levine, a former Yahoo exec, thinks that's the wrong strategy. "People think of search on the Internet as a utility, like sticking a plug into a wall and getting electricity," he said. "I have trouble believing that people will flock to different search engines for different purposes."

Even if Microsoft is able to attracts enough consumers and marketers to worry Google, analysts say the cashback scheme isn't a game changer. "In the unlikely event that Google experienced significant share loss to Microsoft as a result of Cashback, it would retaliate with a similar scheme of its own," wrote Bernstein Research analyst Jeffrey Lindsay in a note to clients. "We see Live Cashback as more of a competitive discounting challenge than a truly disruptive new pricing model."

Some argue that at least Microsoft should be applauded for finding an alternative to Google. "Big advertisers like eBay have a love-hate relationship with Google," said Yen Lee, CEO of travel search engine Uptake and a former exec for Yahoo's search business. "That Microsoft has a clever way of price-cutting, well that's interesting to big advertisers."

I've seen plenty of people fired from the Bush administration. But I'm not sure I can remember one who sent out an (immediately leakable) email to her department announcing she'd been fired. But that's pretty much what the comically unethical chief GSA did tonight.

I remember Lurita Alexis Doan most as the woman that equated a specific Inspector General as being terrorist while trying to dismantle the IG oversight program.

• DR: "Ciao,"
• DR: ... mmh, la adottiamo come standard?
• She-Evil: preferivi "distinti saluti"?
• DR: no, no, è solo che la virgola mi inquieta: così, solitaria, in attesa di qualcosa, come un sol-settima alla fine di una canzone.

1. Blogger
2. People that are reaching out to bloggers
3. Or Both

Most folks are in the "both category". How do you find folks that are interested in what you say and promote it.

What are the good ways to relate to bloggers? Everyone that is involved is going to get their blog published on a this facebook event page.

Our format is we are going to "we are going to walk out with 10 ways to piss off a blogger" that we are going come up with a as a group

1. The first way to piss off a blogger is to invite them to something and not give them a chance to talk about themselves.
2. People that say they have been reading for years... but have not been
3. Someone taking your identity and using it for evil
4. Getting on spam lists (vocus takes bloggers email addresses and spam you)
5. What about treating bloggers in the same way you treat journalist
6. Don't send bloggers things that aren't relevant - Does bad pitching / irrelevant pitching relate to laziness
7. Don't treat bloggers like direct mail - be specific and build relationships with bloggers
8. Don't ask bloggers for favors
9. Actually read what they say and be familiar with the content
10. Unreasonable timelines/ expectations
11. Don't assume some expectations from bloggers
12. Format your content so that a blogger can use it conveniently
13. Don't make bloggers deal with bureaucratic layers and approvals
14. Make sure you identify yourself
15. What about managing expectations of treatment for bloggers vs press. Example would be invitation for an event would be just attending vs a full press pass. This can be a double edged sword... do you want to be treated like a journalist or a blogger? Do bloggers put themselves in the "kid's sandbox". A solution would be give examples of how you would like to be pitched to. (This is a big tangent) There are clear differences between bloggers and journalists.
16. Bad attribution or non attribution of a bloggers story as the original source
17. Insincerity relating to some hidden motivation
18. Retaliation lead by corporation related to something that disagrees with their point of view
19. Full disclosure

The number one way to piss off a blogger is: ???? Don't be sincere, don't share your identity, unrealistic expectations, unattribution... etc.

1st: When you order a Header and a Avatar wait for it to be posted on the "Pick Up Header" or if you ordered a Avatar on the "Pick up Avatar" page.

2nd: We have NEW "Desktop and Screen savers" page where you can get your own desktop picture or screen saver!

3rd: We deleted the post of the headers that Penny2263 made and posted it on the "Pick Up Header" page.. and if you need to pick up your header go to the "Order a Header" page and scroll all the way down and see a button that says " Pick Up Header" the same with Avatars.. except the button will be called "Pick Up Avatar"!

Thankz,

- Zoey500911 and Penny2263

My conclusion, and I offer this with great caution, is that critical support for Obama is the correct approach to take. Yet this really does mean critical support. It means, among other things, that Senator Obama needs to be challenged on his views regarding the Middle East; he must be pushed beyond his relatively pale position on Cuba to denounce the blockade; he must be pushed to advance a genuinely progressive view on the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast and the right of return for the Katrina evacuees; and he must be pushed to support single payer healthcare.

As I emphasized in an earlier commentary, it is up to the grassroots to keep the candidates honest. Silence, in the name of unity, is a recipe for betrayal.

When Imus called last year’s Rutgers University Women’s Basketball team a bunch of “nappy-headed hos” He was not simply dissin’ them for their hairstyle, but rather was pointing to larger systems of race and gender identity.

“Black hair,” referring to the hair of women from the African Diaspora, has taken on many forms. From afros and dreadlocks to curly and straightened hair, Black women have revolutionized “Black hair” throughout time, giving themselves various hairstyles to show uniqueness in their being. However, the controversy about “Black hair” seems to lie in whether or not Black women should have natural or chemically treated hair. On one side of the argument, you have people believing that Black women’s hair should remain natural; they view wanting to have chemically treated hair is wanting to feel white, beautiful, and/or more accepted by their culture, especially in the United States. On the other side of the debate, you have people who believe that Black women should be able to do whatever they want to do with their hair, whether it be natural or permed.

Why should Black women be able to do with their hair what they wish? Black women changing their hairstyles, whether staying natural or through chemical treatment, illustrates uniqueness not assimilation during today’s society. To say that all Black women should have natural hair is to say that all Black women are the same, which is not a true statement; therefore, “Black hair” should be solely defined by the Black woman individually, not Black women collectively.

Chemically treated “Black hair” may have first surfaced to assimilate but in today’s time, it has become a part of Black women’s culture. The majority of the women who came to the States during the African Diaspora had hair texture that fit the environment of their homeland, which consisted of kinky, wooly, or thick hair. Leading into the 1900s and thereafter, Black women such as Annie Malone and Madam C. J. Walker began to change the way Black women wore their hair. Using chemicals and straightening combs, “Black hair” began to evolve into various hairstyles having different types of texture. Conforming and assimilating to white culture could have been a reason for the introduction of these styling methods. It’s also possible that many Black women who chemically treated their hair possibly were doing so in order to feel more beautiful.

In today’s society, however, chemically treated “Black hair” manifests itself as a representation of the culture of Black women. In Merriam-Webster’s dictionary, culture is “the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group.” Thus, when a new way of being comes into a society, its beginning may spring from assimilating but if it becomes a custom within the society, something of the norm, it is no longer a matter of conformation but of culture. That is not to say that some Black women who perm their hair do not believe that it makes them more beautiful. Many Black women believe that long, straightened hair equals “good hair” and that kinky hair equals “bad hair.” Nevertheless, not all Black women feel that a perm induces beauty but rather that it is a part of who they are due to generations before them making it the norm of their culture. However, just as Black women having perm placed in their heads is a part of their culture, this does not exclude natural hair being a part of the culture of Black women.

Black women vary in every aspect of life; therefore, there should be variance in the way they want to wear their hair. Having naturally or chemically treated hair does not make a Black woman more Black or white. In a class discussion, Jessica Walker stated that when Black women perm their hair they should ask themselves, “Why am I doing this to my hair? Does it make me feel beautiful? If so, what is the definition of beauty and who told that to me?” However, one can ask a Black woman who chooses to keep her hair natural similar questions: “Why am I doing this? Does this make me feel more in touch with my ‘Black’ side? Do I want my hair natural because it grows faster and thicker than when I have a perm?”

In today’s society, if a Black woman perms her hair, it does not show her accepting the customs of whites just as a Black woman having an afro does not illustrate her accepting the “Black power” theme. Of course, there are Black women who perm their hair to obtain “whiteness,” just as there are Black women who go or stay natural in order to get in touch with their “blackness.” Whether “Black hair” is natural or chemically processed, it is a part of Black women’s culture. There are many facets to “Black hair” in the culture; therefore, Black women should be able to wear their hair however they please.

Over time, “Black hair” has become more unique in the diverse choice of hairstyles, which is rightly so because Black women vary in what they like and do not like. In order to understand why Black women’s hair should fluctuate, I compare it to religious views. Growing up, your guardians teach you the religious values that they would like for you to know. These values and beliefs become a part of you and as you grow older, you have the right to re-evaluate the customs and change or keep your beliefs. This goes along with “Black hair” because as a Black woman, when you are a child, your guardian does with your hair what they wish and it becomes a part of you. When you are older, you can modify it, but there is no doubt that it was a part of your culture just as your new modification to your hair will be a part of your culture. Saying that Black women should have a collective hairstyle whether it is an afro, dreadlocks, processed hair, etc. is like saying that all Black people should be Democrats. Just as Black people have different political views because they think and live diversely, Black women have different views on the way to style their hair due to their different upbringings. The controversy surfacing “Black hair” will undoubtedly continue; nonetheless, there is no doubt that “Black hair” of all textures, whether natural or chemically processed, is a part of Black culture due to the evolution of “Black hair” over time.

It was understandable that Hillary’s “Golden Girls” acolytes would freak out when they saw the throngs of young Obama hopemongers swarming the caucuses.

Meanwhile, Mother Jones' article, written back in November '07, foretells some of the old-skool media-politico dynamics relevant to what was expected vs happened in Iowa:

As the 20th century progressed, American politics became increasingly organized around broadcast media. But now top-down, one-to-many communication is giving way to a very different kind of media—diffuse, participatory, individualized.... The GOP's success in old media—think Morning in America, Pat Robertson, Willie Horton, Rush Limbaugh, Swift Boat—was essential to its ascent, while the emergent blogosphere and social networking sites play to progressive strengths. (Finally, decentralization and lack of hierarchy are an asset rather than a liability.)

And finally, I gotta give a nod to Frank Rich for his critique of not only the fear-based politics and political reporting of yesteryear, while getting that Culture (along with Charisma) is just as important if not more so policy/experience/showing strength. Ahem,

The “they” who did not see the cultural power of these men, of course, includes not just the insular establishments of both their parties but the equally cloistered echo chamber of our political journalism’s status quo.

Pizzero

So how did the New York Times handle this great accomplishment? They put the story on page 15. If he would have been against the war...

You may read the transcript of the Honor bestowed upon Mr. Crandall at the White House here. There is also a nice commentary over at the OpinionJournal Online by Daniel Henninger. It is sad, however, that all of the good news in Iraq is being pushed to back pages of history. For shame...

It has been well known for quite some time now that you will find some people prone to conspiratorial thinking. Let us start with: The war in Iraq was for oil. If that were true, why is gas more expensive now than before the war? France, Germany, Russia, and China had contracts for future oil sales, and they were the most strident obstructionists. Could it be that they were all involved in the Oil for Food scandal ($10 Billion has been stolen) that is under investigation as I write this? Their contracts are now null and void, since the government they dealt with no longer exists! Yes, it is indeed they who were against us because of your precious oil. Tisk tisk tisk.

Second, there are no weapons of mass destruction and there never were. Okay, then why did Bill Clinton bomb Iraq in 1998? Why did 15 out of 15 members of the UN Security counsel, including Syria, vote to have Saddam turn them over or else...? Clinton, Albright, Burger, France, UK, Spain, Germany, and other countries all had intelligence that he did indeed have these weapons. If President Bush had bad intelligence (which he didn't,) then everyone was wrong. Ultimately though, there is only one person who is to blame that could have prevented the war. That is your darling Saddam. This is what happens when we don't stick together. What don't you understand about "Either you are with us or you are against us?" What don't you understand about terrorism? If everyone spoke with one voice, Saddam would have seen that he had no choice but to hand over the weapons which he promised to do since 1991. Instead, Saddam was dancing in the streets on September 11, 2001. I have not forgotten, have you?

Third, why did we FIND Saran nerve agent if it wasn't there? What about the mustard gas, the 3000 chemical suits we found hidden in a hospital during the 3 week war, the soldiers that became ill due to exposure to WMD, the VX that was found in Jordan that could have killed 80,000 people, the 500 tons of enridched uranium found in Bagdad, and on and on? It happened because it is true. No conspiracy here, sorry.

Fourth, since when do you let your enemy know you coming after them almost a year in advance? Forty eight hours in advance?

Last, but not the least of this argument,Maybe the President is friends with the Saudi Arabian government? Well, every president since FDR has been friends with the Saudis. It's called diplomacy. You cannot scream for the diplomacy of a murderous dictator, Saddam, drive your fancy cars, scream about the price of gas, deny us the ability to drill for oil on our own soil, and not expect us to keep diplomatic ties with the Saudis. President Bush is the first one to stand up to them and tell them that we cannot coddle dictators any longer. They must let their people be free. They are even moving toward local elections, or haven't you heard through your pathetic screeching?

Yes, there is a movement going on in the Middle East. People see what the Iraqis are able to do and wonder why they are not allowed. Freedom is the only thing that once you taste it, you can't stop it from spreading.

Are you forgetting Tiananmen Square? I can assure they have not. Communism will fall. It cannot stand. The way it has to be implemented is pure evil. If you were decent people, you would do what I do-buy American as much as you can. I realize computers are no longer made it this country. Thank you, lefties, for driving them away due to high cost of labor and it's demands, and then you scream there are no jobs. Well, I'd have to say you're right. Have you ever owned a business here? Capitalism was never meant to be an arm of the government, you fascist idiots with your regulations!!!! Please excuse me. You may have noticed that I have just about had it with these children dressed in grownup clothes. Actually, most people are afraid, for politically correct reasons, to call you what you really are... communists. Don't worry, there are still enough of us that do know exactly what and who you are, and it won't happen. Not here, not now, not ever. Back to the article.

Do you not realize we are in WWIV? (Yes, the cold war was WWIII.) Lay off our, my, president. Do not let your hatred destroy you. If you want to destroy yourself, fine, just don't take us with you. That is exactly what you are doing. The Middle East and al Qaida are watching everything you do. If they see disunity, they feel safe and strong. Do you want the blood of your fellow countrymen on your hands? Keep acting like you know no better. You, we, will all the price.

I hope and pray for the Afghani and Iraqi people, that they may continue to know sweet freedom, and never again let a dictator destroy your beauty and spirit.

Well, now that I have given you some facts to ponder, although I really want to yell and scream at you that you are fighting the wrong people-we are not the enemy!-now I can go to sleep with a smile upon my face. A sad smile, yes, but a smile still the same.