Winer gets all journalisticky over the latest "leaked" emails from Bill and Ray. Dave! it's! just! PR! No wonder Microsoft keeps throwing you back in the creek whenever they catch you. It's just too much fun.

Did Bill have another one of those 40 day in the desert retreats or something? Web 2.0, meet Microsoft and Web 2.0.11 Build 4273.

And now the news...

"Bloggers make things up."

I'm so happy that executives of television stations hold themselves to such high standards. I just made that up.

It says right here that one of Bill Clinton's core values is "demanding responsiblity".

Depending on what is is, I guess. Maybe it's a typo.

... "more influential than John Lennon or Bob Dylan"...

Over and out. Goodnight. Goodbye.

(Insert sarcastic question/comment here.)

UPDATE: Winer vs. Jesus, Winer vs. Dylan, Winer vs. Lennon

Rumours of upcoming computer models from Apple are starting to leak out. The most relevant of these concerns a large, tower-type unit with a 3 GB hard drive, 128 MB of RAM, optional 12" 640x480 CRT display and an 8-bit sound card called the "Mac Macro". Insiders have not been able to positively identify the processor but some have seen the inside of the machine and observed a view of the CPU which read "Pent", something, something, something, "III".

Also rumoured to be included with the computer will be the long awaited OS extension so far known only as "Fenetres" which has a configuration button in the lower left-hand corner reading "You are required to START here". Some have reported that in an alternately skinned version of the interface the button reads "Steve says you must START here". The system will be packaged in an art deco style box designed by Christo and will be featured in a series of commercials with pop stars explaining why re-booting is a security feature, since life is random.

Will the New York Times soon be distributing broadsheets to Marxists in warehouse squats? Incredibly the Times comes out 4 square against wealth creation in the United States in the June 5th Sunday edition. (As a matter of "policy" I do not link to Times stories. I would like to do it of course, but as they say at car rental and air line counters, "I cannot do it sir because we have a policy against it...")

The stats: (from their own story)
Between 1983 and 2001 -
Percentage increase of all households in U.S. -- 27%
Percentage increase in number of households having inflation adjusted net worth of $1.5 million -- 123%
Percentage increase in number of households having inflation adjusted net worth of $5-10 million -- 304%
Percentage increase in number of households having inflation adjusted net worth of $>10 million -- 409%

The obvious conclusion should be that a greater proportion of U.S. tax payers were able to increase their collective wealth in an 18 year period. In other words: More Americans got "rich". Somehow the Times views this as bad news; their headline: "Richest are Leaving Even the Rich Far Behind".

They even manage to pull ole' Dubya into this thing by whining about how tax cuts are going to give the rich even larger breaks in the future. What their tax charts show me is how the upper middle class tax payer is hammered by the system. Based on 2001 numbers; 70.5% of all taxes were paid by the top 20% of income earners. With tax cuts in full bloom by 2015 the top 20% of income earners will be paying -- drum roll please -- 71% of all income taxes paid. These numbers show that tax cuts are a boon to those who earn capital gains and dividends. Every Monopoly player realizes that not just the rich can earn money doing that.

After supplying a bunch of stats with the article and then sidestepping the positive aspects of them, the Times concludes with this absurd and completely unsubstantiated paragraph:
"But in fact, economic mobility -- moving from one income group to another over a lifetime -- has actually stopped rising in the United States, researchers say. Some recent studies suggest it has even declined over the last generation."

Funny that. More people have increased net worth and yet income mobility is static or declining. (BTW this is all based on 2001 numbers, before the real estate bubble.) Something does not compute or maybe those folks have been using dividend and capital gains increases wisely. Bad, bad rich people. Here is a listing of the advertisers from page 2 and 3 of the Sunday Times: Chanel, Movado, Dior, Tiffany & Co., Mikimoto, Jacob & Co., Fortunoff, Tourneau, Bloomingdales, Saks Fifth Avenue, Lord & Taylor's, Macy's, Barneys.

Make the rich pay! More.

Blah, blah, blah... Joi Ito. Industry confab blah, blah, blah...Robert Scoble. Podcasting savant blah, blah, blah... Adam Curry. Really upset blah, blah, blah... Dave Winer. But not as much as blah, blah, blah... Marc Cantor. Travelling all over the place blah, blah, blah... Jeff Pulver. I've got a secret blah, blah, blah... Steve Gillmor. Been there, done that blah, blah, blah... Doc Searls.

Oops, I think my link database got corrupted...

From a BBC web site article that, I believe, is the first to engage in Podcast Sports (after Doc's observations on "Vendor Sports") we get this -- shall we say -- interesting quote (I hope it's a misquote) from the Uberpodder:

"I have 50, 60, 70,000 listeners. I could make a couple of bucks off that, but not much. If you are talking a million podcasters, and then you can kind of divide that amongst ourselves, then that is kind of interesting."

Ummm... On a recent podcast the number of 80,000 was used. Apparently with the audience of a small market radio station you could only make a couple of bucks. Two bucks. 2.

What's with the smoke screen? Curry is not planning a loaves and fishes routine with a "couple of bucks". If the money is going to be chump change to him personally, then how could it suddenly multiply in effect if "ourselves" got involved? The statement does not compute because he obscures his audience numbers, once again provides no metrics and talks about a "million" podcasters which is three orders of magnitude bigger than reality.

So you see kids, you can't make enough money from growing listenership and advertising revenue with this "new" technology. That would be old school. That's what dumb old-media does... You know, little companies like CBS, Clear Channel, and Yahoo. No, here's what's going to happen. We're going to hype this baby to the point that we get a million podcasters sending a couple of bucks to Adam. That's how "we" make money.

Am I the only one wondering if it was Eckles from the Goon Show who was asking the razor witted questions for the BBC? We have officially become airborne over shark infested waters. You read it here first.