Saturday, June 30, 2007

iPhone Diary 6/30

Pathetic nerd day. Spent day obsessively loading songs and videos onto new toy. How obsessive? Took time to make sure all album titles were correct on ripped albums, and tried to get all album art ported over. (Didn't work on all albums, for some reason, even albums that are definitely there on iTunes. Issue goes on The List.)

How obsessive is Doug? Spent time changing "Weather" display. Spent time modifying world clock to list favorite cities. That's obsessive geekdom, ladies and gents. When wife gets home, she will make fun of me. If not, another 100 relationship points.

Downloaded a bunch of TV episodes from iTunes; watched an episode of "Monk" and an episode of "Kim Possible." Yes, I'm pathetic. Battery life quite impressive. Next up: I can finally watch Heroes.

Sent text message to sister the Apple fanatic to brag. She didn't answer. What's the point in bragging if you can't create envy?

Spent time Web surfing. Had to tweak home network issues a little bit; always forget my password is Hex. Download speed impressive. Web surfing is very nice; experience is much superior than that on my Archos 604 wifi; sorry, Archos. Two reasons: Safari on the iPhone is better than on the Archos, and the iPhone screen is simply vastly superior. Also, the zoom in/out function rocks.

Spent time setting up email, which was a pain only because it meant I had to set up email on yet another of my laptops (I have three). Oy. But when it was done, it works fine on the iPhone. I can see why the BlackBerry addicts get, um, addicted. Doubt I will, though; most of that account's email is junk.

Bought a slip-case for the gadget. Pretty bogus that Apple doesn't include one. C'mon, Steve; 600 clams and not even a cheesy leatherette job? Lame.

Finding the two-thumb typing method useless; turns out I'm (wait for it) all thumbs. On other hand, single-finger method works fine, and 'way faster than old cell phone key-pad hunt-and-peck method. I'm fine with it.

Current wants: eReader, games. I still can't believe there are no games, not even Solitaire, for cryin' out loud.

Currently researching DVD ripping-and-conversion tools for m4v format; all my knowledge in AVI/DivX area. Oh well, back to drawing board! Keeps me out of trouble.

Fun new toy. Fun fun fun.

Note on price: read lots of complaints about the price. Reviewers are boneheads. PDAs cost between $200-$1000 (the HTC Universal retailed for $1200). The iPhone is selling for half what the HTC Universal retailed for, it's 'way better, weighs half as much, and does a lot more. People keep forgetting it's a PDA and a phone.

Friday, June 29, 2007

iPhone Diary 6/29-2

Late. Late late late. Obsessively setting up iPhone. Still haven't had dinner. Did have Mt. Dew, however. Not a healthy diet. Reverting to hard-core geekdom of college years. Glad my wife can't see.

Minor hassle with AT&T/iTunes setup. Turns out phone account had "tax ID number" associated with it, precluding signup through iTunes. Who knew? Certainly not me. Nice AT&T phone support guy removed tax ID number, and iTunes signup proceeded smoothly thereafter. (First bottled water, now this. Good press from Doug!)

Sent text message to forebearing wife. "Cool," notes wife. 100 relationship points to wife for not making fun of geek husband. Call wife on voice line. Voice connection clearer than with old Motorola v180; cool indeed!

iPhone not wanting to sync to more than one computer at a time. Hm, odd. iPods can do it; why not iPhones? Bad boy, Steve! Signed up iPhone on wrong computer; now have to move all my PDA info to other system. Bummer being me. Good thing all music and videos backed up on external hard disk. Ha ha ha!

iPhone not wanting to hook into house wireless network. Gonna have to call tech support on that one; can't live with Edge speeds in my own house. I mean, geez, the Archos 604 can do it, Apple!

Wow; quick charge! Now listening to soothing tones of Miles Davis: "All Blues". Blow that horn, Miles.

Want to download next episode of "Heroes" to watch before I fall asleep. 500Mb. 60 minutes. Real bummer being me. Oh well; I needed to eat and watch Keith Olbermann, anyway.

iPhone Diary 6/29-1

Back to AT&T store. Doors open for iPhone distribution at 6. Did a drive by at 4:30. Not much of a line; that's the advantage of being in a non-geek area and hidden from the road. Swing by McDonalds to choke down some Fud. Back to line. Only about 50 people or so ahead of me. Odds look good.

Line commences moving promptly at 6pm. Moves along at decent pace. Rain has abated, but temperature and humidity in Austin combine to make it feel like it's about 95 or so. Deploy giant, black umbrella, brought along for rain or sun. Mac fanatic next to me is very thankful for shade; shares Mt. Dew. Doug thankful for caffeine. Line lurches along.




















Friendly AT&T folks have taken pity on line standers and left bottled water outside. Thank you, friendly AT&T people; friendlier write-up assured.

Salesperson chats with me, notes they have about 15 8Gb phones for each 4Gb phone. I opine that, given the lack of an expansion slot, getting a 4Gb phone seems a mite silly. He notes that in an affluent place like Austin that might be true, but other places, maybe not so much. I concede the point.




















6:30pm: Door in sight. Folks let into store in groups of 10. Finally inside. Stand under a/c vent for a minute or two, waiting for body temperature to drop back into normal range. Sheriff's deputy--there for crowd control, one presumes--gently points me at correct place in line; dehydrated, I had wandered. Thank him, pull head together, get back in line like good little ant.

At counter. Small hitch: my phone number is 408; this is a 512 area code. Oh no! Will they sell to me? Trauma! No; more experienced salesperson takes care of problem. (One would think this would never be a problem--these are cell phones, after all--but never mind.) Crisis averted. Money exchanged for shiny gadget. (Well, Doug hopes shiny gadget is contained in black box with pretty picture on it.) Box put in bag. Bag clutched tightly in hand, Doug heads for exit and home. And more Mt. Dew; dehydration problem very bad.

Go to Gear Diary for unboxing and pictures, coming soon.

Thursday, June 28, 2007

iPhone Diary; 6/28/07

Visited local AT&T store today. Store still has "Cingular" sign outside. Workmen frantically removing "Cingular" sign and putting up "AT&T" sign on top of building when I went in, no doubt in anticipation of the Ravening Hordes coming tomorrow. As building is not visible from the road due to local ordinance, why this matters, I have no idea.

Went in to make sure there was no magic "waiting list" or other insanities that I needed to be on. Was assured that all I needed was a body (mine) and a credit card. Salesman informed me store will be open until 10, and everyone who doesn't get an iPhone will be ordered one, although with no guarantee as to how long fulfillment will take. Or you can just order online, wait, and hope for the best. (What, delayed gratification? As if! I'm an American! Want Toy Now!)

Commiserated with salesman, who already looks punch-drunk and weary. Asked if he was stuck with sales duty tomorrow. Told me, "We all are." Bought new earphone for my trusty v180 (just in case; washed old one in cargo shorts by accident) and departed.

No people waiting outside. Yet. Cannot line up myself until 2pm at earliest, due to childcare issues. Just as well; monsoon season here in Austin, and I have no kayak. Preparation problems: wear Humphrey Bogart-style fedora? (Too hot for trench coat.) Bring ginormous umbrella? Hibachi grill? Bottle of tequila? Bong? (Hey, it's an Apple product; you never know what kind of people will be on line! Especially in Austin. Motto: "Keep Austin Weird.") Cups-o-soup? Wait until 9:55pm and hope for the best? Who knows what Doug will do.

Our Constitutional Work is Clear

It wasn't that long ago, when the fanatics were once again pushing an anti-flag burning amendment (trust me: don't get me started), that I was thinking that there weren't too many things left we needed to do to the Constitution. "If Congress is seriously considerings such silly things to tack onto the Constitution, we must be running out of important things to have in there," I thought.

How wrong I was.

It's clear from Dick Cheney's shenanigans, and many of the more heinous activities of the Bush Administration, that some additional Constitutional clarity is in order. Not that I think any of our Representatives are reading this blog (certainly not mine--it's Lamar Smith, for crying out loud), but this is my blather, after all:
  • The line of succession needs to be tightly defined. For one thing, if no non-native born American can be President, then the current line is obviously bogus. For another, the current line of succession can leave you with a President from the other party in a split government, which is really not okay. This obviously needs to be fixed.
  • A very clear set of definitions on what the Vice Presidents powers and authorities are needs to be enumerated. I don't think all the things a V.P. can do needs to be listed, but in the fine tradition of the Constitution, a nice clear listing of what he or she can never do would be a good idea. Especially in light of recent events.
  • The recent use and abuse of Presidential "signing statements", aside from being a clear violation of how the founders envisioned the separation of powers, has been spectacularly confusing for the poor schmoes who are trying to implement the laws Congress has enacted. Recent studies have shown that a significant percentage of laws that have had "signing statements" attached are not being followed. Is this due to confusion, or nefarious purposes? Who the heck knows; it just makes it clear that this whole "signing statement" nonsense needs to be taken care of. I would propose an amendment outlawing them altogether. I don't think that would ever fly, but I think it would be more in line with the separation of powers that the founders had in mind. This "signing statement nonsense is clearly and obviously a case of the Executive just legislating; Jefferson must be spinning in his grave.
I could also make an argument for a "privacy" amendment too, honestly. A lot of people say that the Constitution has an "implicit" right of privacy in it; a lot of judges disagree. Well, screw it, I say--let's either put one in there, or shut the heck up about it.

I'm probably going to have another whole post about the Supreme Court's latest rulings, but one note that's a follow-on to one of my earlier posts: the ruling against the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" guy, and particularly Scalia's concurring opinion (where he feels the Court didn't go far enough) , is a perfect example of Scalia being perfectly happy to throw out his "strict interpretationist" cred when he runs into an issue that bugs him (in this case, "Drugs! Evil evil evil!"). I do no have a problem with conservatives; I do have a problem with spectacularly hypocritical ones.

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Richard Lugar's "Defection"

A lot of folks--Dan Froomkin, The Post, The Chronicle, The Times--are making a lot of Richard Lugar's "defection" from the Republicans over the Iraq war because of his speech yesterday in the Senate.

No offense, but all you people are fooling yourselves if you think it means a damn thing.

Lugar spoke out "forcefully" before, too: right before he voted for the Iraq funding bill a couple of weeks ago. In other words, he's perfectly happy to sound tough, but when it comes to actually doing something, he wimps out.

So I think Tony Snow, in the White House press "gaggle" (a profoundly stupid word for the daily press gathering that reduces the status of the White House press corps to the equivalent of geese) was absolutely right to literally shrug off Lugar's comments. Until Lugar actually gets off his bloviating duff and submits a vote that actually counts, I think we can all safely assume that Snow is right to not take Lugar's words into account. After all, the Republicans, led but such stalwart all-talk-and-no-action weenies like Arlen Specter, have been doing this regularly for the last six years.

Personally, I think Dana Millbank of the Post--who was on Keith Olbermann's show last night--has the right idea; believe it when you see Lugar actually do something, and not just talk.

Warning: Heavy Geekdom Coming

I'm going to be trying to get an iPhone this Friday (along with seemingly every other gadget-hungry geek in America). In the main, I am not an early adopter. I didn't get a TiVo until last year; I still don't have an iPod (although I do listen to music on my PDA--an HTC Universal); I waited quite a while to buy a DVD player; and so on. I like to let other people live with Release 1 bugs. Hell, I don't even like to get Release 1 cars, and cars are pretty stable technology.

But every once in a while, I make an exception. The moment I saw my first decent PDA, I literally rushed right out and bought one (it was the Pilot 1000, which I still have). And this is another such case; I can hardly wait to get my hands on this durn gizmo. Will I be able to? I dunno, but I'm sure going to try.

My official "review" of the iPhone--again, presuming I get one of the damn things--will be appearing in Gear Diary. But I wanted to warn the three or four of you who actually read this blog that for the first few days after I get it, this blog will probably be filled with iPhone minutia. I might pop in with my usual blather about politics and whatnot, but You Have Been Warned.

Monday, June 25, 2007

Dick Cheney

One of the problems when a high government official commits heinous acts is that when one accuses him of doing so, one can too easily be accused of being shrill and demented. Folks in the 60s and 70s, who called Johnson, McNamara, Nixon, Kissinger, and so on (and not totally without reason) "war criminals," "evil," and what have you, made it difficult for reasonable people, later on, to actually point at horrific activity of their government officials later on and do anything similar. "Tinfoil hat behavior!" their opponents say. "You're demented!" the opposition cries. This puts one at a disadvantage when truly awful things are actually occurring.

Which brings us to Dick Cheney.

Folks, I lived through Watergate. I was in D.C., and we watched it on T.V. at my Elementary school. I remember the secret bombings of Cambodia. I have read about the Shoah, and talked to Holocaust survivors. I don't fly off the deep end. You can believe me or not, as suits you.

But I truly believe that Dick Cheney is a war criminal, and a deeply evil man.

Dick Cheney, with the aid of a few men, changed the policy of the United States significantly. No longer are we a country that abides by the law; we are a country that tortures people. Cheney himself denies this, with carefully parsed statements. He says that we don't "torture," but he has defined "torture" in such a way that it doesn't include waterboarding, stress positions, sensory deprivation, and other tortures that were, literally, sanctioned by the Nazis and Stalin's secret police. I assure you that I am not making this up, nor am I making this connection as a rhetorical device; this is an established fact.

There is no doubt that our President, George W. Bush, has approved of all this, and he bears a portion of the blame. But this policy was forwarded and put into place by Cheney, and put through the system by Cheney. This is Cheney's work. Cheney has changed the United States from a place of freedom to a place that tortures people, that imprisons them without trial, without telling them what they are in prison for, and keeps them incommunicado for years. American citizens have been removed from American soil and taken away with no charges, simply on governmental say-so. This is the work of Cheney.

I am appalled to live in a country where this has happened. I have no idea what we can do about it. I wish there was something I could do. I wish the Congress had the 'nads to impeach this evil monster, but I don't think it's ever going to happen. I can only hope that the damage he does in his remaining 18 months in office can be repaired by the next President. I pray that this is so. And I pray too that he pays for his heinous crimes.

Saturday, June 23, 2007

eBooks and the iPhone

Sorry I haven't posted for a couple of days (not that anyone is reading this blog yet, but I digress); I've had a nasty head cold.

The iPhone is coming out this Friday, and my current plan--given that my birthday is this month, and my existing cell phone is an ancient Motorola v180 that even my 9 year-old son has noticed is getting long in the tooth--is to get one. And as a huge eBook fan, I'm hoping that eBooks will be readable on the iPhone. Certainly one can read eBooks on a Mac; the question is, will they be supported on an iPhone (which is essentially a Mac, but streamlined and tweaked).

I've done a lot of looking around, and I've looked at their promotional, welcome video, and I still haven't found an answer, alas. I also emailed the good folks at eReader, but haven't heard back as yet. And yes, I'm sure Apple will have some kind of support for PDF viewing, but as a person who is hugely, profoundly, horrifically familiar with Adobe products, I have to say that I am not a big PDF fan. I won't go into it right now; let's just say that I feel that PDF is not the future of online book and document viewing.

I read an interesting article today about the iPhone and eBooks, the gist of which seems to be that Apple should support the e-paper technology, and that is the future of online books. To which I say, yeah, well, maybe.

I tested the Sony Reader for Gear Diary, which uses the e-paper/e-ink technology. My understanding is, the big advantage of this technology is its low power use, which enables a huge amount of "page turns" or "page views" between recharges. You can read my review for the full report, but the bottom line is, unless some major changes are made in how the technology is implemented, I simply do not see how it can be sold in a big way. Aside from the fact that it is black-and-white, and the world has now become accustomed to color images embedded in their documents, there are a few other things about e-ink that I find really annoying (and the mavens at Sony assure me these are e-ink problems, not problems with their implementation):
  • It's dim. Really dim. While fine on a bright day in sunlight, if you are trying to read in a dim room, you're out of luck.
  • E-ink has a noticeable refresh delay. This causes a delay when you turn pages, when you change menus, any time you redraw the screen. The Sony folks said I would get used to this; I didn't. I found it spectacularly annoying. The screen also "flashes" black for each refresh, which is extremely distracting, especially in combination with the slow refresh rate.
  • It's black and white.
So in any case, I think putting up with that simply to get more battery life is simply unacceptable. E-ink may be the Next Big Thing, but I think it's got a ways to go first. I would invest in better batteries before I would throw my money behind e-ink technology, honestly.

The new iPhone specs put the battery life at 7 hours of video playback time, which is boucoup eBook reading time (take it from me--I watch a lot of movies and read a lot of books on handheld devices). So the question is, are people really going to want to trade off a full-color device with embedded images that can move for a black-and-white e-ink device that has a slow refresh rate for the nominal advantage of a few more hours of battery life? When most people are used to plugging their phone in at the end of the day anyway? What market would this be for? The international, 14-hour plane flight set? C'mon!

As a doc guy, I've been watching e-ink development for nearly 15 years now, and it still is a few years away from being completely there. Meanwhile, CRT and plasma screen technology and battery technology development marches on, as we see in the iPhone. I won't say that e-ink is dead, but I read the first stories about it before I got married, and now my daughter is about to enter Middle School, so I'm not holding my breath, if you get my drift.

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Confused about Conservatism

The terms "liberal" and "conservative" these days are thrown around so promiscuously that they are practically devoid of meaning, of course. But still, my understanding of "conservative" is a person who wants to "conserve" the "original" meaning of the Constitution. I think we can all agree on that.

But even there, I get pretty confused.

I won't belabor the point that "neoconservatives" aren't conservatives by any stretch; they are radicals. Cheney, of course, is advancing a truly radical definition of executive power, the "unitary executive," that I can find in not a single one of the Federalist Papers. Bush's unilateralist, pre-emptive war policy is basically imperialistic in nature, and flies directly in the face of the founders vision (George Washington, in particularly, would be appalled; Washington was an isolationist). Further, Bush's huge expansions of government, such as the Department of Homeland Security and the Medicare drug policy are very much anti-conservative, pro-governmental (and thereby classically liberal) in nature. And the interventionist, nation-building exercises that we've been engaging in are hardly "conservative" (unless you consider Woodrow Wilson a conservative).

No, what confuses me is when people who are lionized by the "conservative" movement turn out to have heavily non-conservative impulses. Or when things that would seem to be as conservative as can be--sections of the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence, say--are considered "liberal."

For example, consider that lion of "Originalist Interpretation," Antonin Scalia. Scalia has said, over and over, that hews to an interpretation of law that is what he views is the "original intent" of the Founders. (How he thinks he can know what fellows dead 200 years ago were thinking is beyond me, but never mind.) Even people who disagree with him feel that he does rule based on original intent.

Except, you know, when he doesn't. Like in Bush v. Gore, where he tossed his original intent and federalist principals right out the window, and over-ruled a state court in a state matter. Or in Lawrence v. Texas, where his dislike of gays apparently over-ruled his desire for ruling based on original intent. (Although he was able to rationalize it pretty well.)

And in this, Scalia is similar to many conservatives; he blats on about federalism and small government and keeping the government out of your life, but when his moral outrage kicks in--in his case, it happens to be gays--he's perfectly happy to toss his precious principals out the window and rule according to how he feels, rather than the law.

And conservatives, by and large, seem to have that problem. They want to keep government "out of your life," except, you know, when they want to tell you what to do in the privacy of your own bedroom. My feeling is, if you're going to be a conservative, be one; have a little intellectual honesty, for crying out loud.

Another thing that confuses me about conservatives is which principals they pick and choose as the "conservative" ones. "Defense" is a bedrock conservative principal. "Welfare" is a liberal principal. And this has always confused me, because of the following prose:
We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
There it is, right there in the the Preamble, right after "provide for the common defense": "Promote the general welfare." I mean, how much clearer can you get? How much more conservative can a value be than one that is listed in the preamble, for crying out loud? And yet, this is constantly given as a liberal value. I just don't get it.

Perhaps I am being too hard on "conservatives," and folks think I should shine an equally harsh light on "liberals." But during my lifetime, liberals have always been incoherent, basically a collection of pressure groups and single-issue people (labor, racial politics, gender politics, anti-war politics, what-have-you). While the classic definition of "liberal" may have a definition as strident as that of "conservative," there has been no liberal "movement," at least in the last 30 years, like there has been a conservative "movement." And hence I am only focusing on the conservative ideology, because in my view, there really isn't a liberal ideology per se.

Monday, June 18, 2007

The Cynical Politics of "The Surge"

Now, I am perhaps a little more cynical about politics than most. JFK was shot within a few months of my birth. By the time I was 7, Bobby Kennedy had been shot, Martin Luther King Jr. had been shot, Johnson had lied us into the mess in Vietnam, and Nixon had been elected. My formative years were covered by Watergate. Iran/Contra dominated my young adulthood. Is it any wonder that I'm cynical?

Even so, the whole "surge" seems cynically calculated, even by my low standards. It has always seemed clear to me that it is nothing more than an attempt by Bush to run out the clock on his disastrous war until January 20, 2009. First, he announces it in January, but it isn't "complete" until June. 5 months to get the troops "in theater." How convenient!

In order to manipulate public opinion to get his money, Bush sends out his cronies in the last few months saying that General Patreaus will give Congress an "update" on the "surge" in September. So we have a "new strategy" in January, which is not "complete" until June. In June, we get further stalling tactics until September. And in September, what will we get? The real information?

Don't be absurd. A few weeks ago, Bush starting informing us that we would see escalated violence during the summer, i.e. between now and September. And Tony Snow has spent the last couple of weeks backing off of the Administration's stance that we can expect to see any results by September. And General Patreaus himself has been lowering expectations for his September report right and left.

So what can we expect in September? There are three options:
  • There will have been more violence over the summer, in which case the Administration will say, "This is exactly what we expected. This is proof that the surge is working. We need to stay the course."
  • There will have been less violence over the summer, in which case the Administration will say, "Violence is receding! This is proof that the surge is working. We need to stay the course." (There will also be accusations that anyone who suggests otherwise is a coward, a traitor, or worse.)
  • As General Patreaus noted today, it's possible that the level of violence may remain the same, in which case the Administration will say, "Violence has stabalized! This is proof that the surge is working. We need to stay the course."
There are no other options. This Administration will never admit that the surge is not working, or that the war in Iraq is lost, despite the fact that majority of Americans already believes that to be the case (57% in the latest poll, and trending upward). The Administration will continue to play the "surge" card until the noise from the election grows loud enough, and then they will play some other cynical card (Iran invasion? Another trumped-up terrorist plot? Syrian invasion?). And in the meantime, our brave troops will continue to die, manipulated like pawns.

(And yes I'm angry; I may not be in uniform, but my father was, my father-in-law was, and countless uncles, aunts, and cousins are and have been. They do not deserve to die due to a stubborn man's inability to admit a mistake.)

The only way out of this I see--the only way--is for Congress to cut off the funding. And with a Presidential election coming up, I don't think that will happen. So for the next 18 months, we will continue to see innocent Americans and Iraqis die. Because of Bush.

Saturday, June 16, 2007

The Mess in Palestine

When I read about the current situation in Gaza, I feel two very powerful, completely conflicting emotions.

On the one hand is, not exactly schadenfreude, but vindication. Israel has taken it on the chin for decades (sometimes fairly, in my view) for how they have treated the Palestinians. We can talk about how the press has conveniently ignored how much more poorly the Palestinians are treated in places like Jordan and Egypt, where the press is, to put it mildly, not exactly "free." We can talk about how Israel is held to a completely different set of standards than any other country in the world in how their treat their religious minority. But even so, I don't think anyone can deny that the Israelis and Palestinians haven't exactly gotten along in an area of the world that's not much bigger than New Jersey. And the Israelis, being the ones in charge of the area, have taken a large portion of the blame for Palestinian behavior.

But the point here is, now the Palestinians largely have autonomy in Gaza and the West Bank. And there is, for all intents and purposes a civil war raging in Gaza. And one of my powerful, conflicting emotions as a supporter of Jews in Israel is, "See, all you people who have been harshing on how the Jews have been governing the Palestinians! They can't even govern themselves!" Total vindication.

But counterbalancing that is an equally powerful emotion: sorrow for the Palestinians. And I am not completely ignorant of history. I am well aware the United State Constitution did not spring, lo, full blown from the brow of Thomas Jefferson like Athena from the forehead of Zeus. It was the product of generations of western thought, and Jefferson himself was the product of of years of education and debate, living in a period and a place that allowed him to midwife this incredible system. Not to denigrate the work of the founders; their effort was profound, and I personally believe that Jefferson and Franklin were--and I do not use this term lightly--geniuses. But it is absolutely critical to consider the period of time and the cultural matrix in which they were embedded.

And the Palestinians? Have the Palestinian leaders been going to their equivalent of Harvard or Oxford, and educating their children in the principals of democracy and abstract thought, for generations? Or have they been scrambling to survive (in some cases), or (in others) filling the heads of their children with fundamentalist ideas about paradise in the afterlife if they become revolutionaries or suicide bombers? Even if a Palestinian Jefferson or Franklin exists--and he or she probably does--does he or she have the leisure to sit and think Great Thoughts, or is he or she simply trying to get through the day alive without getting caught in a Fatah/Hamas crossfire on the way to the market?

And so while I feel strongly that the current chaos in Gaza helps show the world that perhaps the Israelis haven't been the brutal bullies that the world press tends to portray them as, I simultaneously feel incredible sorrow for the Palestinians as they struggle to put together a nation. They don't have generations of democratic thought to build on. They don't have peace and prosperity to lean against. They have chaos; they have autocratic leaders; they have schemers and connivers who have been funneling foreign aid into offshore accounts for personal enrichment; they have the authoritarian rulers of neighboring countries, co-religionists who one would expect to help them, who are instead using them as a political football for their own countries' purposes. And I feel nothing but sorrow for the Palestinians themselves.

Friday, June 15, 2007

Post-Boomer News Acquisition

Off and on over the last several years, I've read a number of opinion pieces that show that a majority of people my age (43) and younger get their news from online sources, or programs like The Daily Show or The Colbert Report, instead of newspapers or network news. The subtext of these pieces always seems to be, "Well, yes, I'm smart enough to know that Jon Stewart is being satirical, but do these dumb GenX people know it? I mean, what if they believe it? And those bloggers! My god . . ."

I'll discreetly draw a veil over the absurdity of preferring news channels that highlight the "skills" of a person like Anderson Cooper, Paula Zahn, or Katie Couric over someone as obviously intelligent as Jon Stewart and his team, or as ballsy as Steven Colbert (one of the few people in the last 6.5 years to have the nerve to confront Bush to his face). Personally, I'd rather watch John Oliver or Aasif Mandvi's faux analysis than yet more empty-headed sonorous pronouncements from Wolf Blitzer any day. But hey, that's just me.

First, Jon Stewart can do something in under two minutes that the entire White House press corps seems to have been unable to accomplish in the last 6.5 years: call the Bush Administration on its lies and bullshit. And one of the beauties of Stewart and The Daily Show is that they actually call these people liars when they, you know, lie.

Also, you pundits? Are you seriously more worried that the folks getting their news online and via Jon Stewart--a demographic that skews towards the more educated and (obviously) computer-literate--is less-involved, less intelligent, and more likely to be fooled than people who only get their news from network TV, Fox News, or Rush Limbaugh? Really? Or are you just honked that you are losing audience?

I can't speak for my generation--and heck no I'm not talking about Boomers, I'm talking about us what comes after the Boomers--but I know that for me, it's a relief to be able to read and watch people who call liars liars, who write what they actually think instead of qualifying it with a bunch of weasly language. They may be biased, but at least you know their biases, and at least you know their opinions, which is often not the case with the high-profile pundits. (And this, I think, helps explain the boom in ratings for Keith Olbermann since he started venting. Now you know where he stands, and people like that!)

Thursday, June 14, 2007

The Legal System

Our legal system confuses me utterly. It confuses me for any number of reasons, but the thing that confuses me the most is how stinking slow it moves.

Consider the Scooter Libby trial. Let's leave aside the fact of how long the trial itself took, which was insane enough. (I mean, why does it take several days to select a jury? Am I the only guy who finds that absurd?) Libby was indicted on October 28, 2005. His trial started January 16, 2007. What the heck was everyone doing in the intervening time? Filming a movie? Writing a novel? Taking trips to Zanzibar? (On foot?) In the high-tech world, that's nearly two software development cycles, and about one hardware development generation. That's insane.

Libby was found guilty on March 6, and sentenced on June 5. What the heck was Judge Walton--who I actually have a lot of respect for--doing during those three months? In that time, I delivered the documentation for two major products, my kids finished 2nd and 5th grades (respectively), I had a new roof put on my house and a new ceiling put in in my living room, I re-read Shogun and all six of the Harry Potter books, and I watched (among other things) the entire first season of Avatar: the Last Airbender, the first four episodes of Heroes, and several movies on DVD. And it took all that time for Judge Walton to come up with "30 months?" (And these guys already have sentencing guidelines to abide by!) No wonder our courts are so backlogged.

When Judge Walton finally got a grip and the words "30 months" came out of his mouth after that three month wait, Libby's lawyer said, "Yo, can he stay out of jail pending appeal?" Had the judge spent part of that three months thinking, "Hm, what will I do if they ask me to let this guy walk free pending an appeal once I pronounce sentence?" Nosirree! He said, "You know, I need to think about that one for a week." And so he delayed judgment on that decision for another week, until today, at which point he said, "No, off to The Big House with you, Mr. Convicted Felon."

So does that mean he's off to jail today? No! According to the news stories, Libby "will be required to report to a federal penitentiary sometime within the next few weeks." A convicted felon, whose crimes, one might reasonably presume, helped cover up even worse crimes higher up in the White House, and he gets a few weeks before he has to go to jail.

Somehow, I don't think that if he was Mr. Random Bonehead, he would get those "few weeks." Somehow, I think that Mr. Random Bonehead would already be dressed in an orange coverall and be riding a bus with bars over the window, heading off to the nearest Minimum Security Prison. Hey, call me crazy.

So to sum up, Libby was charged on October 28, 2005, and was finally told to go to jail on June 14, 2007, but he still hasn't had to yet.

Like I say, our legal system baffles me. If those guys had been in the high-tech business, they would have been laid off a long time ago.

Wednesday, June 13, 2007

eBook Whining

I'm a huge eBook reader, and this particular post is about my obsession. If you're uninterested, skip now.

I love eBooks. With my HTC Universal (a 3.72", 640x480 full color screen) and a 1Gb SD card, I can carry around a library of several dozen books (plus music). I can read in bed with the lights out, which makes my wife happy. I carry a gear bag with me pretty much everywhere I go (a legacy from my year as a stay-at-home dad), so I can whip out the ol' PDA anywhere when I'm at loose ends (waiting at the pediatrician's office, for example), and I have a book to read. It's great.

One thing that's unfortunate, though, is the spotty coverage of titles. You can buy Heinlein's Double Star and The Puppet Masters, but not Stranger in a Strange Land and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. You can get some Steven King, but not The Stand. Plenty of best sellers like The DaVinci Code, but none of the Harry Potter books. It's weird and irritating.

People blat on all the time about preserving our natural resources. They're changing all the stop lights from incandescents to those weird, LED things, and I've noticed that they've started doing it to car tail lights as well. More and more people are using those butt-ugly curly fluorescents in a lot of places in their homes (and all hotels seem to be using them), even me. Recycling is penetrating even the Great Unwashed. But here's a great way to save paper and print costs and ink and all the associated mess of the printing industry, and you can't even get the Harry Potter books--the best-selling books on planet Earth, for the love of God--in eBook form. It makes me nuts.

(And you know that it has to do with lawyers. Not money--I doubt Jo Rowling needs more money--lawyers.)

Okay; whining completed.

More Hillary

Sorry; more Hillary.

Look, I don't--and probably never will--understand why some people think that Hillary Clinton is electable as President.

I tell you three times, and what I tell you three times is true: I think she would make a fine President. Certainly better than the current bonehead.

But how anyone could see her negative approval rating of 45%--45%!--and think that she can get elected is beyond me.

And how anyone could consider the results of these head-to-head matchups with the current crop of Republicans--who are a bunch of losers, in my opinion--and think that she could get elected defies the imagination. Consider:
  • In head to heads vs. Hillary, Giuliani leads Clinton by 10 percentage points; McCain leads Clinton by four percentage points; and Romney leads Clinton by two percentage points.
  • In head to heads vs. Obama, Obama leads Giuliani by five percentage points, McCain by 12 points and Romney by 16 points.
In other words, Hillary loses to all the current Republican candidates, and Obama beats all the current Republican candidates. How much clearer can it be?

So it confuses me why folks out there think they should vote for her in the primaries. And it stuns me that the Clinton camp--which is made up of really smart people--thinks that they can get her elected. They have access to all this information and more. How can they delude themselves so badly? I just don't get it.

iPhone Geekiness

I have been talking (probably too much) about the iPhone over on Gear Diary, because I am a gadget geek and it looks like a cool new gadget. But also because I think that "place shifting" is an important new trend. (Not that the national media--or indeed hardly anyone but my wife--cares what I think about new technology trends. And even she may just be being polite.)

This last Sunday, the Austin American-Statesman (free registration required) had an article on the iPhone and what it considered its competitors.

Here's why I think the iPhone will be so huge, if we consider the iPhone the first of a long line of personal media players (PMPs) that allow you to do place shifting: the iPhone has a 3.5", 480x320 pixel screen, and 4Gb (or 8Gb) of memory. All the "competitors" listed have screens that are about an inch smaller, have those itty keypads, and have less onboard memory (although several of them do have extra card slots, which is a plus that the iPhone--stupidly, in my view--doesn't have).

Now, I've tried quite a few PMPs, phones with teeny keypads, and convergent devices, and I can say without hesitation that anything that gives you a chance to have keys that are approximately the same size as your fingers is a Good Thing (tm). I don't know about you, but I get tired of trying to work those tiny Treo buttons, or tiny Blackberry buttons. Heck, I even have trouble with the buttons on my Motorola v180. I admit to some bias: a nerve injury years back means that I have no feeling in my left forefinger, and very little in my left thumb, so tiny keypads are a problem for me. But I still believe there are plenty of people out there who don't like those wee bitty things.

But the bigger reason, I believe, that the iPhone is going to be a hit for place shifting your media content is the screen size. On a device that's only a few inches in size, a screen that is 1" larger is huge. That's 50%. It would be like moving up from a 36" to a 52" television. I mean, that's a big difference, wouldn't you say?

It may very well be that when I get one of these things in my hand, I'm going to hate it. It may creak and groan from poor workmanship. It may be slow. The screen may smudge too easily because you have to use your fingers instead of a stylus. Trying to use it as a phone may make me nuts. Who can say. But I really do think that, as a PMP, it's going to have a big impact.

But, you know, I've been wrong before.

Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Joe Klein vs. Bloggers, a Live-blogging

Joe Klein has been, shall we say, a bit on edge about how he has been treated by the "liberal blogosphere" lately. (Others might say he has been whiny, pouting, and bitter. Your mileage may vary.) Recently, he did a podcast with Ana Marie Cox (formerly Wonkette) on the Time web site regarding Klein's recent take-down of left-wing bloggers. While listening to it, I jotted down a few (!) notes. If you're interested, read on. If not, skip right on over this entry; it's quite long.

It's "Ahna," folks, not "Anne-uh." Just for your information. (Lucky for me "Doug" is so easy to pronounce. Unless you're a native non-English speaker, in which case the mutilations are almost always amusing. Native Spanish-speakers: "Dog." Native French-speakers: "Doog." Native Madarin-speakers: "Duck.")

I don't think he has a whiny voice, as opposed to some of the commentors on Swampland. You guys must have sensitive ears. Or maybe you need to spend more time with Yankees; we all sound like that. Heck, some of us sound worse. (I sure do.)

Klein draws a comparison between the noxious atmosphere brought into Washington by Newt Gingrich and the online community. Joe, ol' buddy: the online community has always been like that. Go look at the USENET archives, and remember Sturgeon's Law: 90 percent of everything is crud.

Why he's only focusing his ire on the left-wing bloggers strikes me as odd. Hasn't he surfed over to Blogs for Bush or Little Green Footballs or Free Republic? Lefties may argue with him, but those people talk about things that are, well, nuts.

He's only been a blogger for 4-5 months and the heat in the kitchen is already getting to him. Itty poo.

Am I the only guy who is not overly-impressed by Juan Cole? Maybe it's just that his seemingly constant anti-Israel idee fixe makes me nuts.

Klein complains about Glenn Greenwald's column on Klein's reportage. Of course, Greenwald is hardly the only person to complain, but the important thing here is, Klein is missing the point, which is that Klein is relying on anonymous sources to "report good news," and then asking us to trust him. After six and a half years of bended-knee reportage during the Bush administration, after the Clinton impeachment fiasco and how the press kept harping on that even when the American public continued to give Clinton high favorability ratings, after how lame the press was during the Reagan years, after Judith Miller and her "anonymous sources," Klein wants us to trust his "good news" from anonymous sources because, well, because he's Joe Klein, and he wouldn't steer us wrong!

Um, Joe: fool us once, shame on you, fool us 3000 times, and we're a bunch of utter boneheads.

His protests that news of less violence in Anbar province is "bad news for the Bush Administration" simply because it wasn't al Qaida-specific is, well, pretty weak. If you don't believe that Bush can spin an article you write about lowered levels of violence in Iraq as "good news," al Qaida or no al Qaida, you're deluding yourself, Joe.

He complains that people should push policy positions, and that Kos only pushes "tactics." But if his arguments in favor of the Democrats backing away from facing down Bush over the Iraq war funding isn't classic tactics, I don't know what is.

He notes that readers won't have a full understanding of his story because he couldn't give them all the background because of "space considerations." Joe, you have a blog! Point to it, and give your readers the background there! (Ana Marie Cox points this out.) Joe insists that he doesn't have to do this; we should just trust him.

Again, he misses the point about what Greenwald was saying. The "drop dead assumption" is not that all "mainstream media" reporters are going to cocktail parties; the "drop dead assumption" is that "anonymous-sourced" stories should be treated with extreme suspicion unless proven otherwise, especially those citing "administration sources." And Klein should further realize that when we, the great unwashed, see Richard Wolffe attending white-tie dinners at the White House with the Queen, David Gregory dancing with Karl Rove, Tony Snow hobnobbing with reporters who all agree what great people they all are, and Tim Russert's absurd performance on the stand at the Scooter Libby trial, he needs to realize the the level of trust "the peepul" have for reporters--particularly those quoting single "anonymous sources", is beyond low.

Joe: I don't care that you've been reporting for 38 years. The mainstream media reporting class in general has burned all their "trust us" cachet in the last 10 years, and you personally burned quite a bit of yours with your totally absurd objections when people accused you (correctly!) of being the "Anonymous" author of Primary Colors.

Sorry, dude; it's a new world. Trust in the media is at an all-time low. You need to rebuild it. Whining about how ill-treated you are by the online community is not a good way to start.

Personally, I don't think the thing about Klein's reporting about the Jane Harman vote is a big deal. A lot of people are bent about it, but I agree with Klein; it's a minor point.

On the flip side, just a few minutes after hammering Kos for talking about political tactics rather than policy substance, here he's talking about tactics himself.

If he mentions one more time he's been reporting for 38 years, I'm going to fly to D.C. and whack him over the head. I've been a technical writer for 20 years, but I don't go around mentioning it half a dozen time in every conversation.

Ah, now we're going to hear about a major mistake that "the left" is making about "the war." He doesn't trust the fact that the vast majority of Americans want to get out of Iraq; he doesn't trust the polls.

Joe notes that 4 million people read Time magazine, but only 4% read Swampland or visit Time.com. (We'll leave aside for a moment the debate about whether, if their web site was well-designed, those numbers might not rise.) Two points here: his snide implication clearly is, why should I care about the online community when my audience is those 4 million people? (Answer: the online community is growing, and the print community and its revenues are shrinking.) Second: if you had links from the print version to your blog, that percentage might grow, Joe.

Ana asks an excellent question: "Is this [Klein's article] a fair portrayal of the left-wing blogosphere." Given that Joe has only been online for 4-5 months, the answer is, obviously, "No." Joe totally dodges the question. Instead, he compares the left-wing blogosphere to the lies that the Bush administration has been pedaling for the last 6.5 years. Thanks, Joe! What a sweet comparison!

Another "I've been doing this for 38 years" comment. Let's see: tickets from Austin to Washington, round trip, are currently running about $300 . . .

He doesn't read the comment thread on Swampland "a lot of times." Perhaps after time goes by he will, like a lot of us who have been online for a while, develop a filtering system that allows him to plow through a bunch of comments really fast, filtering out that 90% of crud (other than the ones he wants to read for, you know, entertainment value). He's clearly a newbie. Over time, his skin should thicken. We can only hope.

Like many old-time mainstream media types, he has "doubts and fears about whether Time magazine should be hosting this type of thing" [the Swampland comments section]. I have seen lots and lots of old MSM types say the same thing. Typical online newbie thing to say. I understand how overwhelming online forums are at first. Get over it, Joe. Like exposure to cold germs in Kindergarten, it's something you get used to. Keep remembering: 90% of everything is crud.

Joe talks about "those who relentlessly attack the mainstream media." Joe, it's the right-wing folks who do that more often than the left. Much more. They have been targeting the media since the Reagan administration.

Joe suggests that Glenn Greenwald "call him up." Hell, Joe doesn't even has his email address listed at the bottom of his blog, let alone his phone number; how the heck is Greenwald supposed to "call him up?" I've tried to contact any number of high-profile columnists (George Will, Joe Klein, David Brooks, David Broder, Maureen Dowd, etc.), and they have never responded. I don't think Klein should get in high dudgeon about Greenwald not "calling him up." (As an aside, the only columnists who have ever responded to me are bloggers as well: Andrew Sullivan and Dan Froomkin, to name a couple. And I am inveterate letter-writer, believe me.)

Besides, I'd bet $5 Greenwald tries to call him up now.

Klein states that he's not going to read the comments on this article, and that he doesn't feel that he "threw down the gauntlet." I can't decide if he's being disingenuous, or stupid. I'll spell it out, in the unlikely event he reads this: writing an article like that is throwing down the gauntlet, Joe. So read the comments, and read the blogs. Otherwise, you're just a coward.

He finishes up by saying, essentially, that until we clean up our act, he's not going to address us rude folks again.

Ah, Joe, you're such a newbie! You're probably right; you probably should take a few months off from the rough and tumble of online commenting to grow a thicker skin. It'll do you some good. Log on to google and comment on the film forum or something, to get some practice in, is my advice.

Next post, I promise we're back to my regularly-scheduled blather.

"Place Shifting"

Time to give everyone a break from my political blather for a little geek blather. (You can read more of my geek blather on Gear Diary. My latest article is on the iPhone.)

King Kaufmann of Salon.com has an interesting article that talks about place shifting, a concept similar to time shifting, but where you shift the place you are watching your program, rather than shifting the time.

These days, everyone and his brother knows about TiVo and time shifting and the joys of not being forced to watch a particular program at a particular time (not to mention being able to record a whole series of programs and watch them in a row, sans commercials). In my case, it means I can watch Keith Olbermann after the kids go to bed, and skip the ads for Hughes Network and NutriSystems.

But I think King touches on something that has been available in a very moderate way since the mid-90s, that Slingbox has been capitalizing on and that the iPhone (in my opinion--Sorry, John C. Dvorak, I think you're full of wind!) will help get going in earnest: place shifting.

These days, place shifting is really the realm of the nerds and the hard-core. Yes, you can buy a slingbox and watch TV on your computer, but if you're like me, you probably spend too much durn time in front of your computer already. And while yes, there are some portable media players (PMPs) available out there--heck, you can watch videos on the iPod these days--the screens are either too small, they have a hard disk and so are more delicate and persnickity than you would like in a portable device, or they have other drawbacks. (See my reviews on Gear Diary, if you are interested.) In addition, it's a hassle to convert movies from the DVD into a format that you can use on a PMP.

I don't know how successful the iPhone will be as a phone, but as a PMP, I think it's going to have a huge impact. Being able to download your favorite movies and TV shows easily and watch them (commercial free!) whenever and wherever you want, like on the commuter train on the way to work? While you're sitting poolside in the summer while the kids are frolicking? While you're waiting at the airport--interminably--before they let you on board, or let you push back from the gate, or let you land from that endless holding pattern? I think this is huge. And the iPhone has 4Gb or 8Gb of flash storage--no hard drive--a beautiful, 3.5" 480x320 pixel screen, and no doubt the typically ridiculous high-quality iPod-level sound quality.

Yes, I think there will be some interest in having your calendar and music available, being able to make phone calls easily, being able to web browse while you're sitting in the waiting room. But I think it's the place shifting function that will make this device a hot seller. And I think that, just like with the iPod, you will see other manufacturers come out with copycat devices--perhaps without full phone/calendar/wireless functionality--that compete in that arena. A Slingbox-specific device, perhaps? Sony develop a device that converts DVDs for viewing on their own version of a PMP that has 16Gb of capacity? It's a big, untapped market, in my view.

I'm waiting eagerly to see what happens after June 29, honestly. I could be wrong, of course; it might just be wishful thinking from a guy who's tired of doing it all by hand. But I don't think so, I'm dying to find out.

Unelectable Hillary

As per usual, polls are showing that Hillary Clinton is a) leading the pack of Democratic primary candidates, and b) losing to the Republican front runners (who are, in the main in my opinion, a bunch of loons).

It has always baffled me that anyone can think that Hillary Clinton can be elected President, and this poll is just another example. I don't think it has anything to do with the fact that she's a woman, and I certainly don't think it has anything to do with whether or not she'd be a good President--and personally, I think she'd be fine (and certainly better than the incompetent chowderhead currently occupying the Oval office)--I think it's because too damn many people hate her.

Certainly politicians are good at deluding themselves--they probably wouldn't be politicians otherwise--but Ms. Clinton's ability to convince herself that she is electable has always struck me as profoundly self-delusional. I hope she goes back and looks at all the polls like this, and at the fund raising differences between her and candidates like Barack Obama (his has raised about the same amount of money, but his is coming from hundreds more small donations, indicating, to me at least, a much broader range of support), and realizes that she doesn't stand a chance. And I hope that Democratic primary voters realize the same thing, or we could end up with a President Guiliani.

Monday, June 11, 2007

Alberto and the Cowards in the Senate

I suppose at this stage, and at my age, I should cease being surprised by the political grandstanding by politicians like Trent Lott--I grew up outside of Washington D.C. during the Watergate era, after all--but I guess I still retain enough hope and optimism to be disgusted by it.

In case you hadn't heard, the Republicans in the Senate blocked the Senate from voting on a resolution--a non-binding resolution that would have forced absolutely nothing, mind you--of no-confidence in Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Never mind that the majority of Americans have lost their confidence in Gonzales. Never mind that the majority of Congressmen and Senators have lost their confidence in Gonzales. Never mind that Gonzales himself has given clear evidence that he is incapable of running a post office branch in east B.F. Kansas, let alone an important government agency. Nosiree, it's critical for the Republicans to blat on about "the dignity of the Senate."

And then Gonzales, bless his lying heart, has the temerity to talk about "protecting our kids." Listen up, Alberto ol' boy: I'll protect my own kids, thank you very much. A guy who can't even remember the details of a meeting he had in December where they talked about firing U.S. Attorneys is talking about protecting my kids. Yeah, that sure makes me feel good.

Gonzales is going to hang on as long as possible, because if he resigns, Bush has to appoint someone else, and then what is going to happen? Bush sure won't find someone so loyal that will get through the Senate, that's for sure. So he's sticking with this incompetent boob, come hell or high water.

And the Senate, which is supposed to be on "the peepul's" side, just wants to posture. Thanks, gang.

Scooter Libby

With regard to the Scooter Libby situation, I have to admit to a profound amount of disgust for people like Fouad Ajami, Joe Klein, and anyone else who is arguing for leniency in this case. I have three reasons for this, only one of which is (mildly) partisan:
  • If it weren't for Scooter Libby's perjury and obstruction of justice, who knows what we would have found out about this case? Would there have been criminal activity reaching into the office of the Vice President? The President? How high up would it have gone? Now we'll never know, will we? Once again, a lower-ranking member of the Administration has taken a bullet for Bush/Cheney, and they have avoided paying for whatever it is they have done (and whatever it is they have done we may never find out about). Dick Cheney, in particular, who is all about avoiding scrutiny and accountability, has avoided it once again. The criminal justice system has been used to cover up nefarious doings; we should allow this to go unpunished?
  • Let's keep in mind the circumstances here: Judge Walton was appointed by Bush. Patrick Fitzgerald was appointed by John Ashcroft, Bush's Attorney General. These are not exactly Democratic partisans here, people. When Clinton was being investigated, Kenneth Starr's office leaked like the Titanic in the post-iceberg timeframe; what has ever come out of Fitzgerald's office? No, the people who are whining about ill-treatment are those who would be whining if their ball team had just lost the World Series when all 7 games were played at home and they had gotten to choose their own umpires. I'm not exactly filled with remorse for a guy who lied to the FBI.
  • Finally--and this is my partisan reason--why on Earth should the Vice President's office be allowed to keep secrets when they are insisting that they have the right to know what library books I check out, what I buy with my credit cards, what movies I rent, and who I call on my phone? The Vice President is a public servant. It may honk Dick Cheney off, but he accepted the fact that he works for the American public when he took the job, and part of the deal is accountability. Sorry, Dick ol' boy. And no fair throwing poor Scooter under the bus just to avoid scrutiny.
So that's what I think. If Scooter Libby was Random Dork, he would have been sent to The Big House already. And all those folks who are whining that he's being treated unfairly, let me clue you: the people being treated unfairly in this country are the ones who don't have people like Henry Kissinger and Robert Bork writing them letters of commendation for them. It's the people who had one beer too many and then stupidly drove home instead of getting a ride, and then drove to work on a suspended license and got caught. It's the people who screwed up their governmental paperwork and got hammered by the IRS and now owe tens of thousands of dollars because they couldn't afford an accountant. It's the people who got in a messy divorce, had their ex-wife swear out a restraining order, and are now in jail because they just wanted to see their kids. Those people and other like them, are the ones I feel sorry for. Scooter Libby, who is covering up for a war criminal, not so much.

Sunday, June 10, 2007

Primary Season, Random Thoughts

It's not the primary season yet, but there are no fewer than 18 candidates (19, if you count Fred Thompson, and let's face it, we should count him), so I can't help but think of this as "primary season." And I have a few random thoughts on primary season.

One thought is, I'm dead sick and tired of all the talk about electing men folks would be "comfortable having a beer with." We can see where that's gotten us in the last six and a half years--in a world of trouble. I don't want to elect an "ordinary guy" who I can have a beer with; I want to elect an extraordinary guy (or woman) who I feel comfortable seeing the Queen of England having a white-tie dinner with. When we think back on Presidential greatness, we're not thinking of the "ordinary guys," we're thinking of Lincoln and Washington and Roosevelt, who were extraordinary.

So all you people who are voting for someone because he seems "likable?" You're idiots, and you helped get us into this mess. Next time, vote for someone you think will do a good job. You're not electing your next housemate here, you're electing the leader of the free world. Get a grip.

As the primaries are lurching into view, we're seeing the usual round of stories about how unfair it is that the big states like California are trying to move their primary up so that it actually, heaven forfend, counts for something. Lots of stories about the evils of the "national primary," and so on.

The logic here seems to be that everyone should get a chance to meet the candidates, that a long primary season gives people a chance to weed out the obvious losers, and that the problem with a "national primary" is that there won't be a chance for everyone to have a chance to make their choice among a bunch of different candidates.

Punditocracy, let me clue you: I lived in California for 25 years, and by the time the primaries rolled around to us--the most populous, diverse state in the Union, mind you--there were no choices. The primaries were done. Do you really think that if California had the first primary in the nation rather than New Hampshire, Mondale would have been nominated in 1984? Or Dukakis--Dukakis!--in 1988? Please.

If you pundits want to blame someone, stop harshing on the people of California, and lay your blame where it belongs, on those stubborn Yankees in New Hampshire. Why on Earth does it make sense for a state with a population of just over 1 million, with a median income of over 57 grand a year--highest in the nation!--and a population that is overwhelming white--over 97%--to have so much influence on who is President for a diverse country of 300 million people? More influence than California? Or New York? Or Florida? That's idiotic. It's time for the pundits to stop blaming the residents of the other states for trying to gain some influence, and start turning their collective gimlet eye on New Hampshire and ask the obvious question: what the heck makes them so special?

And don't even get me started on Iowa.

I don't have anything personal against Iowa or New Hampshire. Honest. I have relatives in New Hampshire, and my Mom was born there. I just think it's insane that politicians spend more time there than, say, Texas (population 21 million).

David Broder, at it again

David Broder, the "dean" of the White House press corps, has been demonstrating his out-of-touchness for quite some time (his famed "Bush Bounce" column being an all-time low, of course), so I don't know why he continues to surprise me, or indeed why I continue to pay attention. Perhaps I'm just a masochist. But I do pay attention. And yup, he's done it again.

There are many things that I don't understand about the Democrats and the current "debate" about the Iraq war and the funding thereof. The first thing I don't understand is, why is the debate even going on? The argument seems, to me, absurdly simple. We won the war. Saddam is dead. There are no weapons of mass destruction. The Iraqis have elected their own government. The Iraqis want us out of there. The majority of Americans want us out of there. Why is there even a debate at all? Why is this complicated?

(To those who say, "But the situation could get worse if we leave!" I respond, yes, indeed, and the situation could also get worse if we stay. We've stayed longer, now, than it took us to defeat Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan combined, and the situation hasn't gotten better. Hell, we haven't even secured Baghdad after all this time. Why shouldn't we leave and see if it doesn't get better?)

But another thing that confuses me is why everyone continues to acquiesce in the dishonest and disingenuous debating tactic that the White House engaged in, which Broder is putting forth. Their argument goes like this: cut off the funding, and the troops won't get food, or bullets, or gas for their HumVees, and it will be your fault, you evil, evil Democrats! They will run out ammo in the middle of a firefight!

What rubbish. And Broder, of course, is buying right into it. Equating cutting the funding and finally denying Bush his blank check with "deny[ing] arms and protective equipment for the troops" is of course utterly absurd. Would a general go into battle without arms and protective equipment? Would a lack of funds not create push-back on the Administration to actually consider a different plan other than their insane holding pattern (which they clearly intend to keep hanging on to until January, 2009)? It's laughable. But Broder, most other pundits, and most politicians have bought into this insanity.

The second thing is Broder's assertion about a "precipitous withdrawal," an alarmist phrase guaranteed to make readers think that, hey, presto, the troops would magically disappear off the battlefield and reappear in their own living rooms. Broder's lack of knowledge of military logistics is apparent in phrases like this (or he is being deliberately misleading); if Bush were to order a U.S. drawdown today, it would take several months, if not a full year, to remove all our forces and equipment from Iraq. I doubt sincerely that anyone would consider that "precipitous."

Hopefully, the Democrats will look at the polls, both their own since they caved on the Iraq funding bill, and Bush's (how much more lower does he have to go before they get some courage?), and they'll show some 'nads in September. But frankly, I'm expecting September to be the beginning of yet another Friedman unit.

Boring and Obligatory Welcome

I gave up.

It's not that I'm not opinionated enough to have a blog; I have opinions up the wazoo. But I have, previously, confined my opinions to letters to the editors, letters to other blog writers (which they have occasionally posted), articles on various forums and web sites, and the like.

But now, I've given up.

I don't know if I have the patience, staying power, or wherewithal to maintain a blog. We'll just have to see. But I do know that I simply have too damn many opinions to allow them to be filtered through Josh Marshall, Andrew Sullivan, Salon.com, Time magazine's editors, or whoever. So here we go.