Random Blather

Where's Doug?

2008-06-22T12:19:00.001-07:00

I haven't posted for quite a while, as you two or three people who read this blog might have noticed. This is not because I have stopped posting, or even stopped having opinions (that'll be the day); rather it is because I am currently blogging at an experimental site that is a sub-site of Salon: Open Salon. I'm doing this because I'm an arrogant dweeb, and think that posts there will get a wider distribution than here.

I would direct the three (or however many) of you to head on over there. The site is currently in Beta and is thus (ironically) not "open," but you can sign up easily if you want, and it shortly will be open.

In the meantime, I'll be posting there rather than here. Just so's you know.

Perception vs. Reality

2008-04-09T09:46:00.000-07:00

Alex Koppleman of Salon has a video up about the recent flap over Hillary Clinton's "woman's baby died because of evil heathcare industry" anecdote. Koppleman makes a good point that it is surprising that people on the Left would trust the word of a hospital CEO more than they would trust Clinton, a member of the same left. And he is very even-handed in this; I have no truck with Koppleman's basic premise.

My point is, if so many folks on the left now doubt Clinton's veracity as their default position, how on Earth is she going to convince swing voters in the general election? How can she continue to try to make the electability argument when her word is doubted by her own supporters?

I've said again and again that I think Clinton is unelectable in the general. If this doesn't prove it, what the heck will?

Random Election Thoughts

2008-04-07T14:59:00.000-07:00

Some random thoughts on the current campaign nuttiness.

If John McCain's temper is so "well documented", why are we hardly hearing about it during his current press-driven beatification tour?
Is it just me, or are articles on "Why Clinton Should be Winning" or "Why Clinton Really is Winning" or "Why Obama's current lead doesn't really matter" more the kind of thing one hears as after a campaign is over as part of the postmortem?
How do people so out-of-touch as David Broder and Cokie Roberts get to keep insisting that they know what "typical Americans" are thinking?
Is anyone but me (and Glenn Greenwald, apparently) as disgusted by the fact that Ana Marie Cox, nee Wonkette, has become so much a part of the Washington media that she can't even recognize the obvious: that attending a friggin' bar-b-que with John McCain has an effect on the type of reporting he can expect from her?
Why do people in a state being heavily wooed by candidates still get sucked in by naked and obvious pandering by those candidates? Do people in Ohio really think Clinton or Obama would throw out NAFTA? Do people in Florida really think they care (in an ultimate sense) about Castro? Do people in Pennsylvania really believe Clinton likes "Rocky," or that Obama is a Steelers fan?

Hillary, Michigan, and Florida

2008-04-05T21:36:00.000-07:00

Am I the only one who is bothered by the blatant hypocrisy of the Clinton campaign with regard to the Florida and Michigan votes?

With Florida, Clinton has a bit of a case; everyone was on the ballot. But in Michigan, Clinton waited until every other candidate had removed their names from the ballot, and then she announced she would stay on. That's just blatant calculation and manipulation, and she knows as well as you or I that's it's absurd after something like that to talk about "counting everyone's votes."

But that's not what's bothering me. What's really bothering me is the fact that I know--and I'm sure that everyone knows--Clinton really couldn't give a rip about the voters in those states. If she had clobbered Obama on SuperDuper Tuesday, she wouldn't have cared about Florida and Michigan. If she had knocked Obama out via Iowa and New Hampshire, she wouldn't have cared about Florida and Michigan. The only reason she really cares is because she can't possibly be the nominee without those two states.

And after her blatant manipulation of the process with regard to Michigan, that makes me ill.

I am so damn tired of the Clintons; I really really want them to go away.

Still Confused

2008-03-30T17:34:00.001-07:00

At this stage, the Clinton campaign baffles me. As far as I can see, her only path to the nomination is through re-doing the Florida and Michigan primaries (which they've already rejected), getting 2/3 or more of the remaining super-delegates to vote for her, or waiting for Obama to implode a la Muskie in 1968. Or a combination of them all. All this in combination with a scorched-Earth campaign to make Obama unelectable.

Is it just me, or is this complete insanity?

Over and over, I've said two things: that Hillary would make a fine President (although her campaign's recent [i.e., in the last month and a half or so] behavior is giving me serious cause to reconsider), and that she can't possibly win the general election. And I've seen nothing in this campaign that causes me to reassess the latter opinion. Consider:

Hillary's negatives are remarkably consistent, between 45-55%.

A Hillary candidacy will bring out the wing-nuts in droves. Right now they're apathetic. (Do the Hillary people want to wake that slumbering giant?)

Hillary's current option--a scorched-Earth campaign followed by an overturn of the "regular" delegates by the "super" delegates--is almost guaranteed to alienate a lot of the new people who voted in the primary. How many will stay home? (In my view: a lot.)

With the Clinton's there's always something for opponents to shoot at. Her Bosnia thing. Her "peace in Northern Ireland" thing. Bill's stupid statements.
Something. And that's without the Right rehashing all the past stuff to invoke Clinton fatigue.

This is not sexism; this is not Hillary Hate; this is just a gimlet-eyed view of the current situation. I'm sure Clinton has pollsters and strategists and position papers up the wazoo showing how she can overcome all that, if she does all the right things. For one, I don't believe it. For another, hasn't her campaign shown so far that she can't do all the right things? (No campaign can, durn it!)

So why is she continuing? I can think of a few reasons, but none of them are very flattering, honestly. And speaking personally, I just wish she'd friggin' quit!

The Day After

2008-03-05T10:10:00.000-08:00

Well, Clinton won two states and eked out a narrow vote win here in Texas.

My position is--and always has been--that Hillary would make a perfectly fine President, but that there's no way she can win in November. No way. The youth vote that supported Obama will stay home; the Republicans who are currently apathetic (at best) over McCain will be galvanized, and she will lose. So it's a complete bafflement to me that people continue to vote for her.

So I'm depressed. Because I'm tired of this campaign and want it over. Because I'm tired of the Clintons and want them off the stage. Because I'm convinced that the campaign is now going to descend to mutual mud-slinging, and I'm friggin' sick of that. And because I'm convinced that the longer this goes on, the greater the chance of a Republican win in November.

So I'm depressed. How about you?

Update: 9pm

2008-03-04T19:27:00.000-08:00

Finished with the "precinct convention" (i.e., caucus) portion of the vote. The caucus started at about 7:15, and was still going on when I left at about 8:15. What I experienced sounds pretty different from what I've read about the Iowa process (probably because we're down to 2 candidates).

At 7:15, lines were formed for each candidate--a line for Clinton and a line for Obama, and each person "signed in," pledging their caucus vote to a particular candidate. There was no trying to talk Edwards supporters over to the Obama or Hillary side, or any of that; you just signed your name in the appropriate place (with your address, after showing either an ID that they checked against the rolls, or the little card they gave you earlier in the day that said, in effect, "Yuppers, I voted!"), and that was it. After everyone signed, there were be the proportional distribution of delegates for the district, followed by the delegate selection.

There were easily two Obama volunteers for every Clinton volunteer. There were also far more Obama people--I would guess between 2 and 3-1 out of a crowd that looked to me to be between 200-300 people (in a township that only has a stated population of about 1100!). This part of Austin would look to be heavy Obama territory.

At 8:15, there were still lines to sign in. There were now two lines for each candidate, and there was basically no waiting at the "Hillary" lines, with plenty of people still in the "Obama" lines. The Obama people were a big cross-section of folks--mostly white (Austin is pretty heavily Caucasian), but a few African-Americans and Indian-Americans. They covered all the age spectrum, and were men and women both. The Clinton folks were heavily female.

It wasn't a "contact sport" here in Rollingwood, but when something like 60% of the adult population of the district shows up to vote for a single party's primary, that's pretty amazing.

Update: 4:30 pm

2008-03-04T14:31:00.000-08:00

School (and, one presumes, most UT classes) is out, and the difference on the street is startling. Lots of Obama supporters out on the street, waving signs at passing cars, encouraging people who are driving by. Didn't see any Hillary supporters, but I'm not exactly plowing through downtown; still out in the Rollingwood area.

Just got another campaign phone call, this time from Michelle Obama telling me that the polls close in just over two hours, and reminding me about the funkiness of the Texas pri-caucus. Impressive saturation. Still no Hillary calls. What's up with that?

Battleground Primary: Texas-eyed View

2008-02-29T14:52:00.001-08:00

It's a new experience for me.

I'm middle-aged, and this isn't exactly my first Presidential primary as a voting adult. But as someone who has only lived in California and Texas, my vote has never really counted; the primaries have basically been over by the time they rolled around to me. And to be honest, that's what I was expecting again.

Silly, silly me. Not this year.

For the first time, my vote is being courted. For the first time, I'm receiving multiple phone calls urging me to vote, and asking me to vote for a specific person. The sensibilities of my Uncle John in Derry, N.H. may be dulled by the repetitiveness of this sort of thing happening to him every four years, but for me it's a new experience, and I'm really enjoying it.

So what's it like on the ground here in Austin, Texas for a Democratic voter?

2/29-3/4: Lots of phone calls--no fewer than 5, and probably more that I didn't pick up the phone for--urging me to vote for Obama. None for Hillary. None. Further, the Obama calls were smart; prior to Friday evening, they were all urging me to vote early for Obama. Afterwards, to vote on Tuesday and asking if I knew about the Texas primary/caucus duality.

Obama was in the area last week (I think); lots of advanced notice, lots of information on location and time. Hillary was in town yesterday; no notice, no information on location and time, and she was at a place (The Burger events center? What the hell is that?) that neither I nor my wife have even heard of, let alone knew where it was located.

3/4, 7:45 am: Hauled myself out of bed at 6:30, not because I'm so eager to vote (although I am), but because it was Dad's Turn to get the kids ready for school. On the way to my daughter's school, the number of lawn signs has decreased since yesterday, interestingly. The neighbor across the street has taken down their "Hillary" sign. Lots of other signs on Exposition, a main neighborhood street down near the river, have been removed since yesterday afternoon. Go figure.

8:10am: Pulling up to the voting location--which here in Rollingwood is the municipal building--I see something I have never personally observed before: a line of cars along the road, parked in front. I manage to park in the tiny lot (4 slots, shared with the town's police department in the same building). Hillary supporters have set out a table just the other side of the lot, presumably one inch from the "no canvassing here!" line.

Voting is a multi-step process. You have to show your voter card or ID to the "registrar" lady. She gives you a couple of stickers. Then you move over to your party table; they take the stickers and paste them in forms, and then ask you to sign in. Then you move over to the voter admin guy; he's the one who gives you your--I don't know what to call it; a voter receipt?--and your unlock code for the voting machines. Then it's over to the machines to vote.

Rollingwood is a pretty affluent community, with a population of around 1200, and forms its own precinct. We have about a dozen voting machines, and they weren't all being used by any means, and there sure wasn't a line. Every time I blitz through--I've never had to wait--I always feel bad for more heavily populated precincts where they probably have fewer machines for far more people.

Rollingwood has voting machines; these have four buttons (next, previous, enter, and the big red VOTE! button), and this funky wheel dealie that scrolls through the lists. While I was voting I kept thinking about how easy it would be for someone with shaky hands (and my hands shake because of the Ultram I take) to screw up and vote for the wrong person. You can go back and correct fairly easily, but there's no question in my mind that some people will vote for the wrong person and not know it. There is a final screen that lists all your selections, so you can double-check at the end, but still.

8:25am: Finished voting. There has been a constant movement of people in and out while I was voting. Certainly not a mighty stream, but definitely higher than a trickle. "Good throughput," as we nerds say.

More later at the "precinct convention," better known as the caucus portion of the Texas two-step.

Campaign Bafflement

2008-02-19T22:27:00.000-08:00

There's a lot of things about this campaign that defy my understanding, and so I'm going to bore you poor folks with them.

Why--why why why!--does anyone think Hillary Clinton can win the general election? Too many people hate her, and it is the only thing that could galvanize the republican nutty-right base enough to bring them out in large numbers.
What's the hooha about Obama's rhetorical gifts being a negative. Whose genius idea was that? What, we're supposed to ignore the fact that, finally, we have a candidate who is an actual, honest-to-god orator. This is a good thing, folks.
On the flip side, what is it with the press and Clinton? Why do they hate her so much, and enjoy their shadenfruede so visibly when she is struggling? Did she drop fleas in Tim Russert's shorts or something?
I used to like McCain, but he sold his soul to win this primary. Cut taxes! Fence us in! More war in Iraq! Good God; how can anyone in their right mind vote for that guy? If the world was a just place, McCain would get the 30% hardcore right-wing loony vote, and the democratic candidate the other 70%. Too bad it won't work out that way.
Anyone who's arguing that Obama is an empty suit is either being obtuse, or simply obnoxious. He went out there in Houston tonight and gave a speech so long and detailed it was damn boring. My preference: to know that he has that stuff in reserve, and then listen to the inspiration stuff that will get it done. Reagan didn't pull in "Reagan Democrats" with his policy wonkishness, kiddies.

On Matters Racial

2008-02-05T14:07:00.000-08:00

It would be arrogant and presumptuous of me to even pretend to know what it's like to grow up "biracial" like Barack Obama. Or anyone else, for that matter. But consider this:

When I was a kid, my relatives all lived in New England or New York. All of them. My Dad and uncles and aunts married other white, New England Catholics. My Dad was a radical for marrying a non-Catholic. A non-Catholic.

My cousins and I, not to put too fine a point on it, live everywhere, from New England to L.A. to Texas. One cousin has been in New Zealand for over a year. But even more than that, we've gone outside the bounds of our "culture."

My sister-in-law is Assyrian, moving from Iraq to the U.S. with her family when she was 12 (they're Christian). My brother-in-law is half Japanese, and spent some time growing up on Okinawa. My niece looks Asian, not Caucasian. My son is adopted from Taiwan. My wife is from the South (my daughter qualifies both as a D.A.R. and a Daughter of the Confederacy).

And this is where racism is changing on the ground, I suspect.

How can you think "all Asians [fill in the blank]" when your son is an Asian? When your niece is an Asian? How can you look at Iraq dispassionately when your brother's wife and her family fled the country?

And how can you not look at someone like Barack Obama and not feel that he represents you better than anyone else probably could?

I don't think racial problems in this country are ever going to heal entirely. But if they do, it's going to be because of millions of families like mine, where the children didn't give a rip about following their parent's faith, or staying put in the ancestral home, or dating who their parents thought was "appropriate." We're going to heal because it's harder, and hurts more, when "the other" that you're fighting or railing against is really not "other" at all.

Then again, maybe I'm just a naive idealist.

Exploding Myths

2008-02-02T11:03:00.000-08:00

In every election that I can remember, the Republicans hammer the Democrats over two main issues: national defense, and economics. And the craven Democrats truly suck at deflecting these comments.

As Al Smith once said, "Let's look at the record."

"Trickle-down" economics, or Reaganomics, or "VooDoo Economics" (as George H.W. Bush called it) had a 12-year run from 1981-1993. Taxes on the upper income brackets were massively slashed. The result? Some good times, two or three recessions, and a huge buildup of debt from the exploding deficit.

George W. Bush's version also included massive tax cuts that went disproportionately to the upper income brackets. The result: some good times, a couple of recessions, and a huge buildup in the debt. Bush brags about job creation, but many months the number of jobs created has not exceeded the number of new workers entering the market; the way I learned math, that's a net loss of jobs.

Conclusions: Tax cuts do not pay for themselves. "Trickle down" economics increases creates a deficit and increases the debt. Tax cuts for the upper income brackets do not provide a massive stimulus in job creation.

By contrast, against the votes of every Republican in Congress, Bill Clinton passed a budget that included tax increases in 1993. The result: the longest period of economic growth in this country's history, including the creation of millions of jobs.

Conclusion: the Republicans don't know dick about how to make the economy hum, and are just blowing smoke when they say they do.

On defense, the "adults" who took over from Clinton have been responsible for the debacle in Iraq, and letting Afghanistan go to hell after they had taken out the Taliban. Now, the projected defense budget is three quarters of a trillion dollars for next year alone. Yeah, them Republicans sure is good at defense!

So in short, the Republicans have shown through their own actions that they are not superior at managing economic policy or defense. So Democrats, show some friggin' backbone when they accuse you of it!

Random Observations from a Grump

2008-01-20T09:29:00.000-08:00

Just some random, semi-political observations:

There's something wrong when your country doesn't create its own Stuff. Cars, dishwashers, TVs, refrigerators; we don't make our own stuff, and that strikes me as a Bad Idea. I don't have a solution; when you can manufacture Stuff for a fraction of the price in Taiwan or China or Indonesia or wherever, you can't continue to pay workers in the U.S. a living wage to manufacture the same Stuff. But still, something's out of whack.
I don't think Hillary has a prayer of winning the general election, and it drives me nuts how many people try to rationalize their way around it. I don't give a rip what the polls say in "head to head matchups;" there are just too many people who hate her and won't vote for her. It's really that simple. All else is pundit-and-campaign blather.
Speaking of Hillary, I used to really like Bill Clinton. I think he did a good job as president, and has done pretty well since then. Now, though, he simply won't shut up. He's fomenting civil war in the Democratic party just so his wife can be elected President, and it stands a good chance of putting another Republican bonehead back in the White House. Bill: shut up!
And frankly, I'm am so ready for the Clintons to go away. Very very ready. What next; they run Chelsea for office? Go away!
We have got to have energy independence. We used to, but now we're stuck. It's absurd. Why haven't we brought the hammer down on Saudi Arabia, when the majority of the 9/11 hijackers came from there? Why are we playing footsie with Iranian speedboats in the Straight of Hormuz? Why do we give a shit about Iran at all? Why did we just "sell" $20 billion of military hardware to these extremist whack jobs? Because they have the oil, and have us by the balls, is why. Why U.S. companies don't invest in alternative energies and try to corner the market now, I have no idea. It baffles me. Isn't that what Capitalist Robber Barons are supposed to do?
We've tried Trickle-down economics now for 23 years; it doesn't work. Tax cuts don't pay for themselves, budget deficits are bad, and Reaganomics only creates huge budget deficits. Which will destroy this country in the end. The Reaganauts out there can bellow all they want about how "If there had been government cuts, it would have worked!" Well, maybe, but I think that a quarter of a century proves that Government doesn't have the ability to do that matching, so Reaganomics doesn't work. Sorry, kids.
And due to Reaganomics Bush-style, we now have larger deficits, and a larger debt, than Reagan could have possibly imagined. And what does this do? It means that with countries like China, we have basically zero diplomatic leverage because they hold our markers on so many loans. (How much of our debt does Saudi Arabia finance, I wonder?) Ditch the Reaganomics and get back to some fiscal discipline, you boneheads.

That's enough bitching for one day, don't you think?

Good, Old Fashioned, Nerd-Related Whining

2008-01-15T11:50:00.000-08:00

Or "whinging," as they call it in the British world.

Ol Steve Jobs just finished his new products announcement at Apple, and it's funny for me in a number of ways:

I never used to give a rip about MacWorld, as I work in the PC universe pretty exclusively
I was just whining myself a few months ago about how innovation at Palm is completely dead, and here's Apple--itself given up for dead multiple times over the years--literally en fuego with innovations
I have resisted going to Macs for years--about 25 years, to be exact--due to the price, and the fact that as a freelancer, I need to be able to use certain particular applications that are PC based; and yet, I find myself actually considering getting a Mac (at least as a secondary system)

But that being said, let's start with the whining:

I'm glad to be able to personalize my Home screen on the iPhone, but I would have appreciated things like Bluetooth A2DP or voice dialing.
No announcement about a new iPhone with 16GB (or more?).
No word about the timeframe for the 3G iPhone?
No word about things like--oh, I dunno, native games?
The worst thing, of course, is Apple's simply idiotic restrictions on "rental" content. Look, I know Jobs probably had to accept some compromises in order to get so many Old Media companies to sign on, and I can sorta accept the one month limitation on "rented" movies. (I put "rented" in quotes, by the way, because "renting bits" seems like a weird concept to me.) But forcing you to finish watching movies within 24 hours of starting them? That's utter stupidity. One of the beauties of buying a movie or TV episode is that you can watch as much as you want, whenever you want. It will frequently take me two or three or more days to watch a movie (on DVD or an iPhone); I don't see any good reason why I should be limited to "hurry up and watch!"

I can see no reason--honestly, none--for "renting" a movie through iTunes when I can get the same movie, probably for a less price per-unit, from Netflix, which I can then watch whenever I want, as many times as I want, taking as long as I durn well please. This is a hugely stupid move, in my opinion.
How about copy and paste capability? Seems pretty important. Hey, call me crazy.
And lest I forget, still no eBooks! C'mon, Jobs! Get on the stick!

Anyway, like I said, I'm just whining. I'm still pretty excited to see what Apple will come out with over the next few months (my guess: a 3G iPhone by June).

Johnny One-Notes

2008-01-08T12:24:00.001-08:00

Rudy Guiliani is of course one of the most terrible cases of a public figure being a Johnny one-note. For Guiliani, 9/11 is the answer to every question. How do you feel about the Iowa results? "I felt much worse things on 9/11." What do you think of Hillary Clinton crying? "I cried too sometimes during 9/11." The word "shameless" doesn't even begin to describe this guy.

But Bush is just as bad. Worse, really, since he's the President. Yesterday he gave a "wide-ranging" press conference about the economy. Here's what the Washington Post said:

President Bush gave a wide-ranging speech about the economy yesterday, but proposed no new policies to deal with the emerging economic distress.

That perfectly sums up Bush. Bush--who chooses a policy and then sticks to it no matter what--never proposes new policies. He's like all those "New and Improved!" products: the same old crap in a brand new package. With a tiny bit of rewriting, that quote can apply to every Bush speech:

""President Bush gave a wide-ranging speech about Iraq yesterday, but proposed no new policies to deal with the emerging sectarian strife."

"President Bush gave a wide-ranging speech about North Korea yesterday, but proposed no new policies to deal with the emerging dangers of their nuclear capability."

"President Bush gave a wide-ranging speech about Iran yesterday, but proposed no new policies to deal with the Iranian Government."

And so on.

I can't wait until this guy is out of office. The only question is, how much more damage can he do in his remaing 12 months?

Fluff for the Day

2008-01-05T16:03:00.001-08:00

In reading a "Best of 2007" movie list on Moviefone, I had a bunch of random thoughts about the films and the actors that I thought I'd bore you with:

Why do all actresses--even the naturally voluptuous ones like Scarlett Johansson and Kate Winslet and (most alarmingly) Jennifer Connally--have to be rail-thin? First of all, every guy I know likes women who are shaped like (gasp!) women. You know: with breasts and hips and a backside and so on. But second of all, what on Earth is someone thinking by taking a womanly knock-out like Christina Ricci and trying to make her look like Kate Hudson? Yeesh. Does anyone find that attractive?
Speaking of Johansson, did anyone think that her appearance in Home Alone 3 would be the steppingstone to massive stardom? You never can tell.
Do Ethan Hawke or Timothy Hutton ever comb their hair? Do they even have combs?
Having Cate Blanchett play Dylan is genius. But it's not enough to get me to watch "I'm Not There."
What the heck do people love so much about Naomi Watts? I admit I've only seen her in a couple of movies, but she's a) a block of wood, and b) totally generic looking in that "skinny blonde Hollywood actress" way. I mean, there have got to be a million of them (and I mean that literally) in L.A.; why so much love for this one?
Am I the only guy in the world who feels sorry for Chris Cooper, who always seems to be stuck playing dicks?
Speaking of feeling lonely, while I like Knocked Up, I certainly didn't find it as hilarious as The 40 Year-old Virgin or Wedding Crashers (to name a couple of recent comedies I liked). Did I miss something?
Every critic in the world seems to love The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, and I may well too, if I ever see it. But honestly, I would have to be pretty worked up to want to see a movie about a guy who can only move his eyelid, for crying out loud. All the reviews I've read sound a lot like my mother when I was 10, telling me that I would love those lima beans, if I only gave them a try. (I tried them, nearly gagged, and ran outside and spit them out, in case you were wondering.)
I'm a big animation fan and I love Brad Bird, but does anyone really think Ratatouille was better than The Incredibles or Iron Giant?
I'm still waiting to see Juno, but the backlash against it kinda leaves a bad taste in my mouth. My guess is, 7 years of Bush has made reviewers grump.

Tune in to my next fluffy offering, weeks from now!

A Romney "By the Way"

2008-01-05T09:22:00.000-08:00

Am I the only guy in America who has noticed that Mitt Romney bears an uncanny resemblance to the late Fred Gwynne, most famous for his role as Herman Munster? Judge for yourself:

Illegitimate son? Illegal clone? Separated at birth and cryogenically frozen for a couple of decades?

I can't believe all those political columnists--and, more importantly, political cartoonists--have missed this. Tom Toles, get cracking!

In the meantime, contemplate the prospect of a President Herman Munster. America, the choice is yours!

Auto-Bush

2008-01-04T10:55:00.001-08:00

I have long maintained that Bush can't possibly be as dumb as he is portrayed (or sounds when he's mangling English). Personally, I think he suffers from dysnomia, aggravated by alcohol and drug abuse when he was younger. But even if you're a legacy, it's tough to get through Yale and then Harvard Business School if you're a dolt.

(I do have some friends who disagree, though, insisting that Bush's family put pressure on those institutions to help him slide through.)

That being said, it does drive me nuts that Bush absolutely and adamantly refuses to actually talk to people. He has his talking points, and then he has his joking, frat-boy, friendly mode that a lot of people seem to respond to (I friggin' hate it, but that's me). For the benefit of both my readers, I herein give examples of how Bush would react to everyday situations with his pre-programmed, Auto-Bush responses:

Hits another car: "This is an unfortunate situation that I am sure trial lawyers such as John Edwards will be quick to take advantage of, which is one of the things holding our country back."

Bounces a check: "Tax cuts would alleviate these kinds of problems."

Overbilled at a restaurant: "Tax cuts would alleviate these kinds of problems."

Homeless person asks for money: "What you need are tax cuts that stimulate the economy, creating jobs."

Attends a party and, with the other guests, trashes the house, accidentally dumping beer in the aquarium (killing all the fish) and running over the family dog his car: [watching host clean up] "You have to stay until the job is done. Leaving would be defeat. Not finishing the job is to become a defeatocrat. Complaining would give succor to the enemy." [leaves, handing cleanup bill to homeless person's kids]

Gets caught shoplifting: "As the Commander in Chief in a time of war, I have to do whatever I feel is necessary to ensure our victory. These supplies are desperately needed by our brave troops. Do you want to be seen as not supporting our troops?"

Gets caught beating someone up: "America does not torture. I refuse to comment on the sources and methods we use to obtain information."

As Molly Ivins said, in times like these, sometimes the only fun we can have is making fun of the folks in charge.

Where Are the Results?

2008-01-03T21:39:00.000-08:00

Today--Iowa caucus day--I drove from Lake Charles, Louisiana back home to Austin. We left late to miss the Houston rush-hour nightmare, not getting in until a little after 10. So as a political junkie I figured: "Excellent; I'll find out the results of the Iowa caucuses!"

Well, what a stupe I am.

Reuters gives lots of news about Obama and Huckabee's big wins. Lots of talk about Edwards coming in second, and Clinton third (of course; it's been "beat up on Hillary" time for a few weeks now, and now they have some actual data). But who came in second in Iowa among Republicans? Third? What are the percentages? Reuters is mute.

So is Yahoo news. And Andrew Sullivan. And Salon. And if you can find the info on the Iowa Caucus Results web page ("in real time!" they proclaim), you're a better man (or woman) than I.

I'm currently googling to get the actual, you know, results, but I have to say I'm utterly appalled. It's bad enough that the "mainstream media" spends 'waaaaaay too much time on giving us opinions and bullshit; now they think their opinions matter more than the results.

Jeez, guys; even with baseball games (even local minor league games!) I get a box score if I want it. What are the friggin' RESULTS?

If the media can't even report the most basic, salient facts, what the hell is the point of them? (Over 10 MSM web sites now, and I still haven't found out how Ron Paul did other than "fifth".)

iPhone Thoughts, 6 Months On

2007-12-23T22:13:00.000-08:00

I was reading Farhad Manjoo's year-end technology wrap-up on Salon, and he talked a lot about the iPhone. He also included a pointer to a post by Harry McCracken of PC World (any relation to Ed, I wonder?) about the iPhone's shortcomings. And it got me to thinking about my experiences with the little guy.

The first thing to say is, I went down Harry's list and kept thinking, "Geez, I don't really give a rip about that." Things like Skype, using Lotus Notes (ugh!), Slingbox . . . he just has an interesting set of priorities. After 6 months with the iPhone, I'm still loving it. It is far and away my favorite purchase of the year, and while I can't wait for the upgrade--Doug's estimate: June of 2008--I have a hard time getting irritated for it's faults.

What do I want in an iPhone Rev. 2.0? Right now, just a few things:

3G; while I can live with Edge when I have to, it is definitely far too much slower than 3G. Apple says they'll have it next year. (June?)
A2DP. I'm stunned that I can't use Bluetooth devices like the Cardo S-2 on the iPhone. That was boneheaded. (Another June fix?)
Better ear-buds. The ones that come with the phone break in just a few months, and at $30/pop, that's not okay.
More memory. I can live with 8GB, but it's not really 8GB. The OS takes up some space (about .75GB), and I have found that if you pack it too full, weird things start a-happenin'. I have found you need to leave about 1GB of free space, which is pretty annoying. But since the Touch comes in a 16GB model, I'm thinking this problem will be solved soon, too. (June?)
There are lots of games available on the web for the iPhone now. I don't want them; I want games that are native. Jeez, Jobs; the friggin' iPod nano comes with games--what's up with not having any for the iPhone? Get on the stick!

With regard to some of Harry's specific complaints, I wanted to give my countervailing opinion:

"The iPhone requires too many clicks to get stuff done." With all due respect: baloney. Perhaps Harry can get to stuff quicker or with less clicks on his 8525; I couldn't say. But I do know that on my wife's RAZR, my old v180, the HTC Universal, and any number of other phones I've tested that it's generally a pain in the ass to do almost anything not "dial a phone" related. Where do I go to turn on Bluetooth? How to I use the video camera? (My wife has had her RAZR for 3 months and didn't even know it had a video camera!) How do I download ringtones? Etc. On the iPhone, I never get lost in menus and I rarely guess wrong about where some feature is located. The interface is simply superb, and as a guy who documents software for a living, believe me, I've seen a lot of lame interfaces. It may take "more clicks," but who gives a rip as long as it's fast?
"The iPhone doesn't have enough storage to be my primary media player." Well, it doesn't have enough space, that's true. On the other hand, it's far and away the best media player I've ever tested, and I've tested a bunch. I've tested several that had 30GB or 60GB of storage, and frankly the extra space isn't worth the screen that's not as good, the interface that's not as good, and the lack of quietness that those devices always have.
"The iPhone's virtual keyboard is surprisingly good; the 8525's real one is better." Maybe. On the other hand, I'm not using the iPhone to type notes on; I just use it for SMS and answering the occasional email, and it's just fine for that. I don't want to trade a virtual keyboard for a real one unless I get something of the quality of an HTC Universal or an OQO version 2. And those babies cost over a grand, and weight 3 times as much. I don't think that's a good tradeoff. Your mileage may vary.

One final thing I wanted to mention: as a phone, the iPhone is by far the best cell phone I've had. It's reception is better and more consistent, I can hear better with the stereo earbuds, and it's interface--in case I haven't made this clear--is excellent. So I don't know what the people are expecting who complain, but I have been way happy just on the phone end.

It's not a perfect device, by any means. But it is the only device I have ever actually be willing to carry on my hip; all other devices have gotten tossed in a gear bag. The iPhone? Naw; I clip it on my belt in a beautiful Vaja case. And while you may not know it, for me, that's saying a lot.

Corporate Stupidity

2007-12-23T13:28:00.000-08:00

A couple of months ago, Farhad Manjoo of Salon posted about this last summer's snit between NBC Universal and Apple. The short form: NBCU wants more control over the price of downloads of their content from iTunes, and Jobs was insistent that the price remain the same for everything ($1.99/download). So NBCU said "Screw You," and walked away from iTunes, taking their bat and ball with them.

Why am I writing about this now? Because NBCU's policy only became effective early this month. And so now, while the writers are on strike and it might be a good time to download shows from iTunes that you haven't seen before, you're hosed, because they're gone.

And I don't mean just the latest seasons; NBCU pull their entire catalog. And this isn't just for NBC shows; it's for NBCU-produced shows. So while Heroes and 30 Rock were on NBC and are of course gone, so is Monk, which is on USA. And Eureka, which is on SciFi. And so on. Don't matter about the channel; just matters about the production company. And who the hell pays attention to that?

This is asinine from so many different directions that it's hard to unpack. But consider these few main points:

NBCU loses all the iTunes users. That's a lot of users. Yes, they're offering their stuff through other channels--e.g., Heroes is available through Amazon.com's UnBox--but how many iTunes users are going to want to fart around with a new format, try to come up with conversion tools, or whatever? (You can currently only watch UnBox videos on your computer.) Those iTunes users are lost.
If NBCU jacks up the price--as they clearly want--who will pay? While I would hesitate to say "all," I have to believe that the vast majority of their content is available through torrent download sites. One of the great advantages to iTunes is that it is reasonably priced and easy to use. If NBCU makes it unreasonably priced and difficult to use, who on Earth is going to pay when they can use some other difficult method that's free?
I don't know how much NBCU was making for their downloadable shows, but for their back-catalog, not only are they not stealing away their own viewers, they're getting that legendary holy grail of business: money for nothing. They upload their episodes to iTunes--episodes that may be years old--and people pay for them. That revenue is now gone. And for what?

As a personal user, I have purchased 'way more TV episodes than I probably should have, simply because it was easy and reasonably priced. I watched half of last years' episodes of Monk through download. All of Heroes. A few episodes of Eureka. And now NBC is getting no revenue from me--none--because I simply don't watch commercial TV. I'll wait and order the DVDs from Netflix. That's not a lot of money--$100, maybe--but now NBCU will get none. Multiply that by tens of thousands, and that's a lot of dough. That they were getting for no extra work.

I always knew that entertainment companies were idiotic about new media distribution formats, but this really takes the cake. NBCU wins the Doug Corporate Boneheads of the Quarter award. Congratulations, guys!

Grocery Store Rant

2007-12-19T18:37:00.000-08:00

When the fambly and I moved from California to Austin, we were able to leverage our real estate in CA to get a pretty nice house in Austin, which turned out to be in a frou-frou neighborhood.

The nice thing about our neighborhood is that it is close to everything, including downtown, but feels like its own little neighborhood. Plus we can we hear all the big concerts in the nearby park; last summer we listened to the Stones by opening our windows, and I could hear Dylan while I walked the dog.

On the downside, there's a lot of pretty conservative folks here--a problem for a yutz from Santa Cruz--and all the stores like to be "upscale." Which means that the hardware store looks more like a boutique. But the worst, as far as I'm concerned, is the local Randall's grocery store.

First of all, everything there is overpriced; the nearest H.E.B. is quite a bit cheaper (and a lot farther away). But also, they introduce new products, and then as soon as I learn to like them, yank them away again. I've lost track of how many "Doug enjoys this!" items have come and gone in this place, while still being available at Albertsons or H.E.B. But the worst is, they've upgraded their store twice, and we've only been here 5 years or so. And how do you reckon those upgrades are paid for? Not lower prices at the checkout, I'm telling you.

First, it was adding faux-wood floors to the produce section and a Starbucks outlet. Aside from the fact that I don't give a rip what my grocery store floors are made out of, there's a Starbucks right across the friggin' parking lot! I hate to break it to these folks, but when I go to a grocery store, I want groceries, not Starbucks, not wooden floors, and certainly not marble tile floors (which is what they are putting in now). Groceries. You know: milk, eggs, butter, bread; that sort of thing.

If I want a frou frou fancy-pants grocery store with all the hard-to-get stuff and organic produce and so on, I'll go to the bloody World Headquarters Whole Foods 5 miles away. In the meantime, stop taking away my yogurt breakfast bars and keep your marble tiles.

But the worst thing in the new remodel there is, they took out the "Express" checkout line and installed those idiotic "self checkout" machines. Let me ask you this: when you go to a store that has those things, how long are the lines manned by actual human beings vs. the lines at the "self checkout" machines? Personally, I always see lines where there are real, genuine people, but hardly ever at the self checkout.

This is a greed thing, pure and simple. Higher prices, smaller stock, fewer employees, greater profit. None of it is for the customer who--in case I didn't make this clear--just wants groceries.

I could go into what's lame about these self checkout machines--they're really badly designed--but I'll leave that for another post. I think by now everyone knows that I am hardly a luddite--I am a regular poster to Gear Diary and own an iPhone, for crying out loud!--but I am happy to complain about corporate greed and lame engineering when I see it. And that's what this is, kids.

Silliness

2007-12-11T09:00:00.000-08:00

For a long time I've wanted Hollywood to make a film called "Mary," starring Mary Stuart Masterson, Mary Beth Hurt, Mary Elizabeth Mostrantonio, and Mary-Louise Parker. I mean, after all, why not?
Do you ever wonder if the airplane shoe bomber realizes how many millions of hours in productivity he has cost people in this country? I mean, because of that one guy, millions of people are forced to take off their friggin' shoes every day. It's insane. My guess is: not.
How come every season has one name except Fall? Fall is my favorite season personally, but why is it that it is named Autumn and Fall? Yes, yes, I know it's because it's descriptive, but we don't call Summer "Hot", Winter "Cold," and Spring "Thank God I can finally go outside in my shirtsleeves." Did Autumn bribe a Senator in 1827, or something?
A lot of people see a relatively simple invention and slap their heads and say, "I wish I had thought of that!" In my Dad the engineer's case, it was the weed whacker. "Some fishing line and a little motor on the end of a stick? I should have thought of that!" The guy had a couple of patents, but lamented not inventing the weed whacker. What's yours?
Why is it people say they trust someone "implicitly?" "Implicitly" means that it goes without saying, so if someone tells you that they trust you "implicitly," they are telling you, and so it obviously is no longer "implicit." Why can't they say "I trust you completely," or "absolutely," or even just "I trust you?" But by declaring your level of trust as "implicit," you are immediately negating it. Goofy.

The Writer's Strike

2007-12-01T22:19:00.000-08:00

While it certainly doesn't have the cachet of the Iraq war or a massive fire in Southern California, I have been following the Hollywood Writer's Strike with some interest and, unsurprisingly, have some thoughts.

The issues seem to boil down to the fact that the writers want a piece of the New Media pie--internet downloads of the shows they wrote for, and such--while the studios and producers would prefer to give them, well, a pittance.

Now, I'm a writer. I don't write "Pushing Daisies" or gags for "The Daily Show," but I do make my egg and butter money putting words down. And my view of the system in general is the same as how I view computer software: without the creative people, the sales folks don't have anything to sell. Without software engineers, no software, and no product. Without writers, no scripts, and therefore no shows.

I may be harsh, but "producers" aren't really "producers," nor should they be called such. Producers, in the film/TV sense are really financers and salespeople. They put up the money, and they sell the product. You need them, of course; no money, and nothing gets created. But without the writers, nothing gets created. And you can't make money off of something that doesn't exist.

So my bottom line is pretty clear: the producers should stop trying to keep all the swag to themselves, and share it fairly with the writers. Because while they don't like to admit it, without writers, they're nothing but bankers and salespeople. And while there's nothing wrong with bankers and salespeople, you just don't see a lot of them riding around in Ferraris and hanging on the arms of famous actors.

Fluorescent Light Bulbs

2007-11-28T15:30:00.000-08:00

Look, I'm all for going green, using less energy, and helping decrease my carbon footprint. I work at home. I hardly drive. I try to be judicious with the house temperature. I recycle. And I even use those new swirly fluorescent light bulbs that you see advertised everywhere these days. There's just one problem:

They suck.

They're supposed to last longer. They have supposedly fixed the "fluorescent lighting sucks" problem. The fact that they cost so much is supposed to be compensated by a longer life.

Bushwah.

I've installed these things in all the places in my house where the quality of light doesn't matter to me. You know: the pantry, the back room where the cat litter is, the laundry room--places like that. And I can safely say that they do not last longer and they haven't fixed the "fluorescent lighting sucks" problem. I've had to replace the bulb above the litter box twice now in three months; the bulb above the entryway once in two months. The other bulbs have given me the same longevity, which is to say, not much. Certainly not significantly longer than the incandescents they replaced, and absolutely not enough to justify the higher price.

Not to mention that the quality of the light makes my eyes itch.

I'll keep buying them and putting them in the "I don't go there often" areas of the house. But I have to say, I just wish the marketing for this was honest, rather than trying to convince everyone that the higher price doesn't matter because of the longer life, and that the quality of the light is "comparable." Sell it on a "saving the planet" thing. Sacrifice a little, save a lot. That kind of thing.

Because, and not to put too fine a point on it, they suck.

Obama: The Non-Boomer Candidate?

2007-11-10T12:11:00.000-08:00

Andrew Sullivan made an interesting point in his Atlantic article on Barack Obama--well, interesting to me, at any rate. He pointed out that while Obama is technically a Baby Boomer--he was born in 1961--he is not a classic Boomer.

I have long maintained that the argument that the Boomers, born between 1946 and 1964, are a monolithic mass with similar views is completely bogus. A person such as Obama, or myself, has very little in common with someone born in the late 40s who went to college in the 60s. While women were burning bras, students were marching, and folks were dropping acid in the Haight and listening to Jefferson Airplane, folks born between, say, 1958 and 1966, were watching Scooby Doo and the Brady Bunch and going to elementary school.

There is a huge gulf between folks like me, and folks like Clinton. My Mom--born in 1943 and technically not a Boomer, has a lot more in common with Boomers than I do. Or Obama.

Boomers were out in the forefront of a lot of issues and causes that were incredibly important and highly controversial in their time. Civil rights. Gay rights. Women's rights. The Vietnam war. But Boomers can also be incredibly self-interested, to the point of not even believing that other generations before them did the same things they did, or had similar observations. Other generations didn't have their insights into how to be married, or raise children, or balance work and home, or anything. They need to share (or inflict) their brilliant observations and deductions on us all!

There's a reason why Steve Wozniak's music festivals were called the "Us" festival.

In any event, Obama is not a Boomer. My generation has always been overlooked, to the point where we don't even have a name. The "wedge" generation? The "tweeners?" Who the hell knows? We appreciate the good things the Boomers did, and roll our eyes at their self-involved naval-gazing, and get on with our lives. Which includes cleaning up some of their worst excesses.

So when it comes to Democratic candidates, as Sullivan points out, the difference is not just that he's Black and she's White, or that he's a man and she's a woman; it's generational. He doesn't carry the baggage of the 60s. When Clinton was meeting Kennedy, Obama was in short pants. Clinton didn't inhale; Obama's response to the same question was (in essence), "Sure, I smoked pot in college." After all, aside from graduates of Wheaton College, who the heck didn't? Obama didn't go to giant protests in his 20s, he went to Law School.

I'm not saying my generation is perfect; we're not. But we're not going to repeat the mistakes of the Boomers, or refight their fights. We're done with all that. It's our history, not our former current events (if you see my meaning). We'll make our own mistakes, but we won't re-do the Boomer's mistakes. And frankly, I find that comforting; I'm personally pretty tired of living with Boomer stuff. It would be nice to have someone like me in charge for a change, instead of someone like Bush or Clinton or Other Clinton. Don't you think?

2007-10-21T10:06:00.001-07:00

A brief follow-up . . .

Many columnists and commentators now have either comment sections or their email addresses with their columns. The sad and infuriating thing is, they totally ignore them. Joe Klein is the worst; he has stated outright that he ignores them. (God forbid you take feedback from your audience, Joe!) But as near as I can see, the "mainstream media" folks all ignore them.

David Broder gets tons of email filled with scorn. Does he adjust his policies? Heck no; he pens a column about how out-of-touch the emailers are! (They're your audience, you doofus!) Shailagh Murray writes a sneering article about Chris Dodd actually--heaven save us--standing up for Civil Rights by blocking the horrific telecom amnesty bill. Every single comment is negative. Does she do anything about it, or even acknowledge it? Heck no! She just goes right on peddling her tripe.

Honestly, it makes me want to fly to Washington with "Mr. Spoon" (as we call him here) and bend these clowns over my knee, paddle them, and then send them to their rooms with their internet privileges revoked. Bad columnists! Go to your rooms!

Ignoring The People

2007-10-21T09:49:00.000-07:00

So much for frivolity.

One thing that's been driving me absolutely nuts since the Democrats won back Congress is how much the inside-the-beltway folks are completely ignoring their constituents.

Personally, I'm used to being ignored; my Senators are both hard-right Republicans (including the execrable John Cornyn), and "my" Representative is Lamar Smith, who doesn't "represent" me in any way whatsoever. I hate it, but I'm used to it.

On the other hand, it really frosts my country ass that these Democrats that were put into Congress specifically to stand up to President Bush are caving in left and right. And it angers me even more that they not only flagrantly ignore their constituents, but also, like Nancy Pelosi, actually scorn them. Pelosi sneered at people protesting her limp Speakership by saying "If they were poor and they were sleeping on my sidewalk, they would be arrested for loitering, but because they have 'Impeach Bush' across their chest, it's the First Amendment."

Yes, Nancy; exercising their Constitutional rights--which you're trying to give away at the behest of a President with a 24% approval rating--is so annoying!

As if that isn't bad enough, the "liberal mainstream media" continues to pump out the meme that Democrats are stupid and doomed if they stand up to Bush. With the support for the war hovering around 30%, and with Democratic support for the war in single digits, the press nonetheless continues to opine that Democrats who stand up for civil rights, for pulling us out of Iraq, for returning to sane domestic policies, are stupid or naive or self-immolating.

You can read it over and over: Howard Kurtz, David Broder, David Brooks, Shailagh Murray, David Ignatius . . . pretty much anywhere. There are a few who step outside this nonsense, like Paul Krugman and Dan Froomkin (See? Not all Jews support neocons/Likud!), but in the main, the press is not listening to the people they theoretically serve. And they wonder why their subscription numbers are decreasing!

When the politicians we elect and the press that's supposed to keep an eye on them aren't paying attention to what "the people" want, where does that leave us? Personally it leaves me battling fury and depression.

Something Totally Frivolous

2007-10-21T09:22:00.001-07:00

This is completely frivolous. You have been duly notified.

I have a son who's only 9 and loves the usual 9-year-old boy stuff; cartoons, superheroes, transformers, and that sort of thing. He dragged me to see Transformers in the theater (which wasn't nearly as painful to watch as I was afraid it was going to be). And of course he had to have the latest Fantastic 4 movie as soon as it came out.

So here's the thing: Jessica Alba, while a pretty wooden actress, is a babe; no doubt about it. A very attractive woman (although personally I prefer her with her natural brunette hair color). And what I can't figure out is how they managed to make her look unattractive in this movie. I mean, seriously. She looked fine in the first one; why does she look so weird in this one?

Partly it's her hair; they did something to it that makes it look like it was ironed flat, like an early-'60s folk singer. And partly it's those blue contacts; like a lot of people who don't wear contacts regularly, she does this round-eyed thing when she has them in. But somehow, throughout the whole movie I was distracted by this strange-looking woman wearing spandex who sort of looked like Jessica Alba, but not really. It was weird.

Yes, these are the things that sometimes occupy my tiny brain. Hey, I told you this was frivolous. I don't rant about politics all the time!

2007-10-19T14:34:00.000-07:00

You know, it used to be that "conservatives" (with a small "c") were the ones who wanted the Constitution to be adhered to strictly and stringently. It was conservatives who wanted limited government, a balanced budget, and a government that was most assuredly made up of three coequal branches. It was conservatives who said, "Government isn't the solution; government is the problem." It was conservatives who told us not to trust the government.

Not any more, I guess.

In an article in the "Weekly Standard," Michael Goldfarb instead tells us what the new Conservative (big "C") position is: we should all shut the heck up and do whatever the government tells us to do, because it's the "patriotic" thing. Because now we can trust the government. And of course it doesn't matter that they've stripped habeus corpus away; these good ol' boys that are in charge couldn't possibly want to jail and arrest anyone but "bad guys." These folks are good people, and will always do the right thing!

Forgive me if I bear in mind this idiotic war in Iraq, the fact that these "good people" were illegally spying on folks for years, and the fact that they now want to bomb Iran to "smithereens." (Hey, Norman Podhoretz said it; I ain't making it up).

How on Earth are we going to make it through the next year intact with these nuts in charge? Tom Paine would have started shooting people by now. I think Heinlein put it well in "The Cat Who Walks Through Walls," believe it or not:

I sat down and shut up. I felt that I now understood the new regime: absolute freedom . . . except that any official from dogcatcher to supreme potentate could give any orders whatever to any private citizen at any time.

So it was “freedom” as defined by Orwell and Kafka, “freedom” as granted by Stalin and Hitler, “freedom” to pace back and forth in your cage. I wondered if the coming interrogation would be assisted by mechanical or electrical devices or by drugs, and felt sick at my stomach.

I'm not one for hysterics and crying "Wolf!"; I've got friends who do it a lot better than I do. But in this case, how can I help it? I hope we make it through the next year intact.

Barack Obama's Lapels

2007-10-06T18:16:00.000-07:00

I can't believe I'm even writing this, but that's the level political discourse has sunk to in this country, I guess.

Barack Obama is taking heat--and I honestly can't believe this--for saying he won't wear an American flag pin in his lapel. There are stories on Fox News, Time, and probably everywhere else.

This bugs me in so many ways it's hard to unravel, but the first thing is, isn't it bad enough that the press spends 'way more time talking about poll numbers and fund raising figures rather than what the candidates actually, you know, say they're going to do on healthcare or the environment or taxes. Now they're talking about a friggin' lapel pin. What next, what the candidates eat for breakfast? "Obama eats yogurt for breakfast! What an effete wimp!"

It also reminds me, disgustingly, of how much politics and the inside-the-beltway media are like High School. Doesn't matter how smart a guy is, doesn't matter what he stands for; it just matters what he looks like. Does he look "Presidential?" Oh my God, he wore a red tie today; what does that mean? And the pressure to conform to what the clique thinks. Don't do something out of principle; conform. Everyone must wear a lapel pin! Everyone must eat with Real Folks in a diner in New Hampshire in the dead of winter. Everyone must put on a flannel shirt and stride across a corn field in Iowa, post-harvest. Conform conform conform!

And the final thing is, ask yourself this: how many people out here in the "real world" wear lapel pins at all? Hell, in my industry damn few people wear suits, and those that do--salespeople and marketing people--are not exactly held in high regard by the technical folks. And I have never seen any of them wear lapel pins. (Here in Austin in the summer, most folks don't wear socks, let alone suits.)

I know it's different in the NorthEast to some degree, but even so most of the people I see all the time, in two states, wouldn't go near the $800+ suits the candidates all wear. They'd look kind of silly in a cornfield, or a tire repair shop, or laying pipe at the shipyard, or on a hacker writing code. And lapel pins? Feh.

So we have a manufactured flap over a piece of accoutrement that probably no one would have noticed if the press hadn't picked it up. And now the bloviators are trying to get Obama to regret it and conform.

Man. And people wonder why my generation is so darn cynical.

Trusting Business vs. Trusting Government

2007-10-01T12:04:00.000-07:00

I was just thinking the other day about "liberals" vs. "conservatives," and came to the realization that they both are kind of silly when taken too seriously.

Think about this: Conservatism, to some degree, can be boiled down to "let the market work it out." In other words, they have a lot of trust in Big Business, but distrust Big Government. Liberals, on the other hand, have a lot of trust for Big Government, but distrust Big Business.

The obvious internal contraction of these positions seems to slip by most everyone.

If you can trust Big Government, why are you so distrustful of Big Business? And vice-versa? A big, faceless Entity that is run by a whole lot of People You Don't Know; trusting either one of them too far seems the height of folly to me.

Take global warming, for example. The impression that I get from conservatives is that they would like the Invisible Hand of the market to deal with it. The thinking being (I guess) that eventually it would become more economical to do something about global warming than ignoring it, and the companies would switch to more environmentally sound policies. (Or alternatively, customers would stop buying environmentally damaging products, forcing producers to come out with environmentally sound products.)

I don't believe it, however. If watching the auto industry fight tooth and nail against any government-mandated innovation--including seatbelts, for crying out loud!--is an reasonable example, my belief is that, say, energy companies would continue to burn coal and oil and whatever else in as polluting a way as possible until they ran out of coal and oil. At which point they would demand government subsidies for alternative energy research, and start selling home and personal filtration systems to prevent folks from getting sick on all the gunk in the air.

But, you know, I'm a cynic.

On the flip side, the believers in government would have the government crack down on everyone in the industry. The natural follow-on to that--that business will become so inefficient that it will die or jack up the price to the stratosphere--seems to escape some folks. So they will squawk when their gas rises to $7 a gallon and their monthly heating bill rises to $1000. And then they'll want government to do something about that.

These are extremes, obviously. I'm exaggerating for effect. But the point is, you have to have a balance. There are some thing business is better at (goods and services at low cost--how many stories have you read about overbudget government projects?), and there are other things (worker safety and watching the environment being a big pair) that Big Business has a proven track record--hundreds of years, baby!--of sucking at.

So let the radicals at either end rail on--there wouldn't be any progress without pushing the boundaries. But let's not go overboard, because Big Anything taken at its word is dangerous, it seems to me.

Fascist State, the Overused Cliche

2007-09-18T12:22:00.000-07:00

People located all over the political spectrum tend to overuse terms like "fascist" to describe their foes. Catastophisizing and demonizing is a lot easier to do than engaging in actual debate. The downside is, the actual meaning and power of those terms gets diluted and worn down through overuse (similar to comparison to the Nazis), so that when they might actually be valid, people just roll their eyes.

But consider some facts. These are actual facts, not hyperbole.

Yesterday, at an appearance by John Kerry at the University of Florida, a student who was unruly and disruptive was in the process of asking John Kerry a long, hostile, and somewhat incoherent question. The other students in attendance were trying to shout him down, but Kerry requested that they let him finish. What happened? The police came, Tasered him, and took him away.

In its first term, the Roberts court considered the case of Morse v. Frederick, where the Court upheld the School District's right to suspend a student because he put up a banner that said "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" when the Olympic torch bearers ran by. Not during school, mind you; outside of school.

(I'm not going to go into here the mental gymnastics the members of the Supreme Court go through to justify this nonsense. Just as an example, donating large sums of money is constitutionally protected free speech, but wearing arm bands to school is not. Yeah, okay; whatever. Jefferson and Hamilton are probably fighting for grave-rolling privileges with John Jay.)

In its term of office, the Bush Administration has suspended habeas corpus and given themselves the right to slap American citizens in jail without trial and without accusing them of a crime indefinitely simply by calling them "enemy combatants." Bush has unilaterally declared entire sections of various laws invalid simply by issuing "signing statements." And finally, he's continuing a war in direct defiance of the opinions of a majority of Congress and the American people.

These are facts; I ain't making this stuff up.

At the risk of being pedantic, "fascism" is defined as "a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition."

Now I know some people will consider it hyperbole, and we are certainly a ways from, say, Germany in 1937, but what term other than "fascist" can be used to describe where we are today? We have police tasering people to shut them up; people pretending to be secret service and stopping citizens from attending speeches because of bumper stickers on their cars; White House press secretaries saying that we "have to watch what we write; watch what we say"; people who dare to debate the wisdom of public policy not disagreed with, but accused of being traitors and "giving comfort to the enemy."

And when when we have a President who values personal loyalty above competence, who fires military leaders when they dare to say things publicly that are at odds with what he wants to hear (remember Gen. Shinseki?), and whose Administration engages in vicious retaliation against anyone who doesn't do their bidding (Carol Lam, the former U.S. Attorney in Los Angeles, who was fired for not persuing "illegal voting" hard enough, and of course Valerie Plame being outed as a covert CIA operative as punishment for husband having the temerity to question Bush in the pages of the NY Times being just two examples), what else can we call him but "dictatorial?"

So as much as it puts me in danger of being accused of hyperbole, I have to say we live in a fascist state. It is not being abused to the point it could be, no, but it's a fascist state. If the State Apparatus wanted to slap me in jail tomorrow under some trumped-up pretext, they could. And that's a fascist state, folks.

Liveblogging Bush's Speech

2007-09-13T20:23:00.000-07:00

I have a huge amount of trouble listening to Bush speak. For one thing, he's a miserably bad speaker, even worse than his father. For another, his policies are asinine, and that bothers me immeasurable. But finally, the way he swallows his words drives me absolutely insane.

Even so, I listened to part of his speech tonight, and have a few comments:

Bush: "In Iraq, an ally of the United States is fighting for its survival."
Doug: I kept wracking my brain wondering which ally he was talking about. Great Britain? No; they were leaving, and their survival was assured. Iraq itself? They weren't a country yet. The Shiites? The Sunnis? The Kurds? He must be talking about Iraq, even though it doesn't have a central government, and isn't really an "ally," so much as a colonial state.

Bush: "Eight months ago we adopted a new strategy."
Doug: No; eight months ago you ordered a new strategy. We didn't have anything to do with it, and something like 2/3 of us don't agree with it.

Bush: "We are seizing the initiative from the enemy."
Doug: What enemy? It's a friggin' civil war. It's like fighting fog. Doesn't he even read his NIEs? I'm so sick of this guy dividing the world into "enemies" and "allies" I could just hurl. The world's more complicated than that, Mr. President.

Bush: We will reduce from 20 combat brigades to 15 by next July.
Doug: We would have to do that no matter what happened with "the surge," unless we wanted to implement a draft. If Bush dropped a rock, he would take credit for the force of gravity when the rock crashed to the floor.

Bush: "As . . . the Iraqis assume more control over their own security, our mission in Iraq will evolve."
Doug: How is this different from "As they stand up, we will stand down"? It's back to the future, baby!

Bush: "I have benefited from their advice."
Doug: Since when? Has there ever been a time when Bush has followed advice that's contrary to what he wanted to do in the first place?

Bush: "The principle guiding my decision on troop levels in Iraq is: 'Return on Success.'" (Trust me: you could hear the capitals and quote marks when he was speaking.)
Doug: Horseshit. The principle guiding your decision is: 'Turn the Mess Over to My Successor.'"

Bush: Talks about future presidents remaining in Iraq.
Doug: I am absolutely overwhelmed by the arrogance of this man trying to force us to follow his insane, moronic policy after he leaves office. His nerve is simply unbelievable.

Bush: He mentions Iran gaining nukular weapons if we are "driven" out of Iraq. (How about if we just, ya know, leave?)
Doug: I pray every day that Cheney doesn't get his way, and get a war with Iran before he and Bush leave office. I hope others are praying with me. I say this with no irony whatsoever. It scares the crap out of me thinking about it. They are clearly beating the drum for it. How they think they can fight another war when they are already breaking our military apart, I have no idea. (A draft in the waning days of next summer?)

Bush: "Iraq could face a humanitarian nightmare."
Doug: He really doesn't listen to his daily briefings, does he? After more than 2 million refugees, with power and water only intermittently available in the capital city, let alone the other cities, he doesn't think Iraq is a humanitarian nightmare now?

Bush: He links Iraq to 9/11 again.
Doug: Why does he still get away with that? Has he no shame?

Bush: He reads an email.
Doug: I sure wish he would read one of the ones I've sent him. He could delete the curse words for public consumption.

Bush reminds me a lot of guys I used to read the postings of on USENET back in the day (late 80s, early 90s). It's clear that he believes that if he repeats something often enough, it must be true ("Iraq is a central front in the war on terror;" "We can succeed;" "Iraq was a safe haven for terrorist prior to 9/11;" etc.). You would think that, by the age of 61, he would have learned that just because you can repeat something 3 or more times doesn't make it true.

At the beginning of his speech, Bush said "In the life of all free nations, there come moments that decide the direction of a country and reveal the character of its people." He's right. Unfortunately, this country--or at least, the political class of this country--will not make those decisions by either defunding the war or impeaching this horrible President and Vice President. So we are stuck with this insane, suicidal policy that means nothing but death, destruction, loss of American credibility, and further waste of money, until he leaves office. I sincerely hope that the next President does not follow Bush's idiotic advice and continues his stupid adventure in Iraq. I pray that we don't. But nowadays, I believe anything is possible.

God bless America, and please please hurry.

Iraq: Let's Sum Up

2007-09-13T10:25:00.000-07:00

So good ol' General Petraeus--who I am sure is an excellent general, as well as clearly being a sharp man--is explaining to us why we should remain in Iraq basically indefinitely. Let's review a few facts--just facts--about Iraq. Just for perspective, y'know.

Since the Iraq war began, the U.N. estimates that 2.2 million people have fled Iraq. The population of Iraq prior to the war was 26.7 million people. For perspective, 2.2 million people is more than the entire population of Houston, TX, the fourth largest city in the country. Imagine the entire city of Houston leaving the country. Imagine everyone in San Francisco and San Jose packing up and leaving those cities empty. But it's worse. If the same percentage left the U.S., it would mean 24.8 million people leaving the country. That would empty out the entire state of Texas and New Hampshire and Vermont.
Estimates of Iraqi deaths since the war began range from 426,369 to 793,663. Again for perspective, the population of San Francisco is 744,000.
We are spending two billion dollars a week on this war. Just today on the radio I heard that the Austin Independent School District received a grant for 330 million dollars over the next five years for drug prevention. So five years of an entire school district's drug prevention money is less than 20% of one week's worth of funding for the Iraq war.
President Bush and General Petraeus have both trumpeted Anbar province as a success story recently because they have been working with Sunni sheiks. On Septeber 3, President Bush met with Sheik Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha. Yesterday, Sheik Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha was killed by a roadside bomb.
On August 19, seven U.S. soldiers in Iraq had an Op-Ed published in the New York times in which they were highly critical of our mission there. On Monday, two of them died. Another of them is currently terribly injured from a gunshot wound to the head.

(If these last two items aren't as eloquent an indictment of a failed policy as anything I have ever heard, I don't know what could be.)

These are facts about the Iraq war. This is raw data. This is not spin. This is just data about the war that Bush and his enablers (such as the folks at National Review Online, The Weekly Standard, and so on) want to keep going indefinitely. This is the war that the Washington political establishment and the "mainstream media" have collectively decided is going to go on unchanged until there is a new President 16 months from now.

Can someone please explain to me why we--and by "we" I mean the 2/3 of this country that doesn't want us to be involved in this war--are still in Iraq? What madness is this?

Just Once

2007-09-10T06:50:00.001-07:00

Today (and tomorrow and for the rest of the week, for all I know) General Petraeus and Ambassador to Iraq Crocker (how appropriate!) will be testifying before Congress about conditions in Iraq.

We all know what those conditions are, of course: the Bush Administration's incompetent war has unleashed a civil war and sectarian violence; there's ethnic cleansing going on; several million refugees have fled the country; Americans are not considered "liberators" but "occupiers"; no progress towards a "national" government is being made (nor should we expect any, since the tribes pretty much hate each other); and we are now trying to police all this with 160,000 troops, many on their third, fourth, or fifth deployment, in a country of, what, 40 million or so? Those are the conditions.

So Petraeus and Crocker will get up and spill their absurd blather about the "progress" that's been made, the cowardly Congress will fork over more billions to the incredibly unpopular Bush--who has proven again and again his inability to run a war--and we will continue this charade until a new President takes office in 2009. Despite poll after poll showing that Americans overwhelmingly want us out of Iraq. As do the Iraqis. As does most of the rest of the world.

And honestly, just once I'd like to see a few things happen:

While testifying before Congress, I'd like a Senator or Congressman say to Petraeus or Crocker, "Bullshit. That's all bullshit. The situation there is a mess, our presence is making it worse, and we should get the fuck out. You are excused from this committee. Don't let the door smack you in the ass on the way out."
While giving yet another B.S.-fueled press briefing, I'd like the White House press corps to absolutely refuse to swallow the baloney spewed by Dana Perino or Tony Snow, and start throwing rotten fruit when they say things that are obviously and demonstrably lies.
I'd like one of these loudmouth Senators who grandstand about being tough to actually vote that way. Phil Specter leaps to mind.
I'd like to see someone the entire White House press corps agree beforehand on a question to press President Bush on, and to keep asking him. No matter who he calls on, keep asking the same question until he actually friggin' answers it. Even the foreign press people. Even the Fox News people. It's high time Bush actually gave a straight answer.
I'd like to see someone interview a high-ranking official and when they blatantly lie, call them on it. For example, when Cheney said, "You're out of line," I wanted the interviewer say, "No, sir, I am not, and the American people deserve an answer to the question." These people are criminals, and we deserve answers. It's time to stop letting them get away with their dodging and ducking.
When Bush goes one of these obnoxious photo ops, when he uses the press as his sickening lap dogs to sell this absurd war to the public, I want them to stand up in a body and say, "No thanks; we're not going to be part of your propaganda machine." If he gives one of his heavily-scripted speeches in Iraq, and no one is there to film it, did it happen? Would that whatever press maven he invites on his next Turkey Trip to Iraq this November have the juevos to say "No," so that his trip is only filmed by official Army propagandists.
I'd like to see Bush booed, seriously booed, at one of his major speeches. No matter how carefully they vet the audience, how carefully the script the speech, I want him booed, long and loud. At the State of the Union. In front of the VFW. I don't care; I want that guy booed. I want him to know how the other 77% of us feel, and I want him to know it in his bones.

Hey, a guy can dream, can't he?

Bush Derangement Syndrome--the Right-wing Version

2007-09-04T14:42:00.001-07:00

As a method of dismissing arguments against various Bush-authored or Bush-proposed policies without presenting counter-arguments, some folks on the Right like to say that their opponent suffers from "Bush Derangement Syndrome" (BDS). Said syndrome, the implication goes, means that the sufferer cannot see the good and wise things in whatever it is that Bush proposes because of their blinding hatred for All Things Bush. And they certainly have a point to some degree; there definitely are some people who can't listen to Bush without rejected whatever he says out of hand. (Of course, I would argue that Bush has brought this on himself to a large degree.)

But there is a flip side to BDS, and that is that some folks on the Right simply can't see anything wrong with things that Bush proposes because of their blinding love for All Things Bush.

I personally think this is exemplified by Kathryn Jean Lopez of National Review Online (who was kind enough to print my accusation of same in its entirety, but too cowardly to print my contradiction of her implied [but not stated] argument), as well as anyone whose last name is Kagan, or is related to that family in any way by marriage.

But it reached an absurd height when Fred Kagan recently opined that Bush has reached Lincolnian rhetorical levels in Iraq. To recap: Bush snuck out a side door of the White House, concealed his destination from most of the press corps, avoided Baghdad (presumably because the insurgents now have sufficient anti-aircraft capability to make it dangerous to fly in and out of the Baghdad airport), landed in al Anbar, had a photo op, looked al Maliki "in the eye," and then scurried on to Australia. Kagan's view: Bush's speech in Iraq was comparable to The Gettysburg Address, and turned a corner on the Iraq war. (Another one! We've turned so many corners there now, I've lost track.)

The Blame Society

2007-08-30T05:37:00.000-07:00

I just read this report on the horrific shootings at Virginia Tech earlier in the year, and what struck me about the article was how it was played: "Report faults Virginia Tech response." I couldn't help thinking of a couple of things simultaneously:

An episode of Star Trek (the original series), "The Conscience of the King," where Kirk discovers that a Shakespearean actor is actually a cover for an old mass murderer from years ago. Kirk wants to bring him to justice--the implication is that he wants to kill him, and McCoy asks him: "What if you decide he is Kodos [the mass murder]? What then? Do you play God, carry his head through the corridors in triumph? That won't bring back the dead, Jim!"
In Michael Crichton's Rising Sun, Detective John Connor is explaining one of the differences between the Japanese and American ways of dealing with problems to Detective Webb Smith. Connor explains: "The Japanese have a saying: fix the problem, not the blame. In American organizations it's all about who fucked up. Whose head will roll. In Japanese organizations it's all about what's fucked up and how to fix it. Nobody gets blamed."

Now believe me, it's not that I don't believe that killers shouldn't be brought to justice; I do. And it's not that I don't believe that the Japanese don't point fingers; I think they do. But this was a horrible tragedy, and the knee-jerk tendency to apportion blame, rather than fix the systemic problems, strikes me as, well, insane.

Another good example of this is the recent Utah mining disaster. There is absolutely no question in my mind that both mine owner Bob Murray, Bush Administration head of mine safety Dick Stickler, and probably some others have a major hand in this disaster for doing everything they could to maximize profits at the expense of safety. It's clear, and they should obviously pay.

But the much more important issue here is, what is the systemic problem that should be addressed? Clearly, the cronyism of the Bush Administration--the tendencies that gave us "Brownie" and "Fredo" Gonzales and all the other "loyal Bushies" who are in high positions for reasons of loyalty and cronyism rather than competence--is the problem here, much more so than the rank criminal negligence of a couple of people. And that is the problem that needs to be addressed, much more than apportioning blame. Because once the perpetrators have been removed, don't we want to make sure that this sort of thing never happens again? And you can't do that just by laying blame and slapping a few assholes in jail.

And that's what I kept thinking about the Virginia Tech newspaper report. They are laying blame at the feet of the Tech officials. People who are probably getting up every morning taking Paxil and Prozac to get through the day, feeling horrific guilt at their mistakes already. What good is done by an official report that points a finger at them? Does that bring the people back to life? Does that make the people who made the mistakes feel better, or perform better? Does it make Virginia Tech's safety situation improved?

Fix the problem, not the blame. That way, maybe it won't happen again.

Bush's View of Iran (Yes, Iran)

2007-08-29T10:32:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, in front of yet another military audience, President Bush gave a speech about Iran that can only be described as extreme sabre rattling.

(And let me just say as a personal aside that, as the son of a Naval officer, it offends the heck out of me that Bush continues to use military audiences as a prop for his speeches. Bush's family used its political connections to get him into the Texas Air National Guard to avoid active duty service in Vietnam, and then he skipped out on even completing that. His Administration has presided over one of the worst-run wars in our nation's history, a war that we most assuredly didn't need to fight. His Administration has treated its wounded veterans poorly. He is forcing his reserve and national guard personnel to serve second, third, fourth, and deployments without sufficient time between each. Desertions and suicides among active duty personnel are up at 50 year highs. And this man has the temerity to use our brave veterans as back-drops for his desperate efforts to continue his disastrous policies? To say that this enrages me exposes the inadequacies of the language.)

Can anyone listen to this speech--or even read excerpts of it--and not think that Bush and Cheney are absolutely determined to fight yet another war, this time with Iran? We have had reports that Cheney believes that war with Iran is necessary, and that he doesn't "trust" a future Administration to "deal with it," and that he has been maneuvering Bush to begin one. With this speech, it is clear that Cheney is winning his bureaucratic battle. And I can't say strongly enough how much this terrifies me.

Folks, the military is now so close to collapse that even the Joint Chiefs are saying that we have to draw down the forces in Iraq starting next year at the latest, like it or not. Almost all the experts believe that any military action against Iran would only make the situation there worse, not better. The terrorists that we really need to go after are in Afghanistan, not Iraq or Iran. Bush and Cheney have proved over and over again that they are utterly incompetent at running a war. And now they want to begin another one? I am petrified, to be honest.

And any commentators and other folks who are trying to comfort themselves by thinking that Congress will stop these war mongers are fooling themselves. First of all, the Democrats have proven again and again that they are craven cowards when it comes to stopping Bush from his insane war mongering. But second of all, Bush and Cheney believe--and have put forth their various theories to bolster their beliefs--that the "War on Terror" means that they can fight "the enemy" wherever that enemy is, even on U.S. soil (hence the arrest of Jose Padilla without charges, a U.S. Citizen on U.S. soil, who was slapped in a military prison).

So bear this in mind: Bush believes that as Commander in Chief, it is his duty to go after terrorist wherever they are. His speech yesterday makes it clear that he believes that they are in Iran. He has also made it clear that he believes that Congress' 2002 vote to "authorize the use of military force" (AUMF) gives him the authority to use military force for the entirety of the "War on Terror." Congress telling him otherwise now is not going to stop him. The only thing I can imagine stopping him is a huge public outcry, or the military command flatly telling him no. And I frankly can't imagine either of those two things occurring.

So I'm terrified that sometime in the next 12 months, we're going to be at war in Iran. I wish I were wrong. But I honestly don't think so.

Can no one stop these insane maniacs?

The Sad Story of Senator Craig

2007-08-28T06:44:00.000-07:00

As I've said before here, I'm completely baffled by homophobia. You're a guy who wants to marry another guy, or a woman who wants to marry another woman, hey, be my guest. I just don't understand what all the hubub is about, and I never will.

Another thing that confuses me, though, are people like Senator Larry Craig. I'm not confused by him being in the closet; I understand that. There are times when, as a Jew, I find it mighty uncomfortable to tell people that I'm Jewish (e.g., around Christmas). I get that. If a gay man or woman wants to remain in the closet, I'm content to let them.

But when a gay or lesbian gets married to a member of the opposite sex, then I start getting a little confused. I definitely understand the impulse to have children. And for men and women of Sen. Craig's generation, it was definitely much harder to be in a committed same-sex relationship. I get that. (Although I have a lot of problems with gays and lesbians who marry, have kids, and then leave their partners because--sorry, wife (or husband) and kids!--I have to follow my same-sex bliss now! Hey, after the kids are raised and gone, knock yourself out. But up until then, the partner and kids should pay the price for your confusion? That just seems wrong to me, not to mention selfish.)

But Sen. Craig didn't just marry, he then became a Republican politician who not only voted for, but actively supported, anti-gay legislation. And that's most assuredly not okay. It's not even hypocritical; it's actively wrong. Quisling, back-stabbing; apply whatever epithet here you want, it's just plain wrong, bordering on evil. "I--a rich, powerful man protected by my position--will outlaw this behavior, knowing full well I can engage in it in secret because of my wealth and position." (It reminds me of wealthy, vehemently"pro life" Republicans who--I have no doubt whatsoever--would secretly take their daughters to a doctor for an abortion should they become pregnant at the age of 15 even if it meant they had to fly her from Tupelo to Boston. But I digress.)

Aside from being plain wrong, it confuses me. Why is he doing it? I can understand him voting for these positions--he's a Republican from a deeply Red state. But to actively support them? Is it some kind of weird denial thing? Does he make his fiery anti-gay floor speeches immediately after one of his bathroom trites in a fit of remorse? Is he like an adulterer who immediately goes to the confession booth seeking absolution from a priest, or an alcoholic who, severely hung-over the next morning, begs the lord for forgiveness and swears to never, ever drink again? I don't know, but it baffles me.

Supporting the Troops

2007-08-23T20:53:00.000-07:00

Yesterday--in a stunning display of audacity for a man who used the National Guard to hide from his own service in the Vietnam War, and then skipped out on even that--President Bush said, among other profoundly unbelievable things:

Our troops are seeing this progress that is being made on the ground. And as they take the initiative from the enemy, they have a question: Will their elected leaders in Washington pull the rug out from under them just as they're gaining momentum and changing the dynamic on the ground in Iraq? Here's my answer is clear: We'll support our troops, we'll support our commanders, and we will give them everything they need to succeed.

Somehow, I sincerely doubt that the first question on the minds of "the troops," many of whom are on their third or fourth deployment, is "Will my elected leaders in Washington pull the rug out from under me?" No, I'm guessing that the question at the forefront of most troopers minds is, "When the hell can I go home from this insane war?"

And frankly, I wonder why the Democrats don't pound on exactly that point more often. (Ans.: they're cowards.) I mean, who supports the troops more? President Bush and his war-mongering compatriots, who want to continue throwing them into the middle of this endless civil war indefinitely with no clear plan for "victory," or even an end? Or the folks who want to bring them home?

If I was on the ground in Iraq, I know how I'd feel.

So don't listen to all this hoo-ha about how trying to wind down the war through cutting the funding means that you "don't support the troops." It's garbage. The only way the Congress can bring the troops home is through the "power of the purse." That's their only option. Bush, like it or not, is the Commander in Chief. Congress controls the money; Bush controls the command structure. So when they try to cut off his funding, it's not because they "don't support the troops," it's because they want to bring them home.

So ask yourself who is more supportive of the troops: the folks who keep voting to endless fund this boneheaded war, or the folks who are trying--through the only means available to them--to bring the troops home. And then call ol' Rush Limbaugh and tell him.

I apologize for the rant, but it infuriates me when folks on the right insist that if you don't give Bush all the money he wants with no conditions, it means you "don't support the troops." I wouldn't trust this group to run a game of Clue correctly, let alone prosecute a war; why on Earth should we give them a blank check with the lives of our sons and daughters? Good grief.

Here We Go Again

2007-08-22T16:41:00.000-07:00

Two months ago, the craven Democrats completely caved and gave George W. Bush--Mr. 30% Approval Rating--yet another blank check for the war. The commentariat at the time said that Gen. Petraeus promised September report on "the surge" would be the make-or-break point, when--if "progress" wasn't shown in Iraq--Republicans would start peeling away from Bush.

I, on the other hand, was a lot more cynical.

And now we see that everyone is maneuvering for the September game. First of all, we find that the good General isn't even writing the report himself, the White House is. (Of course, they say that they were always planning on writing it, and anything you believed otherwise was your own misinterpretation!) Second, the report is going to be delivered on . . . wait for it . . . September 11! Yes sir! Just a coincidence, though! Nothing nefarious about that, sirree! And of course, Bush has already started giving speeches decrying anyone who doesn't write him another blank check as "pulling the rug out from under the troops."

And of course the cowardly, craven Democrats are buying it. Senators Levin and Warner, after a two-day trip to Iraq where they were given what Sen. Jim Webb so accurately termed the "Dog and Pony show," are talking about "progress" in Iraq. Let us bear in mind two things:

Levin and Warner were Iraq two days. Two days isn't long enough to tour the Smithsonian Museum, let alone get even the remotest idea as to how the situation is in a war zone. Hell, you can't even get through more than a couple of wings of the Smithsonian in that time.
Levin and Warner got all their information from military sources. What are military sources going to say? "Yes, Senator; we're getting our asses kicked over here."

Make no mistake, this trip was about one thing only: political tail-covering for when Warner, Levin, and other Democratic Senators make their next craven vote in support of Bush's disastrous war. "Well, we went to Iraq and saw enough progress to justify continuing to try!"

And Republicans, of course (as I again suspected quite a while ago) are most assuredly not peeling away from Bush.

The lack of political courage on the left simply sickens me. While these politicians bicker and squabble and refuse to stand up to an incredibly unpopular president prosecuting an unbelievably unpopular war in which American soldiers are dying to prop up a government that a lot of Iraqis don't want (and a lot of Iraqis would like us to leave, I might add), Osama bin Laden is rebuilding his organization over in a completely different country.

The insanity of this absolutely boggles my mind.

The Accelerated Primary Season

2007-08-17T08:25:00.000-07:00

I know I'm probably alone in this, but I have a simple solution to what the blovacracy calls the "accelerated primary season" (that is, the attempt by other, more populous and diverse states to have some actual, honest-to-God say in the Presidential primaries, rather than just leaving it all up to Iowa and New Hampshire).

Lately, a lot of states have been moving their primaries up to February and even January, in an attempt to give their states some relevance, rather than having so much influence being held by the predominantly-white, small population states of Iowa and New Hampshire. Which seems reasonable to me; as I carped in an earlier post, I got tired of living in California and having no say in picking my party's Presidential candidate. Iowa and New Hampshire are responding to this effrontery by moving their primaries and caucuses even earlier, to the point where Iowa may end up having their caucus in December of 2007 (believe it if you can). I get the impression that Iowa would move their caucus to the first Wednesday in November the day after the election if that's what it took to keep their "first caucus" status.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I've got nothing against Iowa or New Hampshire. Nothing. I just think it's absurd that these two highly-unrepresentative states have so much say over who gets to be President. We can see where this has gotten us the last several times around (Dukakis! Mondale! Bush! Kerry!), and I think it's high time we made some changes. And given that Iowa has a law that requires they have the first caucus in the nation, there only one obvious way to do it:

Pass a law.

Yup. Time for those Congressmen and women and Senators who spend time grubbing for money for bridges to nowhere, who hide bricks of money in their fridge, who pass resolutions to rename french fries "freedom fries" and try to pass idiotic amendments to the constitution to outlaw flag burning (yeah, that's a huge issue that keeps me up at night) to get off their duffs and tell the good folks from Iowa and New Hampshire that enough's enough, and that it's someone else's turn now. I don't care who; make it a rotation, or something. Start in Minnesota or New Mexico for all I care. But Iowa and New Hampshire have had it long enough, and someone else should have a turn.

I'm not holding my breath, though. And my Uncle John (resident of Derry) is going to kill me.

Lies About Torture

2007-08-15T16:23:00.000-07:00

I've been holding this one in for a while, because I keep waiting for someone else to write about it--mainstream media (Dan Froomkin of the Post, Dan Savage of the Boston Globe; somebody), bloggers (Glenn Greenwald or Andrew Sullivan both seemed like good candidates), but no one has. Neither have I heard Keith Olbermann address it, either.

Not this issue of torture and the U.S. policy towards it. We've all heard and read plenty about that. No; I'm talking about the absolutely Orwellian approach to defining and talking about torture that the Bush Administration has taken. And I don't know about y'all, but it absolutely outrages me. (And while I don't know about anyone else, it is clear as crystal to me that Cheney, Rumsfeld, and a lot of other members of this Administration--Yoo, Gonzales, and others--are clearly guilty of war crimes.)

Let me 'splain.

I've been wondering when the mainstream media (MSM) was going to call Bush and Cheney on their obvious B.S. when they stand up there and say, flat-out, "We do not torture." Bush does it any time he is asked about it, and Cheney just did it a couple of week ago on Larry King. How on God's green Earth can they do this when we know that the U.S. military at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo has been using waterboarding, hypothermia, stress positions, sleep deprivation, and other techniques that were used by (for example) Stalin, the Khmer Rouge, the Gestapo, and others?

It's simple, folks: through the assistance of spineless lawyers like John Yoo, Alberto Gonzales, and Steven Hadley, the Administration has redefined torture to not include those actions. Torture, for these folks, only includes activities up to and including death and organ failure. Other than that, all bets are off (or as Cheney says, we went to "the dark side"). So when they say, "We don't torture," or "We abide by all legal obligations," make sure to add in your mind, "and of course, we don't consider waterboarding, stress positions, forced hypothermia, or sleep deprevation 'torture'."

How do we know this is true? Because any time one of these folks is asked about a specific (let's not mince words here) torture like waterboarding, they always dodge the question. "We don't reveal specific methods," Cheney likes to say. This is a huge pile of hooey. They know that if they "reveal specific methods," they will be admitting that they do torture, and won't be able to lie in front of the American people any more. So they duck and weave and dodge, and don't admit to the obvious, which is that they've redefined these horrible acts so that they don't consider them legal torture, even though any civilized human being would.

I know that I am out there by the lights of some folks, but I truly believe that these folks are war criminals. They have approved--and continue to approve--the torture of human beings. They secretly violated the fourth Amendment to the Constitution (illegal search and seizure), and once caught, insisted that they have a right to violate it. They violated and continue to violate the FISA law. They are criminals, pure and simple, and they are getting away with it. They have broken their sacred oaths of office ("preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution," remember?). And they are torturing our fellow human beings, who have been convicted of no crimes, and in most case not even accused of any crimes.

These are the people in charge of our country today. I can't decide what boggles my mind more; that we live under the rule of such people, or that there are actually people out there (Steven Hayes of the Wall Street Journal, for example) who continue to defend their behavior. I am constantly torn between sadness and overwhelming rage.

A Few Words on Gay Marriage

2007-08-10T10:35:00.000-07:00

Last night the Democratic candidates for President had a talk about their stances on gay marriage, civil unions, and related issues. It almost goes without saying--these days, anyway--that they danced around the issue, talked a lot about "civil unions," and basically did everything they could to not say they were in favor of gay marriage while implying that they were, so as to cover all the bases without opening themselves up to "traditional values" attacks later in the campaign.

I understand their fear, but I think they're cowardly. Of course, as they demonstrated last weekend when they caved to President Bush, Democrats are pretty consistently cowardly these days, so I shouldn't be all that surprised.

(It almost goes without saying that this is not the kind of forum the Republicans will have any time soon. The Republicans have made a pact with their social-conservative wing to oppose things like stem cell research, abortion, gay marriage, and things of that nature, and so bloviate endlessly on those topics. Which is incredibly ironic, because almost any individual Republican--of a certain monetary class--is completely open about any social issue. If an upper-class Republican teenage daughter got pregnant, there would be an abortion. If an upper-class Republican son or daughter were gay, they would be accepted (witness Cheney's daughter). If an upper-class Republican needed the research and treatment that can only be provided by stem cells, they would want it. And so on. But they've made their Faustian bargain, and so publicly they maintain their absurd hypocritical stances.)

In any event, I find this whole business to be a lot of hooey, honestly. It breaks down into two pieces:

Religion: If you are gay and want to get married in your religious tradition, that's something you have to work out with your priest/pastor/rabbi/imam/whatever. Not an issue for the state.

State: Here's the rub, eh? A married couple has rights that a non-married couple does not. My wife can inherit, can take responsibility for our children, our finances if I am incapacitated, and a whole host of other things. If I'm sick and in the hospital, she can visit me. We can file federal income taxes jointly. And on and on.

Some folks say let's create a "civil partnership" law, that marriage is "sacred," that we don't want to "dilute" marriage by "allowing" gays to marry, that having gays marry would be a "threat" to "traditional marriage," and other such nonsense. What a crock.

Let me take this one piece at a time:

Civil partnerships: Can you say "separate but equal?" Didn't we try this before and have it not work? It's just a cop-out. Either go whole-hog and let folks get legally married, or admit the truth: you don't want gays happy and committed to each other.

Marriage is "sacred": That's not for the state to decide, it's for religious leaders. Go talk to them. Otherwise, shut up.

Threat to "traditional marriage": This is the silliest of all. First of all, there's no such thing as "traditional marriage." How many wives did Solomon have? Was that "traditional?" Second, how on Earth is two guys getting married a threat to my marriage? Or anyone's marriage? If your marriage is so shaky that reading about Bruce and Steve getting hitched down at Zilker park this Sunday causes your wife to leave you, pal, your have a lot more problems than outlawing gay marriage is going to cure.

I have been around gays and lesbians my whole life. Literally. When my parents went on a second honeymoon to the Virgin Islands when I was 10, they left my siblings and I in the care of a gay man. We've all had gay and lesbian friends since we were children. And here's the thing, homophobes: all three of us are married with children, and none of us have been divorced. I've been involved with the same women in a monogamous relationship for 14 years now. There were gay and lesbian couples at our wedding. I've been to gay and lesbian weddings myself. And wow, gee, my marriage is spectacularly unthreatened! Imagine!

Look: some folks find homosexuality "yucky." I get it. You don't like it. You don't want to admit it out loud, so you hunt for reasons--religious, legal, what-have-you--to support your feelings of discomfort. But they're all rationalizations. All I'm saying is, keep your yuck feelings to yourself; stop trying to legislate them and force the world to abide by your prejudices. These folks just want to get married, be happy, and have the same rights as everyone else. That's all. They don't want to rape your sons and daughters. They don't want to steal your wives and husbands. They just want to settle down, live their lives, and have the same rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that you enjoy. Why should you let your feelings of yuck stop them? That's just wrong.

A Few Thoughts

2007-08-08T20:13:00.000-07:00

Took a few days off with the wife--didn't leave town, but left the kids behind with Granny and got some peace and quiet. Which included no blogging. Not that anyone noticed.

But it's also hard to blog from a place of howling, incipient rage. I'm still so angry about the Democrat's craven cave-in to Bush on domestic spying that I can barely think about it.

But, you know, there have been other things going on.

Barry Bonds broke the all-time home run record for Major League Baseball and, like a lot of folks I suspect, I don't have the slightest idea how to feel about that. Yeah, yeah; he's innocent until proven guilty, I know. But anyone with half a brain knows the guy has been shooting up performance-enhancing drugs of some kind or other. I mean, your head doesn't grow 2-3 sizes after you turn 35 for no reason, you know?

On the other hand, he's not exactly operating in a drug-free vacuum, either. How many of the pitchers that he has been facing are shooting up? How many of the other players who are making circus catches in the field are shooting up? How is that effecting his numbers? Who the hell can say?

One thing for sure: the guy is an incredible player. Would he have broken the record without the drugs? I dunno. Probably not. But we'll never know. Would Babe Ruth have created the record if he had had to face Negro League pitchers, sliders, and modern bullpens? Would Ted Williams have broken it if he hadn't had his career interrupted by two wars? Who the hell knows? Textbook definition of "mixed feelings," anyway. No wonder Obama didn't know how to answer Keith Olbermann in the debate; I didn't know how I'd answer.

Speaking of which, yeah, Obama looked silly saying that Canada has a President. Of course, if that's the worst he can do, he still looks 1000 times better than the Current Occupant. And Joe Biden, for all his sniping, doesn't have the slightest friggin' chance of winning the nomination, so he can just fold up his smirk and go home, as far as I'm concerned.

The thing that scares me was on display over on the Republican side. I mean, it was scary enough who they chose as moderator ("Now, live on stage, boy wonder and callow youth Geoooooorge Stephanopolas!"), but that rogues gallery they have running . . . what if one of them actually, you know, wins? President Authoritarian Guiliana? President Stay-the-Course-in-Iraq McCain? Or "I don't have any convictions whatsoever except that I really really want to be President," Mr. Mitt Romney? (Am I the only one who thinks he looks like Herman Munster?) I understand that the Republicans are unhappy with this crew--I know I would be--but what if one them actually wins? It's a scary thought; enough to make me run for the Klonapin at night.

Sold Down the River Again

2007-08-04T15:33:00.000-07:00

Words can barely convey my disgust for how, once again, our civil liberties, the Constitutional guarantees this country was founded on, have been sold down the river under pressure from a President whose approval ratings stand at 28% so that Congress wouldn't be accused of being "weak."

I cannot state this too strongly: no, I don't want to die in a terrorist attack. I don't want my family to die in a terrorist attack. I don't want anyone to die in a terrorist attack. But I would rather die at the hands of terrorist than to have all the principles that our country is founded on chipped away by fear-mongering, small-minded, short-sighted men and women whose goal is the unlimited expansion of executive power.

Our founding fathers fought against this kind of tyranny--against warrantless surveillance, against being held without being charged, against secret courts, against all the things Congress is handing this bunch of criminals currently running the Executive branch--and enshrined those principles in one of the best-written documents in recorded history. And now, our elected representatives are selling it all out for the chimera of "safety." Such is the foundation that every tyranny is built upon throughout history.

Our founders pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor for the principles that we are giving away to Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, and McConnell. We should all be ashamed.

Alberto Gonzales and "The Key"

2007-07-31T09:24:00.000-07:00

Dick Cheney--not the guy I would want to be giving me a character reference, given his in-the-teens favorability ratings--came out on CBS news giving his vote of confidence to "Al" Gonzales today. According to CBS news correspondent Mark Knoller, Cheney tells us "I think Al has done a good job under difficult circumstances." And then adds, as everyone who works for the White House seems compelled to when talking about ol "Al:" "The key," he said, is whether Gonzales has "the confidence of the president, and he clearly does."

To which I cry "Bullshit." Gonzales is the Attorney General of the United States, and the head of the United States Department of Justice. He took an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States of America, and he serves us, the people of the United States. He has lied, committed perjury, and done any number of things that protect Bush, the Bush Administration, and his own precious ass. He is not doing his job, which is overseeing the Department of Justice. Rather, he is protecting George W. Bush.

Cheney is wrong, Bush is wrong, the Bush Administration is wrong, their pathetic mouthpiece Tony Snow is wrong: The key is not that Gonzales has "the confidence of the President." The key is whether Gonzales has the confidence of the American people whom he serves, and he clearly does not. If the government was not run by a gang of--let's face it--criminals who think that everything they do is above the law, Gonzales would have resigned months ago, after his first disastrous appearance before Congress. But because Bush and his cronies know that if Gonzales were to resign, their rampant law-breaking would come to light before they could leave office, they are hanging on to him like grim death, even though to do so means they are doing severe damage to the Department of Justice, and to Americans' confidence in the justice system. Quite simply, they don't care. So long as they can leave office without being impeached or sent to jail, they simply don't care.

So in response to Dick Cheney I say: on this issue, like on so many others (e.g., the WMDs in Iraq, the insurgency being in its "last throes," etc.), you are dead wrong. But of course, like on so many other issues, you will never admit it.

The Iraq Endgame

2007-07-31T09:22:00.000-07:00

Something Andrew Sullivan said in one of his posts really struck me about the current Iraq mess, and started those ol' neurons a'firin':

Whatever David Petraeus says next month - and we know it's going to be a glowing report of massive success - the reality of Iraq endures. That reality is that there is no Iraq. The "government" is paralyzed between sectarian factions none of which wants a national, political settlement any time soon.

I didn't have any new ideas about Iraq--I'm not a brilliant international diplomat, I'm just a technical writer with a big mouth and lots of opinions who reads a lot--but I started to put some things together in my head. Consider these facts:

Kurdistan, i.e. northern Iraq, is currently the most peaceful portion of Iraq by far. Further, the Kurds are the only ones who actually want the United States there.
The current "head" of the "national government," al Maliki, let slip a few weeks ago that the American military could leave any time, so far as he was concerned. He quickly recanted (presumably after a good talking-to in one of his daily video conferences with Bush), but that doesn't change the fact that it slipped out.
The Sunnis and the Shiites have been fighting each other, no kidding, for centuries. They have been holding grudges about things that have happened hundreds of years ago. Imagine, if you can, Notherners still being mad about the Battle of the Crater and Southerners still holding a grudge about Antietam 600 years from now, and people from Atlanta wanting to shoot people from Boston about it. In Baltimore. And doing so. That's Iraq right now. Do we really believe that these people are going to paper over their differences and form a unified democratic government in a few months? Who are we fooling?
Despite diplomatic pressure, the Iraqi government went on vacation anyway.

So the Doug theory, for what it's worth, is that the Iraqi "unity government" doesn't give a damn about actually doing anything. They know that Bush is leaving office in January, 2009. They know the American people have had it with this idiotic war. They know that the next Administration, no matter who it is run by, will start to withdraw American troops.

Until that time, they are marking time. They are accumulating weapons and training. They are killing as many of the "enemy" (Shia or Sunni) as they can get away with. They are engaging in low-level ethnic cleansing. And once we're out of the way--which is bound to happen sooner or later--Iraq will break up into Kurdistan, a Shiite state, and a Sunni state. The Shiite state may align with or be completely taken over by Iran; I have no idea. There will probably be some pretty ugly ethnic cleansing in various cities. A huge battle for Baghdad.

I could be wrong, obviously; like I say, I'm a technical writer, not a diplomat. But why on Earth should we expect tribes that have been fighting for hundreds of years to get together and create a "national government" in a country that was created by colonialists out of nothing in particular, just for our convenience? It's insane, not to mention delusional and stupid.

I think the sooner we recognize the real situation and deal with it, the better off we'll be. (Hey, the Kurds want us there! Isn't one of our goals to have an ally in the Middle East? How tough is this? Duh!) But unfortunately, we're stuck dealing with the boneheads in the Bush Administration for the next 17 months. God help us all.

"Liberal" vs. "Conservative"; the False Dichotomy

2007-07-23T09:14:00.000-07:00

I sometimes get emails or phone calls asking me to take polls, and I always struggle with the question, "Are you a Democrat or a Republican?" And while I have never voted for a Republican, and find it hard to imagine ever voting for one, I don't consider myself a Democrat.

"How can this be?" you might ask. (Or you would if anyone was reading this blog!)

Well, partly it's the excesses of what the parties "stand for." The Democrats are not so much a party any more as a collection of special interests all at war for what they can get. Labor. Minorities. Latte-sipping left wingers. Gays and lesbians. Anti-war folks. Farmers. Not that I don't support some of those causes (personally, I prefer mochas to lattes); but it doesn't seem to be a party of "what unites us," but rather a party of "What's in it for me?" And I just can't get behind it.

Not to mention that when they're in charge, they seem so friggin' incompetent. Look at them now; they're in the majority, and they're still the gang who can't shoot straight. Somehow the Republicans are stopping them with filibusters, and it's the Democrats who are being accused of obstructionism! That's lame. I should be a part of a party that's that lame?

Obvious proviso and caveat: all Democrats are not like that; we're speaking in broad generalities here.

The Republicans, in my view, are even worse. They're only a party of "What's in it for me." Even more, they're spectacular hypocrites. They're all for federalism . . . except when it serves they're own best interests (e.g., Bush v. Gore). They're all for "staying out of your personal life" . . . except that they want to go into your bedroom and tell you how to run your personal sex life, and tell you what you can watch on your TV (including which swear words you can and can't hear), and tell you what books your children can and can't read at school, and so on. They're for a strong national defense . . . so long as they don't actually have to be the ones to suit up and go overseas and fight.

(And even worse, in my book, all the moral stuff they try to shove down our throats, they do "for the children," when what they're really doing is a clear attempt to force their religious values on everyone else. But by the cynical ploy of hiding behind "the children," they can make it seem noble.)

And finally, they come across as just plain mean. "I don't care about what happens to other people so long as I get my tax cuts." "I don't care what happens to other people so long as my programs are put through congress." "I don't care what happens to the 12 million immigrants and their children who are already here; I just want them gone." Etc. The level of plain old meanness behind some of the things the spokespeople for the Republicans espouse is simply staggering. I can't be a part of a party that is so doggone mean. (Think Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and their hate-spewing brethren.)

Again, we are speaking broadly here; not all Republicans are like this, of course.

Which brings us to the completely absurd and false dichotomy between "liberal" Democrats and "conservative" Republicans.

Today's Republicans are not "conservative" by any stretch of the imagination. Anyone who supports the huge increase in government that is the Department of Homeland Security, that is the Medicare Drug Bill, is not a conservative. Anyone who supports the trampling on the Constitution that is warrantless wiretapping and the elimination of habeas corpus is not a conservative. (What can possibly be more conservative than habeas corpus? It goes back to the Magna Carta, for crying out loud!) Anyone who supports the economic policies of this Administration, which has spent money like a drunken sailor on shore leave and run up debts that we can never replay, is definitely not a conservative. And anyone who supports the absurd theory that is the "unitary executive" is most certainly not a conservative. I have no doubt in my mind that if you got a single member of the Constitutional Convention, pulled him forward in time, and told him this theory, he would recoil in horror. They fought the Revolution to get rid of a King; the "unitary executive" gives you a king. It is a radical position, not a conservative one.

So like many Americans, there is really no party for me, I'm afraid. I support fiscal responsibility. (Supply-side economics doesn't work. We've tried it in three different Presidential administrations now, and it's been a disaster all three times. Isn't that enough?) I support a strong national defense (but not one that's ridiculously out of proportion to the threat that is posed by the rest of the world--how many aircraft carriers and submarines do you need to fight terrorists hiding in caves in Afghanistan?). I am socially liberal--I think gays should get married if they want, for example. (All you right-wingers bleating about gay marriage are being silly. How do gays getting married threaten your marriage? They certainly don't threaten mine. And if gays get married, doesn't that make society more stable? Your arguments are absurd.)

So am I conservative, or liberal? Neither. Both. It's a false dichotomy. And the silly choice I have to make between the two parties doesn't exactly make it easier. How about you?

Taxation without Representation

2007-07-23T09:13:00.000-07:00

In a previous post, I mentioned why I feel like I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat. Even so, I have always voted Democratic, mostly because I've felt it was the lesser of two evils. (For one thing, I have too many gay friends, and too many illegal immigrant friends, to vote with a party that demonizes both groups.)

Living in Austin Texas now, as I do, in a post-Tom Delay redistricted world, means that I am in the same position as our pre-Revolutionary War forebears: I have taxation, but no representation. My governor is Rick Perry, a Republican who is a typical party wheel, i.e. he's for pretty much everything I'm not. Of our two Senators, Kay Bailey Hutchison is not too bad, but she's still a Republican, and has voted with the Republican caucus on every single issue of importance to me, especially the Iraq war. And John Cornyn is, quite simply, your typical right-wing asshole.

Since the redistricting and the election following, "my" representative is Lamar Smith, which is, as Bugs Bunny would say, "A revoltin' development." Rep. Smith is very much a Republican in the mold of Delay, and needless to say he doesn't "represent" me in any way whatsoever. His stance on basically every issue is the polar opposite of mine. I find it completely repugnant to be "represented" by this man, but this is the situation that I am stuck with.

It is further galling, because Rep. Smith is the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary committee, so not only is my "representative" someone who stands up in Congress on a regular basis and casts votes in exactly the opposite way I would have him do, but he also has a powerful platform on an important committee, where he espouses opinions on a matter that I find extremely important, i.e. the politically-motivated firing of the U.S. Attorneys by the Bush Administration. He has given arrogant speeches to the committee about this matter in which he, my representative, spewed the Republican party line about there being "no scandal" and "they serve at the President's pleasure" and similar absurdities that, not to put too fine a point on it, make me livid. My Representative.

It is bad enough that the Republicans in Congress and the Senate are sticking to their absurd and transparently bogus arguments about these firings. They are intelligent men and women, and I know that some of them are just as aware as I that these firings stink to high heaven. But I cannot even say how galling it is to me that my representative, on the Judiciary Committee, is spewing this bullshit.

Hell, that's not "taxation without representation;" that's "taxation with negative representation and we slap you in the face, too." Let's just say that it makes me understand why me forebears in Boston heaved tea into the harbor, picked up flintlocks, and started taking potshots at Redcoats. I don't own a gun, but believe me, I'm pretty tempted.

General Spin

2007-07-19T16:18:00.000-07:00

The new spokesman for the U.S. Military in Iraq is a Brigadier General (i.e., a one-star) named Kevin Bergner. As is typical with Bush Administration appointees, Bergner's news from the front is filled with happy-happy/joy-joy talk, but even more so for him than most, as Digby points out in Salon and Dan Froomkin notes in the Washington Post.

Lots of journalists have noted that Bergner went straight from being a member of the White House's national security staff to being the spokesman in Baghdad. But I've been wondering about his career trajectory, honestly. Let me 'splain:

My Dad was a naval officer. The common wisdom in the Navy is that if you don't make Captain by the time you hit 20 years, you should just go ahead and retire, because you're not going to advance much more. In the Army, the equivalent is Colonel. To move from Colonel to General requires a Presidential nomination, and approval by the Senate.

So I got to wondering: how old was Colonel Bergner when he was tapped for Brigadier? And who was it who tapped him? What was his first assignment as a General?

Call me a crazy conspiracy nut, but here's some interesting facts from the good General's biography: he's a graduate of Trinity College in San Antonio, Texas, Bush's home state (and we know how much more comfortable Bush feels with friends from Texas). In May of 2003, as a full Colonel, he was assigned as the Deputy Director for Politico-Military Affairs (Middle East), J-5, The Joint Staff, in Washington, D.C. He was promoted to Brigadier General in November of 2004, in the middle of that time. He put in about a year in Iraq in 2005 as Deputy Commander of the Multi-National Force-Northwest before heading back to Washington to become the Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Iraq for the National Security Council at the White House.

So what have we? We have a Texan who was promoted to General by Bush, given his first highly-visible, political D.C. assignment by Bush, moved by to an even more visible assignment by Bush, and is now the military spokesman in Iraq. Who do you reckon his loyalty is to? The American people? Or the person who famously (and jealously) surrounds himself with loyal minions (and fires and punishes those who are disloyal), and is further responsible for his promotion and current position?

I know which answers gets my vote. How about you?

Iraq and Vietnam: Will We Never Learn?

2007-07-18T16:34:00.000-07:00

I have often felt over the last four years that the press (not to mention the government) strains mightily not to compare the mess in Iraq to Vietnam. Sometimes they do it, of course, but I often feel that Vietnam was such a trauma that to mention it in comparison to Iraq is the journalistic equivalent of dropping a nuclear weapon. It's too harsh for ordinary reportage. Aside from which, we have to bear in mind some key differences: the draft, and the much higher number of American deaths.

However, as we march on through this absolutely insane, idiotic war, the parallels become too stark for me:

Johnson lied to get us into Vietnam with the Gulf of Tonkin incident; Bush lied to get us into Iraq with WMDs and an al Qaeda/9/11 link
The war has gone on much longer than the government said it would
The government has said innumerable times that we had "reached a turning point"
The population of the country that we were purporting to save want us, most urgently, to leave
As the war has gone on, the country has turned against it in vast numbers
The war has been run with incredible incompetence by the civilians in government, who keep over-ruling the military commanders

What I suspect is going to happen, honestly, is that we are not going to learn from history, and we are going to follow the who weary mess right through to the bitter end (sans the helicopter leaving from the roof of the embassy). Here's what I see:

Like in Vietnam, the President who started the war will leave office without ending it. As in Vietnam, we will be forced to leave Iraq in some condition short of "victory" (whatever the heck "victory" means in this situation; I would argue we've already been "victorious"). Like Vietnam, Iraq will be split into multiple countries, perhaps two, perhaps three. (I envision an independent Kurdistan in the north, and a big ol' mess in the south. Will there be a Sunni region and a Shiite region? Will there be a separate region, and Iran will absorb their coreligionists? I don't know, but it will be ugly.)

If we're smart, and the next President appoints a good team--and let's face it, he or she could hardly appoint a worse one--we could leverage the situation and perhaps come out with some positives. For example, the Kurds, heaven forbid, actually like us; wouldn't it behoove us to use that fact? Maybe set up an embassy there? One would think so, but the Bush Administration isn't "reality based," so it's not going to happen in the next 17 months.

In any event, as someone who grew up outside Washington D.C. during the Vietnam era, it fills me with a painful combination of sorrow and rage to see history repeating itself so closely. Will we never learn? (Perhaps we would have if we hadn't elected a couple of men who did their best to duck out of their Vietnam service.)

Another Talking Point

2007-07-17T15:26:00.000-07:00

In Doug's ongoing effort to call your attention to baloney-filled right-wing talking points, another one is surfacing, so add it to my helpful list:

The Iraq government going on vacation in August is no big surprise because it's so durn hot in Iraq in August and/or the U.S. Congress goes on vacation in August, too.

Tony Snow has used both these reasons in an attempt to wave away how insulting and infuriating it is for the Iraq government to go missing while U.S. forces are fighting and dying to "give them the space" to create that government. But hey, I'm a reasonable guy; I'll take a few seconds and deconstruct this insanity:

It's even hotter for the U.S. troops outside, in their body armor, in the Humvees, while getting shot at; the Iraqis bureaucrats can deal.
Yes, the Congress goes on vacation. We've had a stable government for 2.25 centuries; the Iraqis don't have a stable government yet.

Our founding fathers worked through a Philadelphia summer without air conditioning in those heavy outfits and ridiculous wigs; the Iraqi "founding fathers" are taking a vacation. Forgive me if I'm a little irked at Tony Snow's flippancy.

I might add that there is something else surfacing from George Bush, but it's not a talking point; it's a blatant, flat-out lie: "The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th," he remarked at his press conference last week. The regular newspapers and mainstream press use terms like "misleading" and "an oversimplification," but the fact is, it's a flat-out lie. First, "al Qaeda in Mesopotamia" is a completely different organization from the al Qaeda that is run by Osama bin Laden, and only loosely affiliated with him. Second, "al Qaeda in Mesopotamia" didn't exist on 9/11.

The President is lying. He is lying because his war is a disaster, his policies are a disaster, and he is betting that his fear-mongering--which has worked for him so many times before--will work for him again. Don't let it. And don't be afraid to call a spade a spade; this isn't a mis-statement; it's a lie.

iPhone Diary - the Bugs

2007-07-16T17:53:00.000-07:00

If you read my review of the iPhone, you know that I really like the durn thing, and think it's an extremely solid effort for a Release 1 device. That said, it does have some bugs, some of which I've found, but a lot more of which the Apple Hound has found. He has compiled a list of iPhone bugs, if you want to be warned in advance before you buy. Here are some that I've found that I didn't see on the Apple Hound's list (I've used the same divisions that he has; thanks, AppleHound!):

Calendar:

UI/Usability: The calendar syncs inconsistently when attempting to sync with Outlook that uses a Microsoft Exchange server. Entries created on the iPhone are synced correctly to Outlook, but entries created on Outlook are not synced to the iPhone.

Phone:

Crash/Hang/Data Loss: The phone application becomes unresponsive/slow when the amount of data on the iPhone approaches the maximum limit of 8Gb. This was noticed at approximately 7.725 Gb of used space. Workaround is to remove enough data so that there is more free space.

Mail:

UI/Usability: POP3 mailbox folders are not copied/synced to the iPhone.
UI/Usability: There is no way to create mailbox folders on the iPhone. With the above bug, this is a serious lack.
UI/Usability: Email text cannot be read in landscape mode. This is inconsistent with many of the other utilities on the iPhone (e.g., Safari).

Safari:

Crash/Hang/Data Loss: Similar to the same problem in the Google Map utility, Safari may crash during zooming and scrolling actions. To reproduce, surf to a lengthy web page, zoom in and rotate to landscape mode, and scroll down multiple times (preferably in excess of 10 times). If this happens when listening to music, the music playback stops, Safari crashes, and you are returned to the "Home" screen.

Honestly, not bad for Release 1 hardware with a bunch of Release 1 software apps. Apple should be proud of themselves.

iPhone Review

2007-07-16T15:10:00.000-07:00

For those so interested, you can read my (unbelievably long) iPhone review at Gear Diary.

The Steel Wall

2007-07-14T11:47:00.000-07:00

"Stonewalling" is a term that is used to describe when the White House refuses to surrender information to another branch of government, generally Congress, when that other branch is investigating suspect conduct. The most famous example is, of course, Watergate, but it's hardly uncommon; Reagan with Iran/Contra, Clinton with the whole Lewinsky nonsense, Johnson during Vietnam, and for all I know Jefferson avoiding questions about Sally Hemmings.

But the Bush Administration is bringing this to a whole new level such that the wall is not made of stone, in my opinion, but steel. "Steelwalling."

First and foremost, of course, we have Dick Cheney, who has invented a new stamp for basically every piece of paper in his office: "Treat as Secret." This stamp is applied even to press releases, in other words information he wants to disseminate is stamped "treat as secret." He fought like a lion to keep deliberations of his "energy task force" secret. Even his daily locations are a secret from the press. (This is a public servant, and we don't even know where he is most of the time, and can't find out!)

But under new White House counsel Fred Fielding, the Bush Administration has used the "Executive Privilege" rubric to cover, well, basically everything. And yesterday brought news that they are using this to block Congress' investigation into the details of the death of Pat Tillman, the former football player who gave up his career to join the army and was killed by friendly fire in Afghanistan several years ago.

Yup, that's right: the White House is asserting "executive privilege" to block Congress from investigating something the Pentagon did.

It's bad enough that Bush has plunked us into this moronic war in Iraq in which he adamantly refuses to face reality. It's bad enough that he has done his level best to cut out the other two branches of government. It's bad enough that he issues "signing statements" that assert he can ignore laws, that he yanks American citizens off of American soil and imprisons them without cause or trial for years, that he fails to account for any of his actions, and that he lies--constantly--about his reasons for doing things. But now this, too? What next? He's going to assert "executive privilege" to block DC police from issuing parking tickets when his White House aides double-park when getting a latte from Starbucks? His office staff need donuts and don't want to pay, they say "executive privilege" and just grab them out of the store? Who the hell does this guy think he is? (The answer is clear, of course; he thinks he is King. He thinks he has unfettered power.)

I hope to God that congress has the huevos to stand up to this latest heinous power grab. The only way to stop types like these, as Churchill once observed, is to step on their toes until they apologize. It's time for Congress to do some serious toe-stepping with these clowns.

Republican Talking Points: A Handy Guide

2007-07-11T13:57:00.000-07:00

Every once in a while, a new memo goes out to folks on the right, the new talking points are disseminated, and we start hearing the new talking points about some Major Item of Interest (these days, usually Iraq).

As a public service, I will help folks keep track of the latest talking points in easy, bulleted list format (hey, I'm a tech writer by trade!). As you absorb the news from both the mainstream media and the right wing blovocracy over the next several weeks, refer back to this handy guide for these talking points to remind yourself, no, this baloney isn't "real news," it's just the talking points that went out in the memo all those months ago.

The surge "just started." This is obvious B.S. The surge, which was announced in mid-January, "started" when the first brigade landed on the ground on January 21. The final brigade just arrived two weeks ago. This is just Bush's way of trying, yet again, to buy more time for his failed war policy so he can run out the clock until he leaves office. Don't buy it for a minute.
Congress is only investigating, not legislating. This is a popular one on the Right, and you'll hear it a lot as elections heat up next year. Republicans conveniently forget all the legislation they failed to pass last year (and in previous years), and will further suffer memory loss when it comes to the 6 years of Congressional oversight that they neglected to engage in. Yes, it takes time to do 6 years of oversight in just a few months; what a bummer that is. (I could also point out that Republicans are the ones who say they want less government; are you saying you want Congress to be passing more laws? Isn't that kind of counter-intuitive?)
Valerie Plame wasn't a covert agent. This is used to show that Scooter Libby shouldn't spend any time in jail ("There wasn't a crime!"), and is just flat-out untrue. The CIA and Patrick Fitzgerald have stated that she was. End of discussion.
We're fighting al Qaeda in Iraq. This is really popular now, particularly with "military sources." Bush loves to say things that are not provably false, but that imply things that are complete and utter B.S. (e.g., "Some in America don't believe we're at war;" like who, Mr. President?). Any time he can mention "al Qaeda" and "Iraq" in the same sentence, it's a win for him, because it implies (without stating it explicitly, which would be a lie) that Iraq had something to do with 9/11, when they were in fact completely unconnected. But the truth is, "al Qaeda in Iraq" didn't exist until 2004, they are a tiny percentage of what's going on over there, there is no evidence that they are in contact with Osama bin Laden, and there is no proof that they are doing anything nearly as damaging as the other insurgents. But Bush knows support for his war has gone south, so he hopes to goose it by implying (but not stating!) a 9/11-Iraq connection. Again. Don't fall for it.

This list brought to you as a public service.

iPhone Diary 7/10

2007-07-10T21:20:00.000-07:00

Probably my last diary entry prior to full review on Gear Diary; look for review there sometime in the Friday timeframe (as we like to say in the computer biz).

Enjoying playing with phone immensely. Best cell phone I've ever had, bar none. Certainly appreciate easy way to switch between iPod mode and phone mode with simple click of headphone switch; how easy can you get? Good reception, easy dialing, and great interface between contacts list and dialing.

Also enjoying an iPod/portable music player for first time since, really, my first decent Walkman back-in-the-day. Clearly, low weight is a major advantage with these babies, and my old PDAs were just too durn heavy and awkward.

Loving having the thing as a movie player as well. Kicks ass as a PMP.

Still missing having games and a eBook reader on this thing. Wish Apple would get on the stick about that. Not holding my breath, however.

Some bugs, for sure. Got a bum pixel. Playing music while web surfing sometimes causes both Safari and iPod player to crash. Map viewer crashes pretty regularly (happens for a lot of people, apparently; read about it on the discussions forum).

Still and all, a winner of a device. A couple more features, and it would be damn near perfect. As it is, it's pretty stellar.

The Administration Cries Wolf, Again

2007-07-10T18:21:00.000-07:00

Tomorrow, Sara Taylor, the former White House political director, will be testifying before congress about her role in the firing of the U.S. Attorneys. On Thursday, former White House counsel, Supreme Court nominee, and long-time Bush friend Harriet Miers will be doing the same thing. (Although if past history is any guide, their memories will be extremely foggy.)

Bush's poll numbers are in the sub-30 percent range. Cheney's are down below 20%. There is serious talk of impeachment. Bush's only remaining serious stab at a "legacy"--his immigration bill--went down in flames. The public and even his own party despises his commutation of the sentence of convicted felon Scooter Libby.

And so today, the AP reports that the White House "has called an urgent multi-agency meeting for Thursday to discuss a potential new al Qaeda threat on U.S. soil."

The story contains all the usual fear-mongering hallmarks of this Administration: the "unnamed White House official" who warns of us of heightened fears of attack even though there's no "credible evidence" of such; the scary (but vague) words of Homeland Security Czar Chertoff, who says "Summertime seems to be appealing to them. ... We worry that they are rebuilding their activities;" and of course the ever-popular reliance on the Administrations always-accurate "gut feelings" (in paragraph 9).

If you plow through the story diligently, you will find, at the very end, this nugget:

Al Qaeda's No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has spoken out regularly in audio-taped messages in recent months. In the latest recording, posted on the Internet on Tuesday, the Egyptian cleric threatened more attacks on Britain.

On Britain. More attacks on Britain.

So in sum, this Administration, which is monstrosly unpopular, is in the midst of hearings, is desparate to change the subject, has a record of manipulating the national terror levels to win elections and divert attention away from other things embarassing to them, has suddenly called "urgent meetings" at the White House to discuss possible terror attacks, for which there are "no credible evidence" (but there are "gut feelings!"), and the AP is reporting this as straight news without a hint of skepticism?

Personally, I'm outraged in two different directions: that the Administration is so transparently trying to manipulate the nations mood in order to escape the attention that is currently--and rightly--being focused on their many blunders and criminal activity. But I am also outraged by the press once again swallowing this line of Administration B.S. without calling them on it. As Keith Olbermann highlighted in one of his reports several months ago, the Bush Administration has done this over and over again; it is high time that the press called them on it.

Updated: Keith Olbermann, bless him, noticed the exact same thing, and highlighted it in his July 10 broadcast of "Countdown." Good work, Keith.

iPhone Diary 7/3

2007-07-03T20:40:00.000-07:00

Major geekage slowing down; integrating iPhone into life. Is that good? Or scary?

Irritants:

The email lack-of-folders thing is a major irritant. Suspect Apple is working on it; lots of people on the forums have complained, but haven't seen word one about a solution yet, and I check in every day.
One-way calendar connectivity simply bizarre. Can enter calendar items on iPhone and they appear on Outlook; reverse not true. What's up with that?
Wish platform were open, and could load own apps onto it. Bet money MacOS eReader would work with only minor tweakage.
Would love to be able to manage calendar, contacts, and so on through iTunes interface; the sooner I can ditch Outlook, the happier I'll be.
Can't drag-and-drop songs, videos, and whatnot from library to iPhone in iTunes. Why not? Seems weird.
Screen does indeed get gunky fast; have to carry wipe cloth everywhere.

Joys:

Audio connection much better than my old Motorola v180.
Love being able to pull up contacts list and one-touch dial. Yeah, baby!
Can't do that two-thumb typing thing, but one-finger typing working well for me for SMS. Email, not so much, but doable for short messages.
Oh, the screen, the screen! So much better as a movie viewer! So light! So crisp! So easy to use! Automatically bookmarks your place. The portable movie viewer I've longed for! (If only there as an expansion slot . . .)
The interface is killer. It can't be overstated. You get used to it so fast, you forget how good it is. "Intuitive" is too weak a word. You guess, and you're right almost all the time. It's astounding. (And I'm incredibly hard to please when it comes to software.)

Other notes:

Love how solid the device feels. Doesn't creak, groan, wiggle, or otherwise feel cheap. Buttons are solid. Case is solid. Battery cover is solid. Plastic battery cover on HTC Universal constantly creaking; not a problem on iPhone.
People who complain about speed of Edge network spoiled beyond belief. People who compare it to "dial-up speed" deluding selves. Am old enough to have seen handsets plugged into audio jacks at 30 baud; these people have no idea what real "dial-up speed" means. If old enough to remember being excited about 1200 baud modems, then you can complain. Yes, 3G faster. Big whoop.
Still jonesing for games, and eReader. If this thing had games and eReader, I would be in heaven. But it's all software; I hold out hope.
Handbrake conversion tool produces good output (and I'm very picky), but is a little flakey, and a major CPU hog. Oh well; nothing's perfect.
Not having stylus is a mixed bag. On one hand: no stylus to lose. On other hand: gunky screen.
No menus. It takes a little getting used to. Means there's some functionality that seems "missing" (e.g., can't create new mailboxes in the email utility). Is this a bad thing? A good thing? Dunno; but there it is.

Libby's Pardon

2007-07-03T07:43:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, with Scooter Libby getting his sentence "commuted," he has been pardoned completely, but in a spectacularly spinnable, political way. First of all, he gets out of jail time for committing a felony. Second, don't even think for a minute that the other parts of his sentence are going to bother him in any way. His "probation" amounts to paperwork. His fine will be paid by his "legal defense fee," paid for by his rich friends.

So in sum, he gets off scot free for lying to cover up whatever crimes the Vice President (and who knows who else) committed.

And all the Republicans who are talking about how this is a good thing, that it's good that a "nice guy" isn't facing jail time? This "nice man" is a convicted felon. This "nice man" lied to federal prosecutors in order to cover up possible crimes by the Vice President of the United States, who may now get away with them. And finally, most of these same happy Republicans are the same ones who were right out in front of the crowd talking about what a heinous crime it was for Bill Clinton to lie about getting a (consensual!) hummer from an intern.

They should be ashamed of themselves. But of course they aren't; people like that never are. Heaven's no! The Wall Street Journal, the folks at the National Review, and so on, all know better than the jury, the judge (appointed by George Bush!), the prosecutor (appointed by John Ashcroft!), and the three-judge review panel (one of whom was the genius who overturned the Oliver North conviction, and gave us Kenneth Starr!)! Yessir, Libby got a raw deal from The Man!

What a crock. Libby had every single advantage he could possibly have, and he was still found guilty.

This is an easy one: Libby is a convicted felon. Bush is more than a hypocrite, he is a profound hypocrite. Bush has said:

He would fire anyone that had anything to do with the "outing" of Valerie Plame. He didn't. (He didn't fire Libby, and Karl Rove and Dick Cheney still work at the White House.)
He said that his Administration would not just do what's legal, but what's moral. Libby is a convicted felon; in other words, he behaved neither legally, nor morally.
He didn't even follow his own rules with regard to pardoning and commuting sentences.

Bush, who blatted on and on about bringing "a new tone" to Washington, who gets all high and mighty about what a good Christian he is, and how he is doing God's work, and justifies his unjustifiable war in Iraq by citing God, is an immoral, hypocritical liar who believes that he and anyone who works for him is above the law. That is your President, ladies and gentlemen. And all you people who harshed on Natalie Maines for what she said about Bush at the beginning of the Iraq war? She was right, and you all were wrong; it is embarrassing that he is from Texas.

My level of disgust with this knows no bounds. I hope Fitzgerald goes after Cheney. Not for revenge, but for the good of the country. How long can this country survive if everyone thinks that the law doesn't apply to the people on top?

"Law if often but the but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." -- Thomas Jefferson

iPhone Diary 7/2

2007-07-02T15:01:00.000-07:00

Plumbing the depths now. Interesting discoveries:

No way to create separate mail folders on the iPhone itself. Apparently *.mac account holders get their mail folders copied across; the rest of us, SOL.
Calendar synced just fine the first time; since then, nothing. All new entries not being synced. Happening to plenty of other people, too.
Nice feature: if you are listening to music or a video on speakers, and plug in the headphones, volume automatically drops. Good idea!
Application called "Handbrake" does a good job converting DVDs to iPhone-understandable format.
Little flakey picking up in-house network; works fine near modem, not so good farther away.
Headphones not convenient. How do all you iPod users deal? Wrap them around arm? Tuck them in pocket? They get tangled all the time!

iPhone Diary 6/30

2007-06-30T18:01:00.000-07:00

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.

iPhone Diary 6/29-2

2007-06-29T22:06:00.000-07:00

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

2007-06-29T17:07:00.000-07:00

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.

iPhone Diary; 6/28/07

2007-06-28T17:03:00.000-07:00

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

2007-06-28T16:45:00.000-07:00

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.

Richard Lugar's "Defection"

2007-06-27T11:24:00.001-07:00

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

2007-06-27T11:04:00.001-07:00

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.

Dick Cheney

2007-06-25T10:00:00.000-07:00

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.

eBooks and the iPhone

2007-06-23T11:29:00.000-07:00

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.

Confused about Conservatism

2007-06-19T09:18:00.000-07:00

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.

The Cynical Politics of "The Surge"

2007-06-18T10:57:00.000-07:00

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.

The Mess in Palestine

2007-06-16T10:10:00.000-07:00

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.

Post-Boomer News Acquisition

2007-06-15T14:26:00.000-07:00

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!)

The Legal System

2007-06-14T12:18:00.000-07:00

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.

eBook Whining

2007-06-13T19:34:00.001-07:00

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

2007-06-13T13:09:00.000-07:00

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

2007-06-13T09:33:00.000-07:00

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.

Joe Klein vs. Bloggers, a Live-blogging

2007-06-12T17:39:00.000-07:00

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"

2007-06-12T12:11:00.000-07:00

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

2007-06-12T10:59:00.000-07:00

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.

Alberto and the Cowards in the Senate

2007-06-11T17:07:00.000-07:00

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

2007-06-11T13:24:00.000-07:00

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.

Primary Season, Random Thoughts

2007-06-10T22:17:00.001-07:00

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

2007-06-10T16:53:00.000-07:00

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

2007-06-10T16:48:00.000-07:00

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.