Steamd

A recent post on the MODx forums got me thinking a bit about some of the controversy surrounding web standards. The main question is this: Which specification should most developers use? HTML or XHTML? The answer you’ll get is mixed because, quite frankly, neither specification is being used as it was intended.

Proponents of each specification make many claims as to why each specification is flawed. Some will claim that XHTML isn’t fully supported by any version of Internet Explorer and thus should not be used. Others will claim that HTML is stale and isn’t as semantically correct as XHTML. For each developer you talk to you’re going to get a different set of complaints on each side of the fence.

I’m a web standards advocate and I’ll plainly admit it. One link provided by a poster on the MODx forums was to an article called HOWTO Spot a Wannabe Web Standards Advocate. I found this article to be quite humorous because, as the poster said, “there’s a lot of ignorance and hype” around this topic, which is certainly the case in this article. He seems to be just blindly attacking people who support web standards rather than addressing the real issues. So before I go into what the real problems are with web standards, let’s take the Pepsi Challenge and see if I’m a match, a “Wannabe Web Standards Advocate” if you will:

Talks about the importance of the alt tag.

What can I say…you’re right, there is no alt tag. It’s an attribute. Move on.

Claims <b> and <i> are deprecated.

If you look at the HTML 4.01 spec it states that although they are not all deprecated, their use is discouraged in favor of style sheets. The HTML 5 spec goes on to say that the i element should be used as a last resort when no other element is more appropriate and that style sheets can be used to format i elements, just like any other element can be restyled. Thus, it is not the case that content in i elements will necessarily be italicized. So, yeah, to claim that these are deprecated isn’t entirely correct. The word “discouraged” is more accurate.

And spells it “depreciated”.

We’re human. We make mistakes. Even spellcheck doesn’t always work. Have you ever misspelled a word?

Uses <span style="font-style: italic;">, because <i> is presentational.

That’s because the use of <i> is presentational. <i> means italic which does not describe the intension of use but rather how the word or set of words is to be displayed.

Wants software to use <em> and <strong> when the UI says italic and bold.

The use of italic and bold is a convention used in user interfaces, NOT markup code. The intended purpose of HTML was to describe data, NOT what it is supposed to look like. Using UI conventions to describe data isn’t a step in the right direction and isn’t proper semantics.

<em> and <strong> on the other hand are better because they describe the data and thus are far more semantically correct that the bold and italic equivalents. <em> denotes emphasis and <strong> denotes stronger emphasis. The default presentation of these elements ended up being italic and bold respectively.

Even Tim Berners-Lee, the father of the world wide web, has talked at great lengths about what he calls the semantic web and how HTML documents and the like are supposed to describe the data. Who am I to argue with him?

Marks up quoted text as <cite>.

Yeah, that would be incorrect, wouldn’t it. A <cite> is supposed to contain a citation or a reference to other sources. On the other hand, both a <q> and <blockquote> can be used for quotes depending on their use.

Complains about upper-case tags in HTML.

HTML may not be case-sensitive but XHTML is. Personally, when it comes to coding markup, javascript, and server-side code it’s better to stick with a standard of coding. Having a mix of upper-case and lower-case tags in your markup is sloppy at best. So, yeah, it’s better to stick with lower-case tags to promote consistency and avoid errors with javascript code simply because someone didn’t write proper markup.

Claims XHTML 1.0 is more semantic than HTML 4.01.

Claims XHTML 1.0 is more structured than HTML 4.01.

Claims XHTML 1.0 is less presentational than HTML 4.01.

Both HTML and XHTML are virtually identical when it comes to the HTML specific tags available. One isn’t necessarily more semantic or less presentational over the other. How a coder decides to use the tags is what makes code semantic or not.

However, the claim that XHTML 1.0 is more structured than HTML 4.01, that is actually true. Since XHTML follows the same syntax rules as XML, XHTML documents are required to be well-formed and thus are more structured than HTML. More on that in a sec.

Claims browsers parse XHTML served as text/html faster than they parse HTML.

I don’t believe this is true provided that an equivalent HTML document is written to be as well-formed as an XHTML document. HTML is pretty forgiving and thus if your document is riddled with unclosed tags then that could potentially cause a browser to load the page a bit slower than the XHTML equivalent due to the extra processing needed to interpret the HTML code properly. However, the same could be said about XHTML documents.

Refers to “the benefits of XHTML” without specifying what the benefits are.

There’s a good SitePoint forum post that has some of the frequently asked questions about XHTML vs HTML. There are some differences, but there is one key difference that I think makes XHTML better. Since XHTML requires that documents be well-formed, validation has to be more thorough and thus code errors are spotted much easier. I’ll illustrate this towards the end of this post.

Uses large XHTML 1.0 Transitional documents with table layouts while claiming enhanced compatibility with handheld devices thanks to XHTML.

“Future proofs” a site by migrating from HTML 4.01 Transitional to XHTML 1.0 Transitional and keeps serving it as text/html with all the old JavaScript scripts in place.

These are hybrid approaches and, honestly, probably shouldn’t be used anymore. A hybrid approach to using a transitional doctype with some table-based layout elements was used primarily with sites that needed to be transitioned over but the underlying code couldn’t be completely rewritten yet. For sites done from scratch, I wouldn’t even consider a hybrid approach. Browser support is much, much better these days and thus a hybrid approach is no longer valid.

Uses the XML empty element notation on pages that are supposed to be HTML pages.

I’m not sure I follow you here. Both HTML and XHTML specification allow for certain tag types to be self closing empty tags: area, base, basefont, br, col, frame, hr, img, input, isindex, link, meta, param.

Now if you’re talking about the practice of having an element with nothing it it (ie. <div></div>), I can sort of understand it. Why would you need to have an empty element in your code when you can simply insert it on the fly with javascript?

Complains about doctypeless application/xhtml+xml or SVG documents and smugly points to validator.w3.org.

The W3C clearly states that you have to have both a doctype and a xmlns declaration in the head of every XHTML document for it to be considered valid. Not having it means that you run the risk of a browser working in quirks mode and many not render the page as it was intended.

The W3C Validator is nothing more than a tool that allows people to validate their code to ensure there are no errors. A simply check can and will reveal problems like a missing doctype and xmlns declaration, thus the reason why everyone smugly points people to this site.

Claims all tables are evil.

Tables aren’t evil if they are used properly. Tables are meant for tabular data, NOT presentation purposes. Even the specification says this about tables:

“Tables should not be used purely as a means to layout document content as this may present problems when rendering to non-visual media.”

So, yeah, if you’re using tables for layout purposes then you’re doing evil.

Advocates pixel-based absolute CSS positioning as the righteous replacement for evil tables.

The use of CSS doesn’t automatically mean pixel-based absolute positioning. You can use floats and static widths and heights instead of absolute positioned layers. CSS is for the presentation layer of a properly written HTML/XHTML document. A raw, unstyled HTML document will look ok on any device in any browser. Adding CSS allows the looks of your document to degrade gracefully in any browser. Plus, you can easily change the look and presentation of a site simply be switching out the CSS on the fly, something you can’t do easily with table-based layouts. If you’re still using tables for design and presentation then good luck getting it to work on a variety of browser and devices.

Changes //EN at the end of the public identifier in the doctype to the language code of the language the page is written in.

Omits the namespace declaration in XHTML or SVG and claims it is OK, because it validates.

Man, that is pretty stupid, isn’t it considering doctypes and namespaces are explicit. After all, if you don’t declare the doctype and namespace properly then the browser won’t recognize it.

Serves documents written using a home-grown XML vocabulary along with an XSLT transformation to HTML to browsers instead of serving HTML, because XML is more semantic.

Uh, what? If you’re serving XML with an XLST transformation then it isn’t HTML anymore. That’s the whole point of using a strict XML doctype and namespace with XHTML. Now, if you require your document to be parsed as an XML-based document then, yeah, that would be ok provided you don’t need Internet Explorer to parse it. People who use strict XHTML document usually do it for very specific valid reasons. But for someone to do it simply because they think it makes it more semantic, yeah, that’s stupid indeed. But using a XHTML 1.0 Strict doctype isn’t such a bad thing even when you’re using it with a “text/html” MIME type.

So, am I a “Wannabe Web Standards Advocate”? Nope, and neither is the guy who wrote this article. I’ve taken the time to understand what web standards are really all about and what the specifications for each standard really say. To not educate yourself on the issues and claim yourself to be any kind of advocate is a great disservice to yourself and others.

And, I’ll be honest, I still have a lot to learn. There is much to learn about the current HTML 5 drafts as well as what all of the current HTML and XHTML specs have to say about certain practices.

Here’s the real problem with HTML: it’s too forgiving. HTML is more forgiving and doesn’t require that you explicitly close tags. Most browsers will render HTML just fine even when everything isn’t perfect with the code. I’m not 100% sure, but I would assume that HTML code that isn’t well-formed could potentially cause issues in scripts that rely on the DOM to function properly. This is one area that I would really like to test.

As with most script and programming languages, it’s good practice to use well-written, elegant code. The main reason is that it helps eliminate typical mistakes made that cause errors. It also makes it easier to validate the code. The problem with HTML doctypes being too forgiving is that most of the validators out there allow for simple mistakes in the code. For example, consider the following code:

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" 
    "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<html>
    <head>
        <meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
            content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
        <title>Test</title>
    </head>
    <body>
        <p>This is a test paragraph
        <p>This is another one
    </body>
</html>

This is perfectly legitimate HTML code and if you run in through the W3C Markup Validator (http://validator.w3.org/) you’ll see that it passes with flying colors. But what about those paragraph tags? Shouldn’t they be properly closed? Would code like this cause issues with being able to properly parse the DOM for the paragraphs? What about search engines, spiders, document readers for the blind? To me, this is a sloppy way to code and doesn’t promote the kind of standardized code that’s possible with XHTML. Again, I’d really like to run this through the grinder with various script libraries to see if it can cause potential issues with parsing the DOM.

Although the use of XHTML with a “text/html” MIME type might seem like a bad use of the format, it’s so engrained now that to go back to HTML 4 would be a bit of a step back. The use of XHTML as HTML isn’t a documented standard per se, it’s more of a standard that came to be out of necessity. No one can argue that HTML 4 is a well documented standard. The problem though is that it’s also a stale standard. The whole idea behind the “X” in XHTML was that it was “eXtensible” HTML that could be parsed either as strict XML or HTML. As such, developers flocked to it because of the promise it had. Yes, it’s true that XHTML isn’t supported on Internet Explorer…but that only applies to strict XML MIME types, not HTML.

Keep in mind that XHTML with a “text/html” MIME type is still just HTML. From a browser point of view, one is not better than the other when it comes to parsing the HTML and CSS. The tags are the same and the rendering is the same if both are written properly. Aside from a few subtle differences, the main difference is in the syntax and validation. Arguments that one is better than the other is pretty moot at best. I think it boils down to personal preference as well as the tools you use that dictate which standard to use.

The necessity for using XHTML is such I think because it’s unclear exactly when the HTML 5 standards will be finalized. No one knows anything about what is going on. There is entrenchment in the web standards community about the direction HTML 5 should take. The W3C is saying one thing, WHATWG saying another, with the Web Standards Project putting their two cents in as well. The end result is that we probably won’t see HTML 5 being put into a release candidate state until probably 2012 (which ironically enough is when the Aztecs predicted the end of the world would take place).

Based on all this, I’m leaning more on the continued use of XHTML. I use script libraries like MooTools and jQuery pretty heavily and I just don’t like the idea of getting something really screwed up simply because the HTML I’m writing doesn’t get validated properly. For me, it’s all about well-formed code and the ability to properly parse the DOM. Not that that isn’t possible with a strict HTML doctype, but I think most of the tools we use are more geared for XHTML validation.

If it takes four more years to get a final specification for HTML 5 drafted then it could potentially take another 4 years before we see widespread browser support. For that reason alone, I don’t see any reason why we shouldn’t continue to use a strict XHTML 1.0 doctype even if it’s not a 100% documented standard. It’s standard enough and that works for me.

Steve Tobak posted an article on his CNet blog today called How much does corporate fraud cost you? His comments raise some good questions and I think point out one of the primary reasons why our economy is what it is today.

Corporate greed has run amok for many, many years in this country. Now, you may say “That’s just capitalism!” and pretend that corporate greed doesn’t cause problems in this country. Unfortunately, corporations do have a greater hold on things than most people realize. One of the contributing factors of how bills are written and passed in Congress has to do with the influence of lobbyists…lobbyists who are employed full-time to lobby for a specific industry or company. To me, the sheet existence of these lobbyists means that they will have a greater influence than you and I on what bills are passed and how they are written. You can’t tell me that that doesn’t have a serious impact on how our government mandates things. It would seem that corporate greed is what drives political corruption in many circumstances.

What’s worse, our taxes are what pay for situations when corporate greed creates a collapse in a specific industry. Consider the recent events with Bear Stearns, an investment firm that was recently acquired by JP Morgan Chase and had ties to the current subprime mortgage crisis. This is a company that, had JP Morgan Chase not buy them out, would likely have cost taxpayers at least $3.2 billion in bail-outs due to lost investments. Bear Stearns was also accused of elevating the values of certain assets and investments even though they were worth much less. As to the validity of these accusations, I’m not certain, but the existence of lawsuits dealing with this does raise questions as to the integrity of the company.

The subprime mortgage crisis is a primary example of corporate greed. I have no doubt that some people made a ton of money off of this situation. Not every bank, borrower, and/or financial institution participated in the practice of predatory lending but I’m sure quite a few did. Regardless, I think the situation was caused by poor decisions by the companies granting the mortgages. To bail them out would be rewarding bad decisions. Personally I think these companies should allow home owners to refinance their home, get into a mortgage with a fixed interest rate, and increase the number of years on the mortgage so their payments are lower. A Congress without the influence of the mortgage industry could pass legislation for this. But given the current situation, I’m not sure if this will happen. A bail-out for subprime mortgages could still happen, a bail-out that would be payed for by taxpayers.

Then there’s Enron, an ex-poster child for corporate greed in this country. Here’s a company that due to shady accounting practices and greedy executives allowed the company skipped out on paying millions (possibly billions) in taxes, led to one of the largest bankruptcies in history, caused thousands of employees to lose their pensions, and ended with the indictment of two Enron executives, Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling. Lay obviously couldn’t handle it and shortly died later of a heart attack prior to sentencing. Skilling is currently serving a 24-year sentence in a Minnesota prison.

The current poster child for greed in this country is Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart makes billions of dollars in profit and yet their stores cost taxpayers money. Yes, there is a cost for low prices. Many employees earn wages that are below the poverty line. Approximately 50% of all Wal-Mart employees can’t afford the health insurance that the company offers. As such, many Wal-Mart employees are among the working poor and are forced to use social services to get health care, food stamps, and other needs. I’ve even heard reports of Wal-Mart employees using food stamps to purchase items in the same store they work at. What does this mean for you? It means that part of your tax dollars are helping to pay for the social services used by Wal-Mart employees in your area. For a company that earns billions a year you’d think they would make sure their employees are taken care of and don’t have to resort to using social services.

Not every company is bad, but a lot of corporations don’t care about you. They only care about the shareholder and their bottom-line. And greed is so powerful that shareholders and corporate executives would never considered reducing their own salaries and earnings just to ensure that their employees are happy.

So what can you do about it?

First, you can vote for politicians who won’t be corrupted or heavily influenced by corporate lobbyists. Educate yourself on the issues. Put your political differences asside and learn something about the politicians you’re voting for.

Second, you can support and buy from companies that treat their employees fairly and promote a better economy. You don’t have to buy from Wal-Mart or any other company that cares more about profit than their own employees. Remember that it’s ok to spend a little more if it means buying from a company that cares about you and their employees.

Corporate greed is one of the main problems that exists in our country. It doesn’t have to be that way though. It can change and it doesn’t even require a so-called socialist attitude either. It just requires a little common sense on the voting public.

From now on, I will go by the name Jeffrey Hussein Whitfield:

Obama Supporters Take His Name as Their Own

It’s ridiculous that some Republicans and other pundits use Barack Obama’s middle name in such a way as to associate him with Muslims and/or terrorists. Even members of my own family had stated their belief that he has Middle Easter ties. Complete and total bullshit. So, yeah, I love what these guys are doing. Great way to show just how ridiculous it is.

Here’s a piece of shit car even I can be envious of. Whoever owns this car must get tons of laughs. I really wanted to meet the guy who owns it too. A guy who drives this must have a hell of a sense of humor…and a funny haircut to boot I bet.

For those who don’t know who he is, David Allen is the author of a very popular book on productivity called “Getting Things Done“. If you’ve ever had moments where things are stuck inside your head on what you need to be doing on any particular day then this is the book for you. I highly recommend it.

GTD (short for Getting Things Done) is a simple and repeatable way of managing the tasks and actions in your life. This system is the foundation of many productivity gurus including Merlin Mann of 43 Folders. The reason for its success is due to the fact that it doesn’t use gimmicks or abstract concepts. It uses real-world language and ideas that anyone can grasp. And the author doesn’t pretend to be a know it all. In fact, David Allen himself will tell you that even he isn’t necessarily an expert and is still learning more ways to better implement the concepts of GTD.

Earlier this year, David Allen did a presentation for Google. Google was kind enough to share this video with others on the web. Although it’s geared a bit towards Google employees and knowledge workers, it’s still a great introduction into the concepts of what GTD is:

Sad news: George Carlin passed away on Sunday from heart failure. I can think of no words as to how I feel about this other than he will always be remembered. His humor has made a mark on my life and has influenced me in so many ways. He will indeed be missed.

So, to honor his memory, here is perhaps one of his best known skits, a little thing called “Stuff”:

On January 9, 2007, at the Macworld Expo, Steve Jobs unveiled a product that would forever change the landscape for cellphones: the first iPhone. Speculators ran rampant saying that Apple would likely garnish at least a 7% market share by 2016! What’s funny is that Jobs said that Apple would be happy with just 1% of the market, a market which at the time was already selling a 100 million phones:

So game consoles. 26 million game consoles were sold in 2006 worldwide, actually a little smaller than you’d think. It’s not such a big market. Digital cameras dwarfed it at 94 million. MP3 players 135 million. And PCs, about 209. Mobile phones, just about a billion last year, worldwide. So what does this tell you? What this tells you is, that 1 percent market share equals 10 million units. This is a giant market. One percent market share, you’re going to sell 10 million phones. And this is exactly what we’re going to try to do in 2008, our first full year in the market, is grab 1 percent market share and go from there. So we’re going to enter a very competitive market, lot of players, we think we’re going to have the best product in the world, and we’re going to go for it and see if we can get 1 percent market share, 10 million units in 2008, and go from there.

What Jobs didn’t say was that the market was already dominated by the Blackberry and Windows Mobile devices. Many speculators wondered if the iPhone could even remotely compete since it didn’t have any enterprise support nor any Microsoft Exchange support, the two things all businesses require out of the smartphones they buy.

Even Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer couldn’t help but laugh at the iPhone:

Baller went on to say in a USAToday interview:

There’s no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance. It’s a $500 subsidized item. They may make a lot of money. But if you actually take a look at the 1.3 billion phones that get sold, I’d prefer to have our software in 60% or 70% or 80% of them, than I would to have 2% or 3%, which is what Apple might get.

Ballmer would have to wait and see just how much market share Apple would get with the iPhone.

On June 29th, 2007, the first generation iPhone is released to the public. Right out of the gate, Apple sold an estimated 500,000 iPhones in just the first weekend, with one million iPhones sold by September. By the end of 2007, Apple sold nearly 4 million iPhones. Not only did they meet expectations, they exceeded them by capturing a 26.7% share of the smartphone market by the end of 2007. Keep in mind that they attained these numbers without enterprise support and on just a single carrier. It’s an amazing product launch on many levels!

Even then there were many who doubted the future success of the iPhone, still claiming that Apple could not keep up with their success without enterprise support and without the ability to install native applications. Well, their doubts were put to rest when, on March 6, 2008, Steve Jobs and company announced the beta release of the iPhone SDK as well as a first look of the iPhone 2.0 software. And what will the iPhone 2.0 software provide? You got it: native ActiveSync support for Microsoft Exchange!

By May 2008, Apple’s iPhone market share slipped a bit and fell to a 19.2% marketshare. My guess is that companies just aren’t ready to buy into the iPhone yet till they see the official release of the 2.0 software.

Another gripe about the iPhone was that it didn’t have 3G. Well, in true Apple fashion, they announced on January 15, 2008 at the Macworld Expo the release of the next generation iPhone, the iPhone 3G. Granted, the only things they added was support for 3G and built-in GPS, but it still pretty much closes the gap for any complaints that business users have.

So with all the hoopla, what is it about the iPhone? Why is this thing so darn popular? And does it really deserve all the hype and attention it’s getting?

As a fellow iPhone owner, I can tell you that it deserves all the hype. I used to administrate a good handful of Treo 700w’s and 750’s and I’ve played with quite a few Blackberry’s as well. None of them came close to the innovation and slickness of the iPhone. Simply put, Apple did indeed make one hell of a jump ahead of the competition. They created a phone that works unlike any other device of its kind.

Many other manufactures have tried to duplicate the success of the multi-touch interface of the iPhone but have failed. And why would they? Apple has had a history of creating really well designed interfaces for the past five years. Any company that even remotely wants to compete has to step up their game now and come up with something that is just as innovative. Even then, innovation is only a fraction of it. The other part is the fact that the iPhone just plain works.

The only real competition I see for Apple is Google Android, an open-source mobile operating system that some manufactures are already developing for. Android has plenty of potential but it remains to be seen whether it can capture the enterprise market. In many ways, Google Android will be the Linux of the smartphone market. I’m sure there will be developers creating apps that allow for such things as native Microsoft Exchange support.

So where does that leave the rest of the competition? Will Apple dominate the market and leave Windows Mobile and Blackberry in the dust? I don’t think so and I honestly don’t believe Apple will monopolize on the market either. After all, not everyone will find the iPhone to be the perfect fit for them. Some people will simply prefer a Blackberry, Treo, or some other smartphone over an iPhone.

I personally love the iPhone. And just because I’m an Apple fan doesn’t mean that I think the iPhone is the only good smartphone on the market. Again, I think Google Android holds a lot of promise. If someone was to come along with a phone that offers better features, a better interface, and more I might consider it. Apple doesn’t rule and know all; they just happen to be the one company who is designing some of the better products right now. Any company can come along and do it better. They just have to design something better.

As to what the future will hold for the iPhone and what the next big thing will be, no one really knows. Guess we’ll just have to wait and see.

Update [June 24, 2008]:

I share John Guber’s sentiments on the expectations of Google Android and how it compares to the iPhone:

My obsession is with wonderful, thoughtful software and gadgetry. I love the iPhone because it’s fucking amazing, not because it’s from Apple. It’d be fantastic if even one Android-based phone is as good or better than the iPhone.

The openness of Google Android is what makes me think it’ll end up being the Linux of the mobile OS market. And John is right, Android does have the potential of being better than the iPhone in many ways. After all, anyone with both Mac and Linux experience can see the potential of both platforms and the strengths of each. I don’t see why Android would be any different. But one thing is for sure: unless developers embrace the platform Android won’t stand a chance, which we won’t see till the first Android phones are released on the market.

About a week or so ago, Ann Coulter published yet another doozie of a blog post entitled “Bush’s America: 100 Percent Al-Qaida Free Since 2001“. Now, you’d think I’d be wise and simply ignore her antics, but to be honest I find it very difficult to ignore this level of ignorance and stupidity. The problem is that there are others who actually believe that what Ann writes about is dead-on correct, that is that her opinion is indeed fact, and that she is telling it like it is. Being that Ann is part of what Arianna Huffington calls the lunatic fringe, I find it only fair that I deconstruct what Ann has written and essentially show just how ridiculous her presumptions are. So, let’s start at the beginning of her post:

In a conversation recently, I mentioned as an aside what a great president George Bush has been and my friend was surprised. I was surprised that he was surprised.

You’re surprised, Ann? Bush has an approval rating that is less that 30%. Why wouldn’t anyone be surprised by that comment? You’re the minority, Ann. And this sounds made up.

I generally don’t write columns about the manifestly obvious, but, yes, the man responsible for keeping Americans safe from another terrorist attack on American soil for nearly seven years now will go down in history as one of America’s greatest presidents.

Produce one person who believed, on Sept. 12, 2001, that there would not be another attack for seven years, and I’ll consider downgrading Bush from “Great” to “Really Good.”

Congratulations! All that propaganda and FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) that Bush, Cheney, and others have spread actually worked. You actually believe that just because we haven’t had a major terrorist attack since 9/11 that we’re actually safer? And that we have Bush to thank for that? And that makes him a “great President”? What planet are you living on? Do you realize that some of our civil liberties have been taken from us because of the Bush administration? And you think that’s ok because, after all, we’re safer and we having had another terrorist attack? Ann, our forefathers would roll over in their grave if they knew that we sacrificed our civil liberties just to protect our borders.

Merely taking out Saddam Hussein and his winsome sons Uday and Qusay (Hussein family slogan: “We’re the Rape Room People!”) constitutes a greater humanitarian accomplishment than anything Bill Clinton ever did — and I’m including remembering Monica’s name on the sixth sexual encounter.

Pop quiz, Ann! What’s worse? Getting caught getting a blowjob from an intern? Or getting caught lying about the reasons for sending hundreds of thousands of troops to either get killed or seriously injured? And, yes, Bush lied. He said so himself that the intelligence was faulty and went to war with Iraq anyways. Yes, Hussein was a bad guy and eventually had to be dealt with…but there was little or no intelligence linking him directly to al-Qaeda. But the Bush administration continued on, lied to the American public, failed to listen to the United Nations, and went to war anyways even though it had little or nothing to do with the Osama bin Laden or al-Qaeda. Thus the Iraq was was predicated on a lie. Show me the facts that say otherwise. Clinton got away with lying about a blowjob. Bush got away with lying about a war and getting thousands of Americans killed as a result of it and having some of our civil liberties taken away from us. Yeah, real humanitarian accomplishment, Ann!

But unlike liberals, who are so anxious to send American troops to Rwanda or Darfur, Republicans oppose deploying U.S. troops for purely humanitarian purposes. We invaded Iraq to protect America.

We didn’t invade Iraq to protect America. We invaded Iraq to take out Saddam Hussein, a man who had not once invaded or attacked the United States.Yes, he was a bad guy…but he wasn’t much of a threat to the U.S…just a threat to the region and to the oil business.

It is unquestionable that Bush has made this country safe by keeping Islamic lunatics pinned down fighting our troops in Iraq. In the past few years, our brave troops have killed more than 20,000 al-Qaida and other Islamic militants in Iraq alone. That’s 20,000 terrorists who will never board a plane headed for JFK — or a landmark building, for that matter.

al-Qaida wasn’t a threat in Iraq till after we invaded Iraq. al-Qaida is linked mostly to Sunni’s, not the Shia Muslims that have been part of the insurgency the past few years.

And 20,000? Where are you getting these numbers from? What are your sources?

We are, in fact, fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them at, say, the corner of 72nd and Columbus in Manhattan — the mere mention of which never fails to enrage liberals, which is why you should say it as often as possible.

Please, say it as often as possible so that others will learn how ignorant you are. It has not and has never been clear as to whether al-Qaida has ever been linked to Saddam Hussein or Iraq. And, like I said above, we invaded Iraq, a country who has not once attacked our country directly. So how is it that we’re fighting them over there so what we don’t have to fight them here? Who? Being that al-Qaida is all but non existent in Iraq, who in Iraq has even remotely thought about attacking the United States directly? Give me the facts.

The Iraq war has been a stunning success. The Iraqi army is “standing up” (as they say), fat Muqtada al-Sadr –the Dr. Phil of Islamofascist radicalism — has waddled off in retreat to Iran, and Sadr City and Basra are no longer war zones. Our servicemen must be baffled by the constant nay-saying coming from their own country.

Muqtada al-Sadr is a Shiite. Shia’s hate al-Qaida. He may be radical…but he definitely has no sympathy for al-Qaida supporters.

The Iraqis have a democracy — a miracle on the order of flush toilets in that godforsaken region of the world. Despite its newness, Iraq’s democracy appears to be no more dysfunctional than one that would condemn a man who has kept the nation safe for seven years while deifying a man who has accomplished absolutely nothing in his entire life except to give speeches about “change.”

“a miracle on the order of flush toilets in that godforsaken region of the world”? So you’re saying that democracy in Iraq is just one step up from a load of shit? That is about as elitist of a statement as it gets. What makes you so much better than the people in Iraq?

(Guess what Bill Clinton’s campaign theme was in 1992? You are wrong if you guessed: “bringing dignity back to the White House.” It was “change.” In January 1992, James Carville told Steve Daley of The Chicago Tribune that it had gotten to the point that the press was complaining about Clinton’s “constant talk of change.”)

Every single Presidential candidate has used “change” as a part of the message of their campaign for just about every election of the past 20+ years. And that includes Republican candidates as well.

Monthly casualties in Iraq now come in slightly lower than a weekend with Anna Nicole Smith. According to a CNN report last week, for the entire month of May, there were only 19 troop deaths in Iraq. (Last year, five people on average were shot every day in Chicago.) With Iraqi deaths at an all-time low, Iraq is safer than Detroit — although the Middle Eastern food is still better in Detroit.

But how many were injured? Do you even know? According to GlobalSecurity.org, the number of U.S. casualties have gone down a bit. But the number of U.S. wounded is still fairly high even though the number has gone down in the last few months. The numbers to date though are still staggaring: 4,070 dead with 30,182 wounded. It’s the wounded I’m mostly concerned about. Do you have any idea of the issues surrounding the treatment of wounded soldiers coming back from Iraq? Do you really believe that they are being treated with the proper level of physical and mental treatment they deserve?

Here’s some real numbers that will help put it all in perspective:

3,990: American troops who have died in Iraq since the start of the war. [icasualties.org, 3/17/08]

29,395: Number of U.S. service members that have been wounded in hostile action since the start of U.S. military operations in Iraq. [AP, 3/11/08]

60,000: Number of troops that have been subjected to controversial stop-loss measures–meaning those who have completed service commitments but are forbidden to leave the military until their units return from war. [US News and World Report, 2/25/08]

5: Number of times the 3rd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment has been sent to Iraq. They are the first Marine Corps unit to be sent to Iraq for a fifth time. [San Francisco Chronicle, 2/27/08]

2,100: Number of troops who tried to commit suicide or injure themselves increased from 350 in 2002 to 2,100 last year. [US News and World Report, 2/25/08]

11.9: Percent of noncommissioned Army officers who reported mental health problems during their first Iraq tour [Los Angeles Times, 3/7/08]

27.2: Percent of noncommissioned Army officers who reported mental health problems during their third or fourth Iraq tour [Los Angeles Times, 3/7/08]

Al-Qaida is virtually destroyed, surprising even the CIA. Two weeks ago, The Washington Post reported: “Less than a year after his agency warned of new threats from a resurgent al-Qaida, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden now portrays the terrorist movement as essentially defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and on the defensive throughout much of the rest of the world, including in its presumed haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.”

It’s almost as if there’s been some sort of “surge” going on, as strange as that sounds.

Just this week, The New York Times reported that al-Qaida and other terrorist groups in Southeast Asia have all but disappeared, starved of money and support. The U.S. and Australia have been working closely with the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia, sending them counterterrorism equipment and personnel.

So if Al-Qaida is all but non-existent in Iraq and the surge is working, then why don’t we have an exit strategy? Why, if we are supposedly successful in Iraq, can we not have a plan to start pulling troops out of Iraq instead of allowing more and more troops to continue third and fourth tours?

But no one notices when 9/11 doesn’t happen. Indeed, if we had somehow stopped the 9/11 attack, we’d all be watching Mohammed Atta being interviewed on MSNBC, explaining his lawsuit against the Bush administration. Maureen Dowd would be writing columns describing Khalid Sheik Mohammed as a “wannabe” terrorist being treated like Genghis Khan by an excitable Bush administration.

This isn’t fantasy land, Ann. People who attempt terrorism in our country rarely get interviews unless they happen to be born American citizens. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols got interviews. But did the guy who help bomb the World Trade Center in 1993, Ramzi Yousef, get an interview? Umm, doesn’t look like it.

We begin to forget what it was like to turn on the TV, see a tornado, a car chase or another Pamela Anderson marriage and think: Good — another day without a terrorist attack.

Yeah, yeah…and we’d all be sitting around wondering when Paris Hilton will land her ass in jail for the umpteenth time. People love good tabloids. Who cares.

But liberals have only blind hatred for Bush — and for those brute American interrogators who do not supply extra helpings of béarnaise sauce to the little darlings at Guantanamo with sufficient alacrity.

If Liberals have a “blind” hatred for Bush, then Conservatives have a “blind” hatred for Liberals. Am I correct?

The sheer repetition of lies about Bush is wearing people down. There is not a liberal in this country worthy of kissing Bush’s rear end, but the weakest members of the herd run from Bush. Compared to the lickspittles denying and attacking him, Bush is a moral giant — if that’s not damning with faint praise. John McCain should be so lucky as to be running for Bush’s third term. Then he might have a chance.

Yes, people have lied about Bush. But for every lie there is a fact behind it that proves he has made decisions that resulted in poor judgement, decisions that cost people their jobs, their freedom, and their lives. Not only are there liberals who wish to avoid kissing Bush’s ass but there are also conservatives as well who wish to avoid it as well.

You’re exaggerating on how well Bush has done. I think his approval rating speaks for itself. You can’t get an approval rating like that without even Republicans not approving of him. People aren’t in denial over Bush doing a bad job. It’s not just their imagination, Ann. And a moral giant? Wow. You must have really low expectations.

Once again, Ann, you fail to back any of your opinions up with the facts. If what you say is true, where are the facts, ma’am? Blind criticism based on unproven facts isn’t the best way to “tell it like it is”. I can find highly reputable sources that will backup each of my claims. Can you? Best get your facts straight instead of trying to pass off your opinions as fact.

This whole Republican vs Democrat, conservative vs liberal, left-wing vs right-wing crap is getting really old, Ann. The fact of the matter is you can’t blame everything on Liberals and Democrats. Not every Liberal and/or Democrat is bad anymore than I can say that every Conservative and/or Republican is bad. What you don’t realize is that this sort of bi-partisan way of thinking is what is damaging the politics in this nation. All it does is turn people against one another and makes them lose sight of what the real issues are.

Seems that every blog post I’ve read by you, you’re always constantly attacking someone. You’ve compared Obama’s book about his father to Hitler’s Mein Kampf, which I feel is by far one of the most outrageous statements from you to date. You constantly try to pass off your opinions as fact and have a highly slated view of the fact. Plus, you tend to take things completely out of context. It’s as if you pick apart everything and only leave in the parts that illustrate and justify your point of view.

I’m all about the freedom of expression and sharing one’s opinion with others. You have every right to blog about whatever you wish to blog about. But even I get things wrong and I have no problems admitting when I’m wrong when I don’t get the facts straight. Why can’t you, Ann?

Last I checked we’re all Americans. Maybe if you spent more time treating all Americans with a little decency and respect, rather than attacking any opposing viewpoints at the first chance you get, you might get more out of it. Spreading lies and hate is no way to improve the political situation in our country.

Today marks the 5th anniversary of when my wife and I went on our first date. My wife and I laughed because just last week “The Incredible Hulk” was released in the theaters. It’s funny because we saw “Hulk” on our first date. Talk about geeky! Had “The Incredible Hulk” been released today we would have gone to see more or less the same movie we saw five years ago when we met for the first time.

My wife and I met each other on Match.com. When I tell people that they sometimes ask,”So online dating really works?” So to mark this anniversary I figured I’d talk a little bit about the experience of dating online prior to meeting my wife.

There are a bunch of online dating sites that are vying for your attention: Match.com, eHarmony.com, AdultFriendFinder.com (for those who wanna skip all the bullshit and go right to sex), and many others. I personally don’t think any one of these sites is particularly better than the other. I picked Match.com because I liked the look and feel of it but mileage may vary on which site you like.

No matter what dating site you use, realize this: You will not find a perfect match in the first month! If you do then you are one lucky son of a bitch. I spent over six months on Match.com and went on countless dates before I met my wife. Online dating makes it easier to find people to date…but it doesn’t make dating itself any easier. Some people might find an ideal match in a couple months but for others it could take six months, a year, two years, or more.

Bottom-line is that online dating does nothing but eliminate the hassle of having to seek out people to date. That’s what you’re paying these sites to do for you: weed out the crap and give you a list of people they think are a good match for you. Problem is that the human psyche is so complex that there is no way any dating site is going to give you that perfect list. Trust me…you’re gonna have some weird ones on that list! This means you’re gonna have some really bad and some really weird dates! I guarantee it!

This isn’t the worst date I went on…but it was certainly the most memorable. And it was weird, really weird! I e-mailed this one girl and we chatted a bit on the phone before deciding to go on a date. She sent me her picture and she looked really cute and all. Didn’t overanalyze her picture or anything and didn’t think much of it. However, when I met her something just didn’t stick right. She had straight long, black hair parted down the middle. She had really big, wide eyes and a small mouth. And she was rather pale, no, really pale.

I recall telling her on the phone that I was a pretty open-minded person. Later on in the evening she asked me:

“Jeff, you said you had an open-mind, right?”

“Yeah, I did. Why do you ask?”

“Well, I’m a wiccan.”

“A what?” (I nearly spit out my beer)

“A witch, a wiccan.”

Great. So basically I went on a date with Wednesday Addams. That explains her looks. She was a nice girl though. We did have a really good time and had really great conversation. Guess she just wasn’t my type. (Gee, you think!?)

I can’t really say anything bad about her. Not because I can’t think of anything to say. I mean, I really can’t say anything bad about her. I think she put a hex on me to where if I do my nuts get bigger. One of them is already a bit bigger already, which my wife tells me is perfectly normal…I think.

So I stuck with it and eventually went on a date with someone who would eventually become my wife. Our first date lasted a long time. We watched “Hulk”, ate dinner at Abuelo’s, and spent quite a few hours at Starbuck’s talking away with one another. At the end of the night, we sat in my car and I introduced Sarah to one of my favorite artists, Eric Johnson. In fact, one of Eric’s songs we listened to, “When the Sun Meets the Sky”, inspired us to put an inscription on the inside of our rings to commemorate our first date. Mine has When the Sun… and hers has Meets the Sky. Kinda cool, isn’t it!

Online dating isn’t for everyone, but for those with a little patience it’s a great way to meet people. I found a wife and a soulmate thanks to online dating. Maybe you can too.

What is it with people who insist on wearing a Bluetooth headset on the side of their head even when they aren’t talking to anyone? It’s a headset; not an earring! These people might as well wear a sign that says “I’m more important than you!”.