I don’t really have much this week. However, I did watch a video called The Commander In Chief Test. Granted, it’s humorous and in good fun, but it does illustrate one point: McCain doesn’t stand a chance of winning this election.
Anyone who has seen Zoolander will get the joke about the title of this post. Moving on…
The boys over at A List Apart are doing a little survey about web developers and designers. The results from their survey last year are pretty interesting. I’ll be curious to see how many more people are focused on information design and information architecture compared to last year.
If you’re in a web developer/design related field, take a few moments out and complete the survey. It doesn’t take long. I promise. Just click on the banner below to start:
The Free Software Foundation seems to be at it again with their attacks on Apple and the iPhone. DefectiveByDesign.org, a campaign of the FSF, has posted what they call the iPhone Challenge. In a nutshell, they want people to print out a handy questionnaire (mirror), walk into an Apple store, and attempt to get someone at the Genius bar to answer all their questions. Apparently it’s some sort of IQ test for the geek impaired.
So, am I up to the iPhone Challenge? You bet! I’ve already addressed most of these questions in a previous post that covered the FSF’s 5 Reasons to Avoid the iPhone. I’ll go ahead and answer them again and further clarify my answer if necessary. So, at that, let’s begin:
Why do all developers have to submit their applications to Apple before they can be loaded onto an iPhone?
Because Apple want to ensure that applications being installed on the iPhone meet certain standards and avoid having malicious applications in the wild. There’s an advantage to having one place where applications and updates get deployed. Rather than having to run around and check for updates from a variety of sources, you can simply check for updates in one place. That to me is a huge timesaver and ensures that when developers update their applications I’m going to know about it. Granted, the launch of the App Store didn’t go as smoothly as folks have liked. The timeframe it takes to get applications approved and posted by Apple is ridiculous right now.
Keep this in mind too: this is just the beginning and we have no idea what the plans are for the iPhone’s future. When the iPhone first launched, no one had any idea whether they would allow for native apps or not. Less that one year later and Apple is allowing native applications, even ones based on open-source software. However, Apple clearly wants this to be within a controlled environment for the time being in an effort to keep the flood gates from spilling over. Personally I think this is a wise move. I used a Treo before I moved to an iPhone and I can tell you from experience that the majority of applications for it were total crap, and that’s on a so-called open platform that allows people to install any application from any source. I’ll gladly take a smaller choice of quality applications over hundreds to thousands of crap ones any day.
As to the reason for your question, although it’s required to submit an application to the App Store, open-source applications are freely accepted. The only thing that isn’t free for developers is the iPhone Developer Program, which for most people is $99 a year for access to the SDK, support, and the ability to submit any number of applications to the App Store. That may sound like a lot but considering the fact that Linux distributors like Novell and Redhat charge for support this really isn’t any different.
Now, back to the point about the freedom to offer open-source software, consider WordPress for the iPhone. WordPress itself is distributed under a GPL license and I would imagine that the iPhone app will follow the same tradition since the source-code itself is available. You say that iPhone users are not permitted by Apple to share or load modified versions of programs distributed through the App Store but what’s to stop a developer from downloading a copy of the WordPress app, modifying it, and submitting it to the App Store as a different WordPress app? I’m sure we’ll starting seeing variations of different open-source apps sooner or later. Apple isn’t holding any developers at gunpoint; it’s just the fact that no one has done this yet. Too early to bitch just yet.
Why does iTunes still contain so much DRM-laden music?
Yes, companies like Amazon, eMusic, Napster, Rhapsody, Play.com, CDBaby, 7digital, and more are selling music without DRM, but so does Apple in the form of iTunes Plus non-DRM ACC encoded files. Now, you could argue that because Jobs has a lot of pull that he could get them to release all of Disney’s films without DRM, but get real. Regardless of what anyone might think, Steve Jobs does not rule all at Disney or Apple. He is a CEO. He is beholden to the stock holder and the customer. He has to make both happy. The choice on what to do with Disney’s films does not lie entirely with Jobs. And who is to say that he hasn’t already suggested eliminating DRM from films? We have no idea what has transpired behind closed doors at Disney. And besides, Jobs and Disney are in the business of making money. That’s what business is…making money! What gives you the right to tell them what they can and can’t do with their property? If they end up removing DRM they’ll do it to satisfy the customer’s desire to convert and view the media as they see fit.
As far as music is concerned, Apple has no say so as to what they can and can’t do with the music they sell. Plus, it’s not the job of the RIAA to tell Apple or any other music seller what they can and can’t do. They are entirely beholden to the music labels and publishers. Even though Amazon and others are selling DRM free music, if Sony, Warner, or any other big music label tells Apple, “You can’t sell our music without DRM”, then they must obey. It used to be that the RIAA was there to protect the artist. Now they are nothing more than an organization that protects the big music labels. Many people point fingers at the RIAA but they’re only doing what the big labels tell them to do.
If Apple could convert their entire catalog to iTunes Plus and sell everything DRM free they would…but the big labels refuse to allow them to do it. And why would they do that? Simple. They want a bigger piece of the pie. They would rather get exclusive contracts through other vendors that are willing to pay them more for their content than allow Apple to continue to have such a big piece of the market. So this has much less to do with DRM and more to do with corporate greed. The music industry is changing and the big music labels don’t like it because it means that their cash cow is shrinking.
The iPhone 3G has GPS support. How can users be sure that the GPS cannot be used to track their position, without their permission?
There are many smart phones on the market that have built in GPS; Nokia, Palm, RIM, Motorola, just to name a few. Do you distrust them too? If you’re gonna beat on Apple you might as well beat on them too. And what about all the stand-alone GPS units out there by companies like Garmin, Magellan, and others? Do we put them on high alert as well? Come to think of it, you could triangulate a person’s general location just by using cell phone towers and wireless networks. So, we should be really paranoid now since none of this stuff is powered by open source free software, right?
The thing about a privacy agreement is that it’s a contract. Contracts are bound by law. If a company was to violate their own contract then they would be sued. I’m sure there are plenty of GPS experts that are able to test different GPS devices, including the iPhone, to see if they are being used in mischievous ways. But, as it stands, Apple hasn’t violated their privacy agreement and the iPhone doesn’t do anything with the GPS without first asking you. That’s good enough for me. Till I hear otherwise I have no reason not to trust Apple right now.
In ‘Thoughts on Music‘, Steve Jobs said, “it is useful to remember that all iPods play music that is free of any DRM and encoded in ‘open’ licensable formats such as MP3 and AAC”.
The main reason why Apple hasn’t started supporting the Ogg formats is simply because the majority of users out there simply don’t have any desire to use the format. Apple and other companies that sell devices capable of playing digital music file are mainly concerned with the majority. Since over 80% of their customers use format like MP3 and ACC that is what sells. Like it or not, MP3 is the format most companies support simply because it was the first. After that came other formats like Windows Media, AAC, and others that, although not entirely open, were pushed heavily by the big tech and media companies. As such, formats like MP3 and AAC continue to rule the roost. Yes, some media players and phone support Ogg, FLAC, and other ‘open’ formats, but until a music store starts selling Ogg encoded music and gains enough popularity, I doubt you’ll see many media players and phones that will support Ogg.
Will Apple approve applications for the App Store that support these formats? That’s a good question. Personally, I don’t see any reason why they would block applications that allow for this. Heck, if you can write an application like FileMagnet that is capable of syncing files over a wireless connection to an iPhone, I don’t see any reason why you couldn’t do that with an Ogg player.
Why can the iPhone 3G only be activated by Apple and AT&T?
Apple is bound by contract to allow AT&T to be the exclusive provider of the iPhone for a period of two years. The reason why the iPhone isn’t available on other carriers is simply because those carriers didn’t want to play ball with Apple and allow them to retain full control over their phones. The same probably applies to other carriers around the world as well. The way Apple is handling the iPhone is unprecedented. No other cell phone maker has been able to retain as much control as Apple has. So in many ways Apple is helping the industry by breaking down barriers and getting customers to realize that the quality of the phone is just as important, if not more important, than the quality of the phone service.
As far as the right to unlock an iPhone, you can certainly buy one from AT&T without service…but it will cost you about an extra $200+ on top of the retail price. The reason is that, just like every other cell phone carrier, AT&T subsidizes the price of the iPhone with a two-year service agreement. As such AT&T will require you to pay more to offset this loss of revenue. Neat deal, huh! And, guess what…that’s how it is with just about every phone with ever other carrier. Cell phone carriers don’t talk about it much and don’t advertise it simply because it’s not a profitable way of doing business. So, don’t look to Apple to remedy this…look to the cell phone carriers. Bitch at them instead.
I have a few questions for the FSF:
Why just the iPhone? Why not pick on the Blackberry, Treo, or the Instinct?
These phones have just as many issues with proprietary software and hardware as the iPhone. And some of these, like the Instinct, won’t even allow you to install your own software anyways. My guess is that, just like Windows is to the desktop operating system market, the iPhone is the biggest target in the smart phone market. It’s the one getting the most attention and the most hype, thus the reason why the FSF choose to attack the hell out of it.
Rather than bitch, moan, whine, and complain about how the iPhone sucks, why doesn’t the FSF put their money where their mouth is and sponsor an open phone that’s worth buying? Sponsoring the OpenMoko was a mistake because it’s hardly worth any serious attention. [For those who have not seen the OpenMoko, read my blog post about it here] I seriously wouldn’t even bother trying to push that one as a worthy alternative to the iPhone or any other smart phone for that matter. Even when compared to other phones out there, the OpenMoko is crap. I about shit myself when I saw the price: $400! I paid $250 for my first iPhone. Why would I want to pay $400 for something that is severely inferior? And according to the OpenMoko wiki the only major carriers in the U.S. that provides service are AT&T and T-Mobile. Yeah, that’s a big choice there. Buying something like this and sacrificing so much quality and usability just for the sake of adhering to a misguided philosophy is just impractical for me, not to mention nuts.
There’s a reason why the iPhone, the Blackberry, and other smart phones have been so popular. It’s because they are well-designed and fit the needs of many consumers well. In the case of the iPhone, Apple touched on a nerve by creating something that is highly innovative. There is nothing like the iPhone out there, period. No one has created a touch screen interface that works as well as the iPhone. For other cell phone makers to compete, they really need to step up to the plate and create something extraordinary. Apple has raised the bar.
So I challenge the FSF:
Can you design an open phone that is as good or better than the iPhone?
If so, let’s see it. What I want to see is something extraordinary in terms of both hardware and software. I want to see something that shows that even open source developers can have standards and principles in the design of their products. I want to see something that is so polished, so well-designed, that people won’t believe that it’s an open source phone. If you believe you can do this then put your money where your mouth is and show me. Until such time as you or any organization that supports free and open software can produce a phone that is as good as the iPhone, I’m afraid just about all of your criticism is moot.
Late last week, Jason Linkins of the Huffington Post posted an article about Katie Couric’s recent interview with Barack Obama. Couric had done a recent interview with John McCain as well last week. Between the two interviews, I noticed a common thread between the two. First though, here’s the transcript of the interview that Linkins posted:
COURIC: Before the surge, as you know, Senator, there were 80 to 100 U.S. casualties a month, the country was rife with sectarian violence, and you raised a lot of eyebrows on this trip saying even knowing what you know now, you still would not have supported the surge. People may be scratching their heads and saying, “Why?”
COURIC: Before the surge, as you know, Senator, there were 80 to 100 U.S. casualties a month, the country was rife with sectarian violence, and you raised a lot of eyebrows on this trip saying even knowing what you know now, you still would not have supported the surge. People may be scratching their heads and saying, “Why?” OBAMA: Well … because … what I was referring to, and I’ve consistently referred to, is the need for a strategy that actually concludes our involvement in Iraq and moves Iraqis to take responsibility for the country.COURIC: But didn’t the surge … help do that?
OBAMA: Let me finish, Katie. What happens is that if we continue to put $10 billion to $12 billion a month into Iraq, if we are willing to send as many troops as we can muster continually into Iraq? There’s no doubt that that’s gonna have an impact. But it doesn’t meet our long-term strategic goal, which is to make the American people safer over the long term. If that means that we’re detracting from our efforts in Afghanistan, where conditions are deteriorating, if it means that we are distracted from going after Osama bin Laden who is still sending out audio tapes and is operating training camps where we know terrorists’ actions are being plotted. …
COURIC: All that may be true. But do you not give the surge any credit for reducing violence in Iraq?
OBAMA: No, no … of course I have. There is no doubt that the extraordinary work of our U.S. forces has contributed to a lessening of the violence, just as making sure that the Sadr militia stood down or the fact that the Sunni tribes decided to flip and work with us instead of with al-Qaeda - something that we hadn’t anticipated happening.
All those things have contributed to a reduction in violence. So this, in no way, detracts from the great efforts of our young men and women in uniform. In fact, that’s one of the most striking things about visiting Iraq is to see how dedicated they are, what a great job they do - all those things … are critically important. What I’m saying is it does not solve the broader strategic question that we have been dealing with over the last five, six, seven years. And that is how do we take the limited resources we have, both militarily and financially, and apply them in such a way that we are making America as safe as possible? And I believe that my approach is the right one.
COURIC: But talking microcosmically, did the surge, the addition of 30,000 additional troops … help the situation in Iraq?
OBAMA: Katie, as … you’ve asked me three different times, and I have said repeatedly that there is no doubt that our troops helped to reduce violence. There’s no doubt.
COURIC: But yet you’re saying … given what you know now, you still wouldn’t support it … so I’m just trying to understand this.
OBAMA: Because … it’s pretty straightforward. By us putting $10 billion to $12 billion a month, $200 billion, that’s money that could have gone into Afghanistan. Those additional troops could have gone into Afghanistan. That money also could have been used to shore up a declining economic situation in the United States. That money could have been applied to having a serious energy security plan so that we were reducing our demand on oil, which is helping to fund the insurgents in many countries. So those are all factors that would be taken into consideration in my decision– to deal with a specific tactic or strategy inside of Iraq.
COURIC: And I really don’t mean to belabor this, Senator, because I’m really, I’m trying to figure out your position. Do you think the level of security in Iraq … would exist today without the surge?
OBAMA: Katie, I have no idea what would have happened had we applied my approach, which was to put more pressure on the Iraqis to arrive at a political reconciliation. So this is all hypotheticals. What I can say is that there’s no doubt that our U.S. troops have contributed to a reduction of violence in Iraq. I said that, not just today, not just yesterday, but I’ve said that previously. What that doesn’t change is that we’ve got to have a different strategic approach if we’re going to make America as safe as possible.
Now watch what Couric and CBS News broadcasted:
Notice anything out of whack? They cut out the part where she asked the same question three times in a row. Not only did they cut up the interview, they did it to create a given context. I’m with Linkins on this one; it’s clear that Couric was attempting to lead Obama to a specific, defined outcome of her own choosing. This is the kind of reporting I can do without. Just like the interview with McCain, Couric and her team at CBS News seem fit to distort the news to their own context. That, my friends, is not good reporting.
Look, I don’t care who or what the news is about. It’s the responsibility of the reporter to report the news in an unbiased, unfiltered fashion. All I ask is that a reporter report the news and let me decide what I think about it. Otherwise the news becomes their news.
Couric and CBS News has given us their news with these interviews. It’s not their job to tell me what to think. It’s their job to tell me the facts and then follow it up with an opinion if they so choose. However, slick editing to create a context is not creating an opinion, rather its the creation of a lie. I know because I majored in video production. I know exactly how powerful good video editing can be.
Had Couric and CBS News simply shown the interviews as-is with no fancy cuts then I probably have more respect for them. Since they didn’t, I have no respect for Couric or CBS News. If the cuts were made to hide the fact the Couric didn’t ask good questions or wasn’t able to interview her subject properly then she should have asked better questions and conducted herself in a better fashion. But making cuts to favor a given opinion? Come on, Couric! If you can’t do better than that then put in your resignation!
When I first started this blog last October, I chose to use Movable Type instead of MODx to power it. It actually was a pretty difficult decision mainly because of my belief that MODx is a good solution for just about any scenario due to its inherent flexibility. However, my final decision was narrowed down based on one factor: the iPhone. Although I’m sure I could still find a way to use MODx and blog with an iPhone, I simply didn’t want to invest the time it would take to accomplish this goal. It would be nice if I could eat my own dogfood, but given that this was to strictly be a blog that I could post to on-the-go, it simply just wasn’t achievable at the time. A MODx installation just couldn’t beat the sheer speed of deployment and the use of an iPhone webapp plugin for Movable Type.
With the launch of the iPhone 2.0 update and the iTunes App Store, things have changed with the addition of a few blog specific native iPhone apps. Two in particular that I looked at was TypePad and WordPress for the iPhone. TypePad for the iPhone looks great but it only works with the hosted TypePad service. I have my own hosting provider and want to customize the hell out of my blog so…that’s a “no” for TypePad. What was noticeably absent though was a native app that would allow for blogging to your own installation of Movable Type as well as what these apps provide. That left WordPress for the iPhone.
For the nine months or so that I’ve used Movable Type, I can say that it’s a great blogging platform. However, there are two things that really bug me about it. First, publishing pages seems to take a long time and, at times, you have to republish your entire site to get everything to work. I’ve also noticed that Movable Type can cause a bit of a strain on a server when you do this. Now, I don’t know if the use of CGI scripts has anything to do with this behavior…but it did leave me a bit concerned about the stability of the app as my database gets bigger. Second, I planned on updating my template a bit but upon looking at the code kind of frowned at the idea of doing so in Movable Type. Although Movable Type has a very powerful templating engine it’s still not the easiest thing to develop for.
So I took another serious look at WordPress and, after looking at the new features in WordPress 2.6, was sold. Templating is much easier, content editing has been greatly improved, there’s a wealth of great plugins available, and overall WordPress has turned into a great blogging platform. And with the addition of a native iPhone app it’s even better. There’s just something about being able to take a picture with my iPhone and post it to my blog on the fly that I find very appealing.
As of today, my blog has been completely converted over to WordPress 2.6. One of the things I did was update the design a little bit using the 960 Grid System. It’s more or a work in progress so the design isn’t complete. However, the fact that I was able to throw it all together in a single weekend just amazes me. As time goes by you might notice a few things changing here and there.
The WordPress iPhone app is the really cool part. It’s a very simple app, really, but still powerful nonetheless. Although writing and posting blog posts is easy enough, it doesn’t appear that you can write in landscape mode just yet. Adding photos to a post is breeze, giving you the option to choose a picture from the iPhone photo gallery or take a new one from the built-in camera. The differences between TypePad and WordPress for the iPhone are very minimal. The main difference though is that the WordPress app allows you to use your own installation as opposed to using one that is hosted for you. That’s a big plus for me.
I’ve always said that the advantage of stand-alone apps is that they can do one thing really well. It may not be MODx but as a stand-alone blogging app WordPress is a great app. Hats off to the developers. They did a great job.
Ok, this is probably wrong on so many levels, but my wife and I laughed when we saw this:
It’s a “bitch in a box”! Get it? ;)
This week, John McCain has sunk himself into a pretty deep hole. The biggest hole though comes from an interview he had with Katie Couric on CBS News. Well…just watch for yourself and you’ll see what I mean:
What’s most troubling about this is the fact that CBS deliberately edited the interview. As to the motivations for doing so, I don’t know. This is a level of journalism though that is, frankly, complete and total bullshit. You either report the news as it is or you don’t. If you can’t bother to show me an unaltered, unbiased interview then don’t bother even reporting it.
Once the unedited version broke out though, many members of the media and press pointed out that McCain didn’t have his facts right regarding the Anbar Awakening and the surge in Iraq. It didn’t take long for McCain to respond to this bit of criticism. However, the response he gave was even more troubling:
Umm…what? I mean, what the f#$k is he even talking about? I have no idea!
And what is that behind him? Cheese! McCain be spoutin’ some cheese, man! Can I get some string cheese on my cracka, John!
Ok, ok. Maybe I took it a little too far in that last bit. But I digress.
The point is that McCain had no idea what he was talking about. But rather than simply admitting that he was wrong, he rambled on in an attempt to try and sound like he knew what he was talking about. That’s the absolute worst thing McCain could have done in this situation…and he did it anyways! That, my friends, is simply poor judgment.
Regardless of how anyone can attempt to fix McCain’s mistake, no matter how many ways you can try and spin it, McCain simply exercised poor judgment and failed to use three words that would have been a hell of a lot more respectful for him to say in this case: “I don’t know”. Instead, McCain chose to bullshit the American people rather than admitting his mistakes, which is not a good sign of proper leadership.
As much media coverage as Obama has received, you’d think that we would have heard Obama try and bullshit us just once. Ironically, I have not heard him talk about things for which he knew nothing about. He’s very good at articulating his thoughts and, in fact, I’ve heard Obama say “I don’t know” on a number of occasions. I respect that. I respect the fact that Obama has no problems admitting when he doesn’t know enough about a topic. I also respect him for admitting when he is wrong or when he mispoke and poorly phrased his statements, which doesn’t happen nearly as often as one would think. If anything, Obama has proven that he is human, that he’s going to make mistakes, but that he will learn through them and try not to repeat them. That, my friends, is a great sign of good leadership. Regardless of whether I agree with all his policies or not, he’ll have my vote.
Out of any office in the land, the one position where I feel that it’s critical that one be a good public speaker is the United States Presidency. Being a good speaker, though, is more than just being able to deliver a good speech. It’s also about being able to articulate your thoughts in an eloquent manner in the moment, whether that be in an interview, in front of a foreign dignitary, or another situation of equal importance. The President is, for all intents and purposes, the speaker for the American people both domestically and abroad. As such, he/she best be able to speak well in an effort to articulate properly the message of our government and, more importantly, the people.
John McCain simply isn’t a good candidate to represent our country. I’m amazed that so many Americans think of him as the safe choice. Why? How safe can he be when he can’t even say “I don’t know” and can’t admit that he doesn’t know enough to answer a specific question? If McCain were to become President, he would have to exercise good judgment each and every day. When he addresses the American people, he would have to use straight talk and tell the American people the truth each and every time.
As it is though, the only straight talk McCain is giving us is a straight talk about Jack and shit. Unfortunately for McCain though, Jack just left town.
Last week, the illustrious Ann Coulter did a blog post called THIS IS NOT A DRILL where she yet again takes people’s quotes out of context and doesn’t get the facts in an effort to make her enemy (which pretty much includes any Democrats and people who have even a slight liberal stance) look bad. When she gets it right she gets it mostly right. However, when she gets it wrong she gets it really wrong. Do two wrongs make a right? Let’s see:
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, or as she is called on the Big Dogs blog, “the worst speaker in the history of Congress,” explained the cause of high oil prices back in 2006: “We have two oilmen in the White House. The logical follow-up from that is $3-a-gallon gasoline. It is no accident. It is a cause and effect. A cause and effect.”
You’re only partially right, Ann. First, calling Nancy Pelosi the “worst” is a matter of opinion. Personally I don’t have much of an opinion of her really. But her quote was back in 2006. Things were much different two years ago. This quote in particular was in direct response to a plan that Bush outlined in an effort to cut gas prices. Bush’s plan seemed to assume that the pumps at the gast stations were the problem and had less to do with the big oil companies and the situation in the Middle East. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Explain this, Ann: Why are big oil companies getting no-bid oil contracts in Iraq? Even the New York Times said that no-bid contracts like this were unusual. And being that the current administration is all over Iraq, do you think maybe they had something to do with this? Even a little bit? Did Bush’s energy plan in 2006 have anything to do with this? Probably not…but it wouldn’t hurt to investigate it. Who the hell knows!
In response to the 2003 blackout throughout the Northeast U.S. and parts of Canada, Pelosi blamed: “President Bush and Rep. Tom DeLay’s oil-company interests.” The blackout was a failure of humans operating electric power; it had nothing to do with oil. And I’m not even “an oilman.”
Ah-ha! First misquote and misrepresentation of facts.
First of all, the 2003 blackout wasn’t just a “failure of humans”. An investigation found that a failure to trim some trees in parts of Ohio may have been the main cause. However, there was a software bug in the computer systems as well that caused all sorts of problems. The end result was a cascading failure of systems that caused a massive blackout.
This particular event caused rise of many questions regarding the need to upgrade and modernize power grids to avoid catastrophic failures such as these. Many members of congress urged Congress for legislation of a new energy bill. Pelosi herself was among these members. But the efforts were muddled with fights about oil drilling and subsidies for nuclear power and environmental issues. The Bush administration was concentrating its efforts on oil drilling with the energy bill, of which Pelosi replied:
President Bush and Tom DeLay put the interests of the energy companies before the interests of the American people by insisting we drill in A.N.W.R. and other environmentally sensitive areas rather than modernize our energy system.
So, as usual, Ann, you took someone out of context and didn’t read the facts. Don’t assume you know enough.
This must be why the Democrats are nominating B. Hussein Obama, who finished middle school three days ago and has less experience than a person one might choose at random from the audience of “American Idol.”
Obama is a hell of a lot smarter than you. You may have graduated from Cornell University with a law degree but it doesn’t look like you did much as a lawyer. Obama on the other hand graduated from Harvard, was a practicing attorney in Chicago, taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years, and became the Senator of Illinois in 1996. You can’t do all that if you’re a moron. This guy is smart! Smarter than me! Smarter than you! He has more enough experience. He knows a hell of a lot more about what the Constitution says and what it implies than you do. Do you? Hell, when is the last time you’ve even read the Constitution?
Announcing the Democrats’ bold new “plan” on energy last week, Pelosi said breaking into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve “is one alternative.” That’s not an energy plan. It’s using what we already have — much like “conservation,” which is also part of the Democrats’ plan.
No, that’s only one part an energy plan. More drilling is not a solution that has immediate effects. Even it we were to allow oil companies to start drilling in ANWR and other areas we won’t see that oil for at least another 5 years. Pelosi was calling on Bush to tap into the Strategic Petroleum Reserves now so that we can see some immediate effects on gas prices at least within the United States.
Conservation, efficiency and using oil we hold in reserve for emergencies does not get us more energy. It’s as if we were running out of food and the Democrats were telling us: “Just eat a little less every day.” Great! We’ll die a little more slowly. That’s not what we call a “plan.” We need more energy, not a plan for a slower death.
Right, because a Hummer that gets 12 MPG isn’t really a problem. And, um, an analogy about eating less? In a country that has a high rate of obesity that might not be a good analogy.
Conservation and efficiency is only a part of the plan but not an end to a means. No one can deny that using our energy more efficiently is a good thing. Hell, I use fluorescent light bulbs that have the output of a 60 watt light bulb and they only take up 16 watts. That’s the sort efficiency we’re talking about here.
But there’s more! Pelosi announced that the Democrats also plan to push for “an historic investment in biofuels, efficiency, conservation and the rest.” The “rest” is apparently what she called our “important and essential” investment in alternative energy.
That certainly would be historic: We would make history by throwing our money away on unproven energy boondoggles that have eaten up untold billions since the 1960s without producing a single net kilowatt of power while we all starve to death.
Sitting around and saying “Well, we can’t do that! That’s a waste of time!” isn’t a solution either, Ann. More oil and more drilling isn’t a solution. At the very least, investing in the research and development of alternative energy solutions is a start. Again, it’s not the end to a means. It’s just a start. That’s a whole lot better than nothing at all to me.
The proposal to use energy sources that don’t yet produce any energy is like the old New Yorker cartoon with Obama in Muslim garb — no wait, that was a different cartoon. The cartoon is: A scientist has written out his extremely complicated theory on a blackboard and is showing it to another scientist. The theory consists of numbers and characters and takes up the entire blackboard. About two-thirds of the way across, reading left to right, appear the words, “then a miracle happens,” followed by more numbers and characters.
No comment. You dissed both Obama and scientists in the same sentence. Next sentence.
That’s the Democrats’ plan to run cars on biofuels, solar and wind power: Then a miracle happens. The current Democratic mantra on energy is: “We can’t drill our way out of this problem.” Apparently their plan is to talk our way out of this problem.
You make it sound like that’s the only part of the plan. Yes, eventually we’ll be able to rely more on alternative energy sources…but we’re talking years down the line. Biofuels, solar, and wind power are only part of that. Democrats are right, we can’t just drill our way out of this problem because drilling would require five years till we see the results of that drilling. That’s five years we don’t have. Yeah, we could start it..but we would still need to think about what to do that would have immediate effects.
Democrats are also alleging that the oil companies are sitting on millions of acres of oil but are refusing to drill — presumably because oil company executives hate the American people and perversely don’t want to make money. Manifestly, those acres are being explored for oil or have already come up dry.
Because there is much about the oil companies that has many suspicious. Again, I already mentioned something about the no-bid contracts in Iraq. Oil companies are already profitable. And, yes, I do believe that they have reserves that they don’t want to tap into. Think about it. If you were an oil company and you remained profitable, would you want to tap into your reserves if you didn’t have to? No, you would not. You would hold onto your reserves until such a time as you are unable to get any oil from the Middle East or anywhere else for that matter. Think of them as reserved profits.
If the Democrats really wanted oil companies to find more oil, they’d allow oil companies to drill offshore and to drill in ANWR, which we happen to know is bursting with oil.
But they don’t. They don’t want drilling. They don’t want more oil. They want humans to ride bicycles and then to die. We deserve it: We were mean to the polar bears.
Sigh. Now you’re just being melodramatic. Next.
It’s good to know that in the middle of a crisis, the Democrats are still liars. As long as we’re fantasizing about “alternative” energy sources, what we really need is a car that runs on Democrats’ lies.
Again, no comment. This is about as hypocritical as it gets. Ann, your total neo-conservative views are blinding you to the fact that not all Democrats are liars any more than all Republicans are liars. And yet time and time again you yourself have lied in the form of misquotes, the misrepresentation of the facts, and a point of view that all Democrats are liars. It’s not healthy for the Republican party or for the conservative movement, Ann.
The problem is this: our energy policy sucks! And, quite frankly, I don’t care which side solves the problem. All I care about is that someone is actually attempting to get it done. If that means more drilling then do more drilling, but do it in a way that is still environmentally conscience. We do have the technology to drill in a way that is environmentally conscience; why isn’t anyone talking about that? If part of the solution requires tapping into the reserves to provide immediate economic relief then, dammit, just do it!
However, I’m still all for alternative energy sources and I think it would be highly foolish to not invest in the further research and development of these sources, proven or not. The solution to our energy problems is not just one solution; it’s an animal that is multi-layered. Till you understand that you’re never going to get it.
Next time, do your homework, Ann! You really need to get a grip.
P.S.: Read up on the Pickens Plan. Interesting stuff.
When the primaries began for the Presidential election, I tried to go into it with an open mind and look at each of the possible Presidential candidates without any political bias. However, I quickly discovered that there has been something about the Republican party that I simply didn’t like. Granted, I already had a disdain for the likes of President Bush and most of his administration, but there was something else. Something I couldn’t quite put my finger on until now.
Recently, I watched an episode of Bill Moyers Journal where Bill interviewed former Republican congressman Mickey Edwards and Ross Douthat, senior editor at The Atlantic. During the interview, it was Mickey Edwards that said a few things that really illustrated how I felt:
Republicans used to believe in a certain set of basic principles about divided powers, limited government. What happened is with the Bush presidency, we have become the exact opposite of what we used to stand for. So we may win elections but we are now standing for…an all-powerful presidency..limits on public civil liberties…So we’ve changed everything we believed in order to win elections.
Over the last seven years or so, little by little, it seemed that many of the civil liberties we take for granted were being taken away from us. For all intents and purposes our Constitution was stomped on and wasn’t treated with the respect and purpose that it deserved. History tells us that when once something like this happens that it’s difficult to reverse the damage.
Justice Kennedy said…in the Guantanamo case…the Constitution is not something to be set aside when it’s convenient.
And we have this tendency to do it. Every year as we do things like this, we lose a little more of our system of separated powers and checks and balances. And I’m not as sanguine as you are about the fact that we can go back to what the constitutional system was, which is how we protect our liberties.
It is this very thing that I was looking for out of the Republican candidates. Did they believe in the Constitution? Did they believe in protecting our liberties? Or was the false notion of protecting the security of our nation more important?
In essence, the very things I thought the Republican party stood for was being stripped away. I thought, “Surely these new Republican candidates would strive to regenerate it.” Unfortunately, that didn’t appear to be the case. About the only candidate that seemed to reflect true Republican values was Ron Paul, but even he wasn’t a perfect reflection of the party. The primaries came and went and the choice was narrowed down to a candidate that seemed to be closer to President Bush rather than a candidate who truly represented the party. How did that happen?
The problem is that the American people are being fed a different message about what the Republican party is really all about. They are being told that the Republican party is about true conservative values, traditional family values, preserving those values, and making the right choices to protect our freedom from enemies abroad. But is this really the Republican party? Is it a requirement that you be a member of the conservative movement to be considered a Republican? And is the definition of conservatism even accurate?
Many people when they think of conservative government, they automatically assume small government or simply less government. They also assume that being a conservative means that you are a part of the moral Right. However, Edwards said something that really puts it all in perspective:
Well, first of all, you know, I don’t think the rationale of the conservatism is small government. It’s limited government, but that doesn’t necessarily mean small. It means that there are areas that you cannot take government into. There are there are areas where the rights of the people are paramount. So…in the old system..before America, you had rulers and their subjects, right?
And the rulers told their subjects what to do. And our idea was…we’re going to be citizens, not subjects. And we’re going to tell the government what to do. And there are areas where the government’s not permitted to go. But within those areas the government can act. It - nothing that says it has to be a tiny government if the people themselves are willing to pay the taxes and to support certain activities for the government and it’s within the Constitution, that’s fine.
This is, to me, what the true definition of conservatisim really is in politics. It simply means a way of government that doesn’t go in places where it shouldn’t. It’s about protecting the individual and stepping in when individual rights are being effected. I feel that conservatism has more to do with the government seeking proper regulation and oversight rather than telling the people what to do.
The problem is that true conservatism has been taken over by neo-conservatives within the Republican party ranks in thanks to what Arianna Huffington calls the lunatic fringe:
The Right has been taken over… by the Neo-conservatives who have been wanting to invade Iraq for years. And as the result the Right of the Ronald Reagan era is no longer the Right. It’s now the Right of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter and Bill O’Reilly…They’ve hijacked America by hijacking public policy.
Folks like Limbaugh, Coulter, O’Reilly, and Sean Hannity of Fox News have done little for the Republican party and conservative movement other than showing its shortcomings. They have a tendency to twist, stretch, and distort the truth and outright lie in an effort to make themselves seem more right. And the sad thing is that doing so creates the form of hypocrisy that they are critiquing. Doesn’t make any sense to me.
Is the lunatic fringe the new face of the Republican party? If so, why aren’t there any true Republican denouncing the attitudes of these so-called members of the media. It’s a radical departure at best from what the Republican party used to be. I just don’t understand why so many people who claim themselves to be Republican and/or conservative find this to be perfectly acceptable.
Unlike the lunatic fringe, I firmly believe that having a particular political belief (conservative, liberal, or somewhere in-between) does not automatically mean you are part of a specific political party. I believe that regardless of whether you have liberal or conservative beliefs you can be a part of any political party. Liberals can be Republicans and conservatives can be Democrats and vice versa. In short, labels should mean nothing.
It boils down to this: Regardless of one’s political beliefs, anyone can have family values, have faith in one’s religion, and/or be patriotic. Whether you’re a Republican, Democrat, liberal, or conservative, it simply doesn’t matter. Being one or the other doesn’t automatically mean that a person thinks any more or any less of their country. It simply means that they have a slightly different way of looking at it that you do from a purely political perspective.
Last I checked we’re all Americans here. Everyone is entitled to one’s beliefs and opinions. It’s given to us by the Constitution. To take it for granted and allow any political system to tell you otherwise would be the very disaster our forefathers fought to keep from happening. Don’t forget that when deciding how you will vote in this election.
Yesterday, I talked about a member of the Free Software Foundation and his 5 reasons to avoid the iPhone. What struck me was that this guy is willing to sacrifice quality for the freedom from proprietary software and corporate ties. That kind of philosophy is all fine and dandy and I would applaud him for his efforts, but when I saw what he claimed was the alternative I couldn’t help but laugh. One look at the phone and interface told me everything I needed to know, that this thing was an absolute piece of shit.
Today, I watched a few videos by Dave Fayram off of the Vimeo site where he reviews and shows a comparison of the OpenMoko powered FreeRunner and the iPhone. It’s very clear that this phone has absolutely no comparison to the iPhone:
OpenMoko Train Wreck from Dave Fayram on Vimeo.
Wow! The keyboard alone has me wondering what the hell the developers were thinking. And the shitty scrolling? Please. Even if I shared the same philosophy as the FSF, an interface like that would be completely unacceptable to me. I wouldn’t use it. Period.
Plus, the thing is practically twice as thick as an iPhone. In fact, I think it’s even thicker than the Treo 750 I used to use. The thing resembles a f@#king hockey puck for Pete’s sake. Talk about a really shitty form factor!
More OpenMoko Train Wrecking (Now with Qt!) from Dave Fayram on Vimeo.
My god, is that interface slow!
And it doesn’t play MP3’s? Really? The most popular audio file format and it doesn’t play it. But, hey, it plays Ogg Vorbis files! Awesome! Now I can convert all my existing MP3 and ACC encoded files into Ogg files and waste more time just so my music can sound more shitty. Great idea!
And how many times does he have to tap the same button before it does anything? I mean, really, come on! That by far is one of the biggest blunders of interface design I’ve ever seen! Instant show stopper in my book.
Text entry is God awful. I’ve used Treo’s, played with Blackberry’s, and many, many other types of smart phones and I’ve never seen text entry as bad as this. What a f@$king joke!
I know what the guy from FSF would respond with to my post. He would say that to buy an iPhone or any other phone that requires proprietary software would go against his philosophy. That’s fine. If that’s what you believe and you don’t want to have anything to do with any phone like that then that’s your choice. But to make unfounded claims in an attempt to prove your point is a big mistake. Until you’ve used these phones and really have taken the time to understand what these phones are really all about then how can you have any sort of educated opinion.
The thing I’ve learned is that even though I support open source software I know that it’s unrealistic to think that all software can be open and free. Hell, it’s highly unrealistic to think that you can avoid any proprietary corporate ties in this day in age. Just about everything you use and buy is proprietary in some way or has ties to a corporation. People work to make money. Corporations exist to make money. Regardless of whether you’re developing open source or proprietary software the whole point in doing it is to make money in some shape, fashion, or form. Open source software survives not because of its openness but because developers have found way to profit off it and have learned that good product design is a must if you are to compete with companies that develop proprietary software.
Again, I bought an iPhone because I wanted the best phone I could buy that would suit my needs and integrate into my lifestyle well. The iPhone is the best phone for me. Now, whether it’s the best phone for someone else, well, that’s a matter of personal preference and taste. Apple didn’t put a spell on me. I didn’t buy one just because of all the hoopla surrounding it. No, I bought it because I feel it’s the best smart phone out there. If anyone making open source software for smart phones wants to compete they’re going to have to really create something extraordinary, something so well designed that your average layman simply has to have it. That’s what Apple did with the iPhone. Sure, marketing and advertising helped, but even then the product speaks for itself. Can OpenMako do the same with the FreeRunner?
To say that a FreeRunner is SO much better just because it’s open and supports the philosophy of the FSF, that’s a delusional statement at best. I just don’t get the willingness to sacrifice useability and good design on a somewhat misguided philosophy. The FreeRunner is so poorly designed in both hardware and software I just don’t understand how anyone can look at it and say that it’s an acceptable product. Claiming it to be good enough is accepting mediocrity based on a misguided belief over the use of open source software, which is something I absolutely refuse to do. Now, if it is perfectly acceptable to you then buy one and use it. If not, you will have no choice but to consider a proprietary phone. As it stands though I will likely never ever use anything that resembles the FreeRunner simply because it is mediocre. It it was something that actually came close to the iPhone I could see it, but otherwise I’ll pass.
Keep your piece of shit open phone. I’m perfectly happy with my proprietary phone, thank you very much.
