Steamd

Yesterday, I finally had my fill of Windows Vista and gave it the one-fingered salute by hitting the delete key. I’ve never seen more problems in succession with any other operating system. Just wasn’t worth the hassle. A little bit of background on the issue.

I’m a Mac user and have been for nearly a year now. But I’m also a web developer and still need to use Windows to test sites with Internet Explorer. As such, I use Parallels Desktop to run Windows in a virtualized environment. Upside of this is that I can run both the Mac OS and Windows without having to reboot. I run a copy of Windows XP to test a variety of browsers in Windows as well as my ComicBase comic book database software since there is no Mac equivalent. I was also running a copy of Vista so that I could test both Firefox 3.0 and the latest Internet Explorer 8 beta.

Even before yesterday, I had problems running Vista right on my Mac. By comparison to XP, Vista runs like a dog in Parallels. It’s slow, sluggish, and takes forever to start. Granted, I’m on a Mac mini with 2 gigs of RAM so Vista doesn’t stand a chance of running quite as well anyways. But XP runs quite well and is quite snappy. I just don’t see why Vista couldn’t be the same.

First problem I encountered yesterday was a lovely message telling me that my copy of Vista was “not genuine”:

I know damn well that my copy of Vista is “genuine” because I have a CD that Microsoft themselves sent me in the mail. So I clicked the link, which opened up a page in Internet Explorer, and let it update the Windows Genuine Advantage software and activate Windows. Even now, I have no clue as to why this popped up in the first place. Didn’t make any significant changes to Windows or nothing. Just popped up out of the blue.

Next, I figured I’d go ahead and check for updates since I don’t keep Vista running long enough to allow it to update itself. So off I go into the control panel. Seems like every time I visit the new control panel I have to pause and wonder why it’s a confusing mess. I mean, compared to XP, I feel like I can’t find anything. After that, I end up spotting what I wanted and double-click it.

With Vista, Microsoft no longer uses the Windows Update website. If you try and visit the Windows Update site in Vista all it does is automatically open the Windows Update applet from the control panel. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing but it would be nice to have a choice.

One this is for certain though: updates take forever to complete in Vista! It took a while to get a list of the updates required. I’m not talking about just a few minutes here. I’m talking like more than five minutes. I mean, what is it doing that requires that much time just to get a list of updates for my machine? By comparison both my Mac and Linux are lightning fast when it comes to looking up available updates.

Once I do get a list of updates, apply them takes even longer. In this case, there were about 17 updates totaling about 100 megs. The download of the updates didn’t take long but apply them certainly did. Now, I understand that updates can take a bit to apply on any operating system. But the time it takes on Vista is ridiculous. I’ve always had a problem with the way patches and updates are applied in Windows. They even take too much time in XP and almost nearly require a reboot every time. So I let Vista finish the updates and reboot my virtual machine.

Upon rebooting, I was greeted with and black screen with white letters telling me that Vista could not boot due to a missing file and that I would have to use my Vista DVD to repair the installation. Sigh. Lovely. Another 15 to 20 minutes wasted. So I boot in with my DVD, repair the thing, and it slowly boots onto the desktop again.

At first, I didn’t see anything but a black screen with some text in the bottom-left that indicated that my copy of Vista was “non-genuine”. “Not that again!”, I thought. I was completely locked out so…I shut down the virtual machine and restarted it.

This time I got it to boot onto the desktop and, guess what? Another “not genuine” message! Isn’t that lovely! This time it wouldn’t even let me do anything till I validate and re-activate Vista:

Uh oh! Run to the hills! The Vista police are coming to take you away because you might be a victim of software counterfeiting! The Vista terrorists have struck again!

At this point I just threw up my hands and said, “That’s it!” I immediately shut down Vista and deleted the image off my computer. After all, I don’t really need Vista to test Firefox 3.0 and Internet Explorer 8. Another image of Windows XP will do just fine for that task. 

I mean, really…does it have to be this hard and difficult to keep Vista running smoothly? I didn’t even use it that often but when I did it was like pulling teeth with each use. As to when I might use Vista again for testing, I have no idea. That day may not come until it’s absolutely, positively necessary. Until then though I’ll keep using XP for as long as I have to. 

So Microsoft gets an official one-fingered salute for giving me such a bloated piece of crap. Have a nice day.

Yesterday, I read an article on Ars Technica that really made me laugh:

Leaked memo: e-mail recovery will outlast Bush presidency

In a nutshell, millions of emails were lost between 2003 and 2005 for which thousands of them will likely never be recovered. The reason? Because the Bush IT shop decided to use Microsoft Exchange:

Archiving of government e-mail communications is required by federal law, yet the Bush administration has struggled since 2002 to comply with the requirement. The administration inherited a working archival system from the Clinton White House. But when the Bush IT shop decided to switch from a Lotus Notes-based e-mail system to one based on Microsoft Exchange, it broke compatibility with that software. Since then, the White House has repeatedly tried and failed to develop a new system. It first tried to retrofit the old Notes-based system to work with Exchange, but concluded that the approach was unworkable. It then took bids to design a new Exchange-based archiving system. According to one whistleblower, that system was finalized in 2006, but was reportedly mothballed at the last minute by White House CIO Theresa Payton, who cited vague performance concerns.

This is so laughable that it isn’t even funny. They ended up trying to implement a manual solution using the journaling feature in Outlook and Exchange. Not only is the Bush administration incompetent…but so is the IT staff! I only have two words for the Bush IT Administrator: Backup Exec!

I was an IT Supervisor at a small architectural firm for almost four years and one of the things I did while I was there was deploy an Exchange 2003 server. We were well aware of the requirement to backup and archive any email due to discoverability laws in effect that would require any and all email and documents to be put into question should a lawsuit occur. Thus backups were critical to the successful deployment of the server. If backups didn’t work we couldn’t deploy it. It was that simple.

The solution for us was Backup Exec. Not only did it allow us to do a full backup of our files every week with incrementals throughout the week but it also allowed us both full and incremental backups of our Exchange mailboxes as well. Although recovery was a pain in the ass, it was possible to restore a mailbox in its entirety should the need arise. Newer versions of Backup Exec are capable of more granular restore options, even down to the restoration of just a single email.

Even then, archiving email was a pain in the ass because everyone wanted to keep everything in their inbox. The question was: How do we archive email without it being in someone’s mailbox? The solution would have to be something that allowed you to move email out of your mailbox and into a repository that allowed for backing up and archiving email. Many solutions exist but the one we ended up deploying also happened to be a good project management solution: Newforma. Not only could employees store old emails for future retrieval but they could store them by project along with other important features that helped in managing the project. And since each email was stored in a file system as unique individual files, keeping routine backups was a no-brainer. Also, retrieving an old email couldn’t be any easier since all of it was indexed and completely searchable, even attachments. Newforma is just one solution for email archiving but I’m sure something just as robust and easy to use exists as well.

You’d think that out of any IT environment that the White House would have the best IT staff money can buy, right? I mean, this is the top-level of our government we’re talking about here. I can’t think of any place where the IT needs would require more attention and more care. The Bush IT staff can blame their problems on anything they want but I know better. Just because they’re using Microsoft Exchange doesn’t mean that there isn’t a way to keep routing backups of all emails. That simply just isn’t the case. I just can’t believe that the IT staff in the White House is as incompetent as the Bush administration itself. Go figure.

When I heard that Microsoft has hired Jerry Seinfeld to do some Vista commercials, I didn’t quite know what to think. I mean, how exactly does Seinfeld relate to Microsoft’s core product? This is the guy who had a TV show about “nothing” with episodes talking about the “Soup Nazi”. Don’t get me wrong; I loved Seinfeld. [Don't get me started on talking about the dangers of chip double-dipping.] Granted, they may create some pretty funny commercials and it’ll all be in good fun. But does Microsoft really think they’ll be able to capture the same magic that is inherent in many of the “I’m a Mac” commercials?

Last month, Microsoft posted a website about a project called The “Mojave Experiment”, where they duped a bunch of people into thinking they were looking at a new version of Windows code named Mojave when they were really just looking at Vista all along. The problem with how they marketed The “Mojave Experiment” is that it’s just so blood subjective.

Some of the people who participated didn’t seem all that genuine, nor did they seem like the kind of candidates that most people would care about. Most of them just seemed…well…generic. I mean, which of them were business professionals, college students, power users, and/or information workers? When it comes to Windows users, those are the people you should be concerned about. Granted, your average home user is greatly important, but it’s the movers and shakers in the industry that you should be even more worried about because they’re the ones who recommend solutions to your average user. It just would have been nice to know who these people are and why a solution like Vista is so important to them.

Also, from the very beginning, you hear everyone talking about their initial perceptions of Vista, how they think it’s bad. So right from the get-go you’re hearing negative, negative, negative before you get to anything positive. That’s just bad editing and bad execution. It would have been much better to have heard some positives before talking about bad perceptions. People’s attention spans are small so you have to get to the point relatively quickly.

Another problem with this sort of campaign is that it’s a uphill battle. It’s like the Pepsi Challenge of Windows with Vista on one side and…uh…Vista on the other. Rather than focusing on how to make their own product better they’d rather spend their time and money on trying to get people think that Vista is better than what they think. The thing is though is that, although some of the issues surrounding Vista are just perceived issues, a lot of them aren’t and I think Microsoft knows it. Thus the reason for the Pepsi Challenge to begin with. 

And with Seinfeld on board, Microsoft will spend an estimated $300 million dollars their ad campaign to reinvigorate the public perception of Windows Vista, $10 million of which will go to Seinfeld. As Ryan Tate of Gawker pointed out:

Yes, because if there’s one surefire way to convince everyone Vista is cool, cutting edge and not liable to get frazzled by life’s minor complications, it’s hiring a 1990s sitcom star and professional kvetcher! Who, um, very visibly owned a series of Macs on his show.

Yep, rather than spending the $300 million on developing a better product, Microsoft would rather spend it on having a comedian tell you absolutely nothing about a product that you already know enough about in the first place. Microsoft isn’t just battling perception issues with Vista, they’re also battling perception issues with themselves.

Recently, I read an article on Reuters about how Obama ripped McCain for joking that $5 million is a fit definition for being rich. But it wasn’t the article that caught my eye but rather a comment left by a reader:

If you want 4 more years of George Bush policies, vote for McCain. If you like the price of oil, google the enron loophole, and see how Phil Gram (McCains econimic advisor) gamed the system. Google the Keating 5 and John McCain. Google McCain cheating on his wife. Google McCain graduating at the bottom of his class. This guy is not qualified to be president.

Pretty bold statements. But is he right? Let’s see what Google reveals.

Phil Gramm and the Enron Loophole

Sounds like a title from a serialized mystery novel series, doesn’t it. Given that Phil Gramm is/was John McCain’s top economic advisor, there’s a certain level of scrutinization to be made with this guy. Although McCain claims that Gramm is no longer part of his campaign that still doesn’t mean that Gramm still doesn’t play an influence behind closed doors. The real question is: What role has Phil Gramm played in our political system?

In 1999, then Senator Phil Gramm worked on a bill known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that would effectively gut the Glass-Steagall Act. The end result would be that commercial banks, investment banks, and insurers would be allowed to merge, an act that would have violated antitrust laws under the Glass-Steagall Act. Gramm was the primary sponsor of this bill since he had received over $4.6 million in donations from different finance, insurance, and real estate institutions over the previous decade. After the Act was passed, many banks and other financial institutions merged almost immediately, as if they were just waiting for this legislation to be passed.

To make matters even worse, Gramm, along with four other co-sponsors, helped draft and pass the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. Part of this bill, what has become known as the “Enron Loophole“, exempts energy speculators who make trades electronically from US regulation. The loophole was drafted by Gramm in cooperation with lobbyists for the Enron Corporation. This little loophole is what many claim to be the very thing that allow for the Enron scandal to happen. But the real kicker is that, at the time when the bill was drafted, Gramm’s wife was on Enron’s board of directors.

After his Senate career, Gramm was (or still is) a vice-chairman for UBS, a Swiss-based investment bank. At the time when Gramm was advising McCain, Gramm was being paid by UBS to lobby Congress about the current mortgage crisis. Because of his association, Gramm has been partially blamed for helping to deregulate the banking industry that allowed financial institutions like UBS to practice the sort of predatory lending practices that cause the mortgage crisis to begin with. 

Obama has called for the closing of the “Enron Loophole“. Then again, so has McCain. But the question is: Why would McCain allow someone like Gramm to offer him economic policy advice given Gramm’s record? Doesn’t make any sense.

The Keating Five

During the U.S. Savings and Load crisis in the 80’s and 90’s, a gentleman named Charles Keating was being investigated for the corrupt mismanagement of the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association in Irvine, California. Due to the deregulation of savings and load associations in the early 80’s, Keating was able to make highly risky investments with money from deposits in the form of land, equity in real estate development projects, and high-yield junk bonds. By 1984, Lincoln’s assets had increased from $1.1 billion to $5.5 billion. In the end, Keating served a five year sentence in prison due to his corrupt practices.

So what does this have to do with McCain? As it turns out, McCain knew Keating prior to the scandal breaking out and became personal friends with Keating after meeting in 1981. Since then, McCain received $112,000 in political contributions from Keating and McCain’s wife, Cindy, and her father invested $359,100 in a Keating shopping center a year before McCain met with regulators. 

The story broke and five Senators (Alan Cranston, Dennis DeConcini, John Glenn, Donald W. Riegle, and John McCain) were being accused of improperly aiding Keating. The reason for these accusations was due to a meeting that the five Senators had with regulators in 1987 to discuss the government’s investigation of Lincoln. It wasn’t until this meeting that McCain and others learned that Lincoln was under criminal investigation, at which point McCain severed all ties with Keating. 

McCain was cleared of any wrong doing but even McCain himself admitted that it looked bad. If anything, McCain was guilty of having bad judgement in his affiliation with Keating and allowing himself to be entangled in a very unusual meeting with regulators.

Ditching the First Wife

I wouldn’t go so far as to say that McCain has had a problem with infidelity. Although it’s true that McCain urged his first wife, Carol, to grant him a divorce so that he could marry Cindy, it is not known whether his marriage was already estranged prior to him dating Cindy. As far as anyone knows, him and Carol remain on good terms. Whether he cheated on Carol or not is mere speculation. No know knows the full details except him and his family. Quite frankly, regardless of whether anyone likes McCain or not, this isn’t really anyone’s business anyways. He’s now married to Cindy and has been married to her for quite sometime.

Underachiever?

McCain has joked in the recent past that he graduated in the bottom fifth of his class. Although this isn’t all that critical now, it is ironic that McCain’s academic achievements aren’t great, especially considering that he’s a candidate for the President of the United States. McCain attended the United States Naval Academy where he had conflict with higher-ranking personnel, didn’t always obey the rules, and ended up with a low class rank (894 of 899). Showing little interest in improving, McCain did well in subjects that he was interested in but only did enough to pass the sujects he didn’t like. McCain graduated in 1958 and went on to serve as a naval pilot on the USS Intrepid and USS Enterprise.

So what does all this mean? For starters, no one can question McCain’s military record. There’s no doubt in my mind that McCain has served his country well while in the Navy. And there’s no question that McCain has a wealth of experience due to the 16+ years of time he has spent in Congress. But what I question though is the 16+ years he has spent in Congress. Do we really need someone who has spent that much time as a Senator in the White House? It’s clear that McCain has made a few poor choices in judgement and, granted, no one is perfect. But stack that up against some of the folks McCain has associated himself with recently and in the past and you start to wonder whether he’s fully qualified to serve the highest office in the land. 

By comparison, Barack Obama may not have as much experience nor the military record McCain has, but what Obama does bring is an impressive academic background (with 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor), a sense of integrity and vision, and a determination to work with all members of Congress to solve this countries biggest problems. Given the severity of the problems in the United States, I honestly believe that the “safe choice” isn’t all that safe. Take a chance, have a little faith, and vote for Barack Obama.

InfoWorld has some interesting statistics about how many businesses are using Vista now that Microsoft is no longer selling XP. According to their stats, Vista is dropped in favor of XP for 1 in 3 business PCs. What’s the reason? As John Gruber of Daring Fireball joked, “They just haven’t realized yet how awesome Vista really is.”

The real reason is a loophole in the Vista license that allows for downgrading to Windows XP. Granted, it still qualifies as a Vista license but at least users can downgrade if they wish.

The other reason is the hardware requirements needed to properly run Vista. Realistically, to run Vista right you really need about twice the RAM of what was acceptable with XP and a juicy processor to boot. Unless you’re running with a minimum of two gigs of RAM and at least a fairly current processor from the last few years or so, be prepared to watch Vista run like a dog. For businesses where performance is critical this simply isn’t acceptable.

Take the architectural industry for instance. There is a growing trend towards the use of BIM capable software like Revit and Bentley Architecture. These programs require a lot of juice to run due to large project files and on-the-fly 3D rendering. As such, available physical memory and processing is critical to ensure that these programs run smoothly. Any major hiccups and you run the risk of your workers sitting around twiddling their thumbs. Time is money so the more efficient they are able to work the better.

Current 32-bit operating systems can only handle a maximum of 4 gigs of RAM. Now, when you put that in perspective with the overhead taken up by an idle copy of Vista running compared to XP you can see the problem. My own personal copy of Vista takes up a little over 380 megs of physical memory, and that’s with it running nothing but antivirus software. What about Windows XP running the same antivirus software? A little over 190 megs. That may not seem like much but it is relative because a running program can take up not only the necessary memory needed to run itself but additional memory required by the operating system for additional resources and sub-system overhead (video, audio, etc.). As such, running something like Revit in Vista might be a completely different experience when running it in XP. The resources required in Vista could skyrocket due to the extra footprint of the video subsystems needed for 3D rendering alone.

So what’s the solution? For starters, a faster computer with more memory. Another step up would be 64-bit processing which would allow for up to 16 gigs of RAM and plenty of processing power. But this is an added expense, one that many companies aren’t willing to partake in just yet.  It’s one thing if you’re an architectural firm and already have equated in the expense in your budget. But not every company is like this and thus the need to go to a 64-bit platform simply isn’t in the cards. So what do you do? You downgrade until such a time when it is in the cards. 

For Microsoft, the reality of the situation just hasn’t quite hit them yet. If they had released a version of Windows that was more powerful than XP, more secure, but just as efficient things probably would have been different. More companies would have been more keen to upgrade. But as it stands, companies are taking the safer route and only upgrading on an as-needed basis. As such, it’s no surprise that only 2 out of 3 business PCs are running Vista.

Who knows. Maybe next year we’ll hear that 2 out of 5 business computers are running Leopard.  ;)

In a recent blob post, I talked about an email I received that claimed that Obama had mocked the bible. This was based on Obama’s ‘Call For Renewal‘ keynote address. I recently have been chatting about this with a relative of mine about what Obama said in this address. I’m not going to say which relative because I feel that he/she is rightfully entitled to his/her opinion. I love my relatives no matter what they think. It’s ok to disagree, don’t you think?

What surprised me was that I received a response that said that Obama’s comments were the most arrogant comments ever made by a politician and that he’s so far off base that it’s scary. Furthermore, Obama describing the Sermon on the Mount,  one of the greatest sermons ever given, as being radical apparently is a sign of arrogance as well. But what really struck me more than anything is the notion that our nation is based on Christian principles.

My relative is not alone in this way of thinking. There are many other Christians out there who feel that their heritage is being taken away from them, that we as a nation have lost our identity, and that our world was a better place when it was under the influence of Christianity. Thus they feel we should bring back the Majority Rule, bring back prayer in public schools, and overturn any liberal interpretations of the Constitution that supposedly restrict religious practices. 

So who’s right? The Christian Right? Or Obama? Let’s look at what Obama said again:

While I’ve already laid out some of the work that progressive leaders need to do, I want to talk a little bit about what conservative leaders need to do — some truths they need to acknowledge.

For one, they need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice. Folks tend to forget that during our founding, it wasn’t the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of the First Amendment. It was the persecuted minorities, it was Baptists like John Leland who didn’t want the established churches to impose their views on folks who were getting happy out in the fields and teaching the scripture to slaves. It was the forbearers of the evangelicals who were the most adamant about not mingling government with religious, because they did not want state-sponsored religion hindering their ability to practice their faith as they understood it.

Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America’s population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson’s, or Al Sharpton’s? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let’s read our bibles. Folks haven’t been reading their bibles.

This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Personally, I don’t think these statements arrogant at all. The main underlying point he was making is that he is a man of faith and his Christian beliefs and relationship in God is very important to him. One’s faith does have a role when making decisions in politics. However, the position a politician takes must be more universal in nature. Politicians can’t make decisions that are entirely based on their beliefs. There are other factors involved.

And Obama’s mention of the Sermon on the Mount was referring to the fact that if our government was to run by the Word then Jesus’ words like “rest not evil”, “turn the other cheek” and the “Golden Rule” then we would seize to have a military. Well, maybe no seize but it definitely would be for defense only. It’s “radical” only because so many claim to believe it and yet their actions say otherwise. The Sermon on the Mount has been one of the main sources for Christian pacifism, wouldn’t you say? Given the activities of our Defense Department, the idea of running our government based on the Sermon of the Mount is a radical departure from how things are now. If they did then they would have never invaded Iraq, and action that went against the teachings of Jesus Christ in so many ways. Let’s look a little bit at what the Sermon of the Mount says:

Matthew 5:

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.’
39 “But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
40 “If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.
41 “Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.
42 “Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.’
44 “But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
46 “For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?

Wouldn’t invading a country under the guise of imminent threat go against the principles of love your enemy and turn the other cheek? To me, imminent threat means that our enemy is going to attack our country directly. Was there any evidence at all that would suggest this in the case of Iraq? At all? No, there wasn’t. Then how can anyone who claims to be a Christian not find fault in this? It would seem that the Obama is merely pointing out the fallacy of many Christians: that they don’t read their Bibles and thus are hypocritical in many ways. The irony is that these principles are not shared with Christianity alone. Other religions have very similar pacifist teachings. Both the Quran and Torah have similar messages as well as the teachings of Buddha. To say that these beliefs and philosophies are unique strictly to Christianity would be a very arrogant notion.

Christianity has been split along many lines for years even before the United States won its freedom and drafted the Constitution. Religious persecution existed as well and thus minority Christians like Baptists, Mormons, and others struggled to maintain their religious freedom. John Leland may not have had direct involvement with the writing of the First Amendment but he was among many Baptists who was very vocal and campaigning for that freedom. He is just one example of someone who represented a group people who wished to have religious freedom. The intent wasn’t to create a wall where religion couldn’t enter politics at all. That would be unrealistic. Rather it was a separation by a more permeable barrier where everyone’s beliefs would be honored. The fear was that state sponsored religion would have caused an opposition to some of the more progressive ideas of the time…like folks who wanted to teach the Bible to slaves.

If we are a Christian nation based entirely on Christian principles then we are going down a very slippery and dangerous road. What parts of the Bible are to become the law of the land? The Old Testament? The New Testament? King James version? Or the New American Standard? And who decides how it should be interpreted? The Pope? Billy Graham? Al Sharpton? Jerry Falwell? And what about other religions? What if certain laws go against other people’s religion? Do we just say, “Tough tiddy! We’re a Christian nation! Get used to it!“? This is the sort of thing that our First Amendment is supposed to protect. And if our government is oppressing your right to practice your religion then maybe you should do something about it. Personally, I fight for the freedom to practice all religions and not just Christianity. American Muslims, Buddhist, Jews, Hindus, even agnostics and atheists; they all have a right to practice their religion (or lack of religion) by the rights granted to them as native citizens of the United States and the First Amendment. After all, if there’s one thing that Jesus Christ was about it was tolerance. And love of course.

Finally, the idea that “liberal” automatically means “lack of morals” or “godless” (as Ann Coulter would have you believe) is ridiculous. Not that that’s what all conservatives believe but lately I’ve heard this very thing from many, many others and it’s just a lie. Separate the religion from the politics for a second. The only thing that really separates a liberal from a conservative is the fact that one side favors a more progressive approach than the other. That’s it. Doesn’t mean that one side is less religious than the other or is more socialist over the other. It just means that one side wants to do things in a more traditional manner and the other side is open to more progressive ideas. However, just because someone favor a more liberal stance in politics doesn’t automatically mean that their religious beliefs are liberal in nature as well. There are many issues both politically and religiously that I could have a conservative versus a liberal point of view on.

Case point, the very same relative for which I’m basing the post on actually described John McCain, the Republican candidate for the President of the United States, as being too liberal. Aren’t Republican’s supposed to all be conservative? Does that mean that McCain is any less religious? No, it doesn’t. Just because McCain is being described as too liberal doesn’t automatically mean that his faith comes into question. It just means that McCain isn’t as traditional as maybe he should be in my relative’s eyes.

But that’s politics for you. Everyone has an opinion and just about everything is subject to interpretation. And, let’s face it, the Constitution isn’t the only thing that is subject to so much interpretation. So is the Bible, Quran, Torah, and just about every other religious book or document. Wouldn’t you agree?

Got this in my inbox the other day:

Hot on the heels of his explanation for why he no longer wears a flag pin,
presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama was forced to explain why he
doesn’t follow protocol when the National Anthem is played.

According to the United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171,
During rendition of the national anthem when the flag is displayed, all present
except those in uniform are expected to stand at attention facing the flag
with the right hand over the heart.

‘As I’ve said about the flag pin, I don’t want to be perceived as taking
sides,’ Obama said. ‘There are a lot of people in the world to whom the
American flag is a symbol of oppression. And the anthem itself conveys a
war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all. It should
be swapped for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song
‘I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing.’ If that were our anthem, then I might
salute it.’

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this could possibly be our next president!!
I, for once, am speechless. He has absolutely NO pride in this country!!!!!
This is outrageous!!!! He doesn’t deserve to be dogcatcher!!!

(Oh, sorry dogcatchers, I mean you no disrespect.)

LET’S SEND THIS CLOWN DOWN THE ROAD KICKING ROCKS, AND HOPEFULLY HE WILL HIDE UNDER ONE OF THOSE ROCKS!

Outrageous? Absolutely outrageous because the problem with this is that Barack Obama never said that. The quote is actually from a satire written from a columnist. The only clown here is the guy who originally wrote this email.

Have a Coke and a smile!

Today, my mother forwarded me an email she received from a friend entitled Obama mocking the Bible. Included was a link to a YouTube video and the following words:

DEFFINATALLY SHOWS HE IS NOT A CHRISTIAN !!!!! THIS IS A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY !!! DO NOT LET HIM CHANGE IT!!!!!!!!!!

It’s clear that this person is ignorant, not just because he/she can’t spell but because his/her viewpoints are way out in left-field. And as Obama pointed out it’s as if people like this take pride in their ignorance.

Here’s the video in question:

The problem with this video is that the whole thing is taken completely out of context. In no way did Obama mock the Bible in any shape, fashion, or form. Anyone who has heard or read this speech would know that he was talking about the problems associated with religion and politics, the importance of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, and the importance religion has in many people’s lives including his own.  Below is a excerpt of his speech that includes the part shown in the video:

Excerpt from the ‘Call For Renewal‘ keynote address:

While I’ve already laid out some of the work that progressive leaders need to do, I want to talk a little bit about what conservative leaders need to do — some truths they need to acknowledge. 

For one, they need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice. Folks tend to forget that during our founding, it wasn’t the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of the First Amendment. It was the persecuted minorities, it was Baptists like John Leland who didn’t want the established churches to impose their views on folks who were getting happy out in the fields and teaching the scripture to slaves. It was the forbearers of the evangelicals who were the most adamant about not mingling government with religious, because they did not want state-sponsored religion hindering their ability to practice their faith as they understood it.

Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America’s population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson’s, or Al Sharpton’s? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let’s read our bibles. Folks haven’t been reading their bibles. 

This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Now, ask yourself: Is he correct? How much do you know about the 1st Amendment? What freedoms do you think are protected by the 1st Amendment? Can you name just one?

Last time I had jury duty, the judge who presided over the court gave us a little booklet that included a copy of the Constitution as well as a print out of an article from USA Today entitled “God and the Constitution“. A survey of about 1,000 people was taken in which they asked “What specific rights are guaranteed by the First Amendment?”  Here are the results of that poll:

What shocked me was that 55% believed that the Constitution “establishes a Christian nation”. Even more disturbing is the assumption of special status of just one religion, that the Constitution protects only Christianity. Here’s some other startling results of the poll:

• 98% said the right to speak freely about whatever you want is essential or important. But 39% would muzzle public statements that might be offensive to religious groups, 42% would bar musicians from singing songs others might find offensive, 56% would outlaw public statements that might be offensive to racial groups, and 74% would prohibit public school students from wearing a T-shirt that others might find offensive.
• 97% said the right to practice the religion of your choice is essential or important, but only 56% said freedom of religion applies to all religious groups.
• 93% said the right to be informed by a free press is essential or important. But 37% would not allow newspapers to freely criticize U.S. military strategy or performance; 61% would impose government requirements on balancing conservative and liberal commentary in newspapers.

And exactly what does the First Amendment say?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Freedom of religion, separation of church and state, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of peaceful assembly, and the right to petition. These are rights guaranteed to us by the First Amendment.

And you mean to tell me that we’re strictly a Christian country? Not according to our Constitution.

Here’s something else you probably don’t know: Before Barack Obama became a state Senator in Illinois, he was a constitutional law professor for twelve years and the University of Chicago Law School. Do you think maybe he knows a little something about our Constitution and how our government work? I can guarantee he knows a hell of a lot more than you and I do.

Keep in mind, I’m not just defending Barack Obama. I’ll defend any outright lies and misquoted statements made about John McCain as well. Context is important, folks. I want the facts, not a whole lot of propaganda and lies that don’t amount to anything. Before you allow anyone to simply tell you what to think (like the gentleman in this video), learn the facts and draw a conclusion of your own. Although an opinion does not have to be based on fact, it certainly helps.

In the case of politics, it greatly helps to have an educated opinion. Learn the facts about who the candidates really are. Rather than letting some left-wing or right-wing whackos tell you who they are, learn the facts for yourself. And I’m not just talking about Barack Obama and John McCain.  I’m talking about all candidates. When it comes time to vote, you won’t be voting just for the President. You’ll also be voting for other seats. Who are the candidates for state Senator and the House? What about your state government officials? Find out. That’s what being part of the process is all about.

John Gruber made some interesting points in his recent Memoranda blog post about the contrasting differences in leadership between Steve Jobs and Steve Ballmer. The leaked email memos from each CEO do show quite a few differences (and a few similarities). However, there is one aspect that Guber only touched on. The main difference I see between the two CEO’s is that one of them seems to focus almost exclusively on the bottom-line whereas the other focuses on the product. 

If you look at Ballmer’s email, one thing you’ll notice is that he never really focuses on the product itself nor does he mention what the company has done right with their products. Granted, this is just one email but I’ve read and heard a multitude of other things from Ballmer and he always seems to just glaze over the particulars about a specific product line with just broad brush stroke. He rarely if ever goes into detailed specifics as to why this product was successful and what makes it so great. Rather, Ballmer focuses more on the expansion of the company, it’s profitability, and stomping the competition. It just always seems like he talks more about how Microsoft is going to be doing this and that to get an upper-hand on the competition and much less about how great certain products really are. Maybe that’s just the kind of guy Ballmer is. Maybe he just doesn’t really care as long as Microsoft is profitable and is able to expand into different markets. Maybe he’s just a bottom-line kind of guy. Personally I think that sort of leadership isn’t doing the customer any good.

Jobs’ email about MobileMe, as Gruber mentioned, is very focused. He always focuses his attention on the product itself, what makes it good and what makes it bad. In the case of MobileMe, he focuses on the bad but ends on a note that implies a hopeful future for MobileMe, as if to say that he’s not giving up on it just yet. In the past, Jobs has talked about the bottom-line but usually when he does he attributes it to a specific product line. If Apple has a good third quarter he might say that it was because of the successful launch of the iPhone 3G and that customers were excited about getting their hands on them. Jobs tends to focus more on the user experience than just numbers. In his mind, if the quality of your products and the customer experience is good then the numbers will reflect that. Jobs is very much focusing his attention on the customer to create a unique user experience and I think the success that Apple is having reflects that.

One thing you’ll rarely ever see is a customer who switches from an Apple product to a Microsoft product due to some dissatisfaction. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone use a Mac running OS X Leopard for a good length of time who wanted to switch to a computer running Windows Vista. That’s the user experience for you and it’s something that I don’t think Ballmer will ever get.

I’ve been a frequent visitor of HumanEvents.com for some time now. I visit this site and many others that have viewpoints that differ from my own simply because I want to get an idea of what people are thinking. Many of the articles and blog posts on this site are from a far-right, neo-conservative point of view…and they certainly don’t apologize for it. I pick on many of the writers on this site simply because I feel they represent what is truly wrong with politics today. It always seems like they are so good at preaching about conservatism and yet I always feel like they don’t know what being conservative truly means in politics.

Now, I have never outright proclaimed to be a member of any political party. Truth be told, I really don’t believe in political parties. I think they cause more problems simply because it causes Americans to choose sides. Problem is that you rarely hear of there being more than just two sides. It’s always Republicans vs Democrats, liberals vs conservatives, left vs right, and so on. Rarely do you hear much about the middle and nor do you hear about the third side: the truth. Yes, there are politicians that do speak the truth but many times this truth ends up being masked and muddied up in the form of dirty politics, which is but one of the problems with American politics today. 

Take a post made by D.R. Tucker called Hard To Swallow. D.R. seems to feel that August 17, 1998 was the day conservatism began to die in America. This was the day that President Clinton admitted to having a sexual relationship with intern Monica Lewinsky. D.R. goes on to say that only a third of the American people strongly supported the impeachment and removal of Clinton from office, that somehow so many Americans bought the story that Clinton was a victim of a political witch-hunt by prudish right-wing Republicans. Personally I think it was just because the whole story was embarrassing and the greater American public was tired of hearing about it. Seriously, can you imagine the history books if he was impeached? He damn near was. After all, a vote was called on by Congress. Clinton would go down in history as the only President to ever have been impeached for lying about getting a blow job!

D.R. goes on to quote the writings of Paul Weyrich, a conservative activist, about the reason why politics started to fail after that, the thought being that too many conservatives assumed that most Americans shared their point of view and thus didn’t result in an adoption of their agenda:

The reason, I think, is that politics itself has failed. And politics has failed because of the collapse of the culture. The culture we are living in becomes an ever-wider sewer. In truth, I think we are caught up in a cultural collapse of historic proportions, a collapse so great that it simply overwhelms politics.

D.R.’s quotes continue further with another statement from Weyrich that says the U.S. is becoming too ideological: 

The ideology of Political Correctness, which openly calls for the destruction of our traditional culture, has so gripped the body politic, has so gripped our institutions, that it is even affecting the Church. It has completely taken over the academic community. It is now pervasive in the entertainment industry, and it threatens to control literally every aspect of our lives…Let me be perfectly frank about it. If there really were a moral majority out there, Bill Clinton would have been driven out of office months ago. It is not only the lack of political will on the part of Republicans, although that is part of the problem. More powerful is the fact that what Americans would have found absolutely intolerable only a few years ago, a majority now not only tolerates but celebrates. Americans have adopted, in large measure, the MTV culture that we so valiantly opposed just a few years ago, and it has permeated the thinking of all but those who have separated themselves from the contemporary culture…I believe that we probably have lost the culture war. That doesn’t mean the war is not going to continue, and that it isn’t going to be fought on other fronts. But in terms of society in general, we have lost. This is why, even when we win in politics, our victories fail to translate into the kind of policies we believe are important.

Let me get this straight. You mean to tell me that the reason politics in America is so screwed up is because of a lack of a moral majority? It makes no sense whatsoever to say that conservatism is failing because so many people in the country lack morals and thus do not vote for conservative candidates. It’s a ridiculous notion simply because conservatism does not equal a moral majority. That’s not what conservatism in politics is about. It’s not about religion. It’s not about family values. Conservatism in politics can not and should not be compared to the moral fiber of our nation. Anyone who does that simply doesn’t know what it truly means to be conservative.

Where Mr. Tucker gets it truly wrong is when he starts talking about Barack Obama and tries to compare him to Clinton:

If Barack Obama wins with a majority of the vote, it will complete the political and cultural alteration that began ten years ago. In 1998, Americans didn’t care about Clinton’s lies and licentiousness because the economy was doing well; in 2008, Americans seemingly don’t care about Obama’s dishonesty and double-dealing because he promises to restore the economy to the (perceived) health of the Clinton years. 1998 was the first indication that Americans valued certain things above “traditional morality”; 2008 could be the most significant indication of the same.

Ridiculous. The idea that just because Obama is a Democrat that somehow he’ll end up just like Clinton is just that: ridiculous. How is it exactly that Obama is dishonest and double-dealing the American public? Personally, I don’t see it. And as much as I would like to say the same about McCain, I’m afraid I can’t. I gave McCain a fair shot but, unfortunately, all he did was prove to me that he can’t be honest and can’t seem to talk about things without bullshitting the American public. That’s something I have not seen or heard from Obama.

And this whole notion that Obama will continue to lead people down a road of immorality is equally ridiculous. Obama has shown that he truly cares about family values. Isn’t that what neo-conservatives are always preaching about? Has anyone even looked at how Obama is with his wife and kids? He’s a damn good father if you ask me. And he appears to be teaching his kids some good values. If that isn’t a sign of someone who is moral then I don’t know what to tell you.

If we were a truly conservative country, a candidate like Obama would have been regarded as a fringe, Dennis Kucinich-style nutcase instead of a serious candidate for the Presidency. It can be argued that Obama figured out something that the right was too shortsighted to recognize: that America is not in any tangible way a conservative or center-right nation, that no one ideology truly dominates the country, and that due to America’s lack of commitment to any one ideology, someone who can market himself effectively has a chance to become President regardless of his ideology. Obama’s speeches may be content-free, but they are always well-delivered and he always looks good delivering them—which may be all he needs in a country that values image above ideology.

If anything, Obama has proven that trying to stick to a single ideology doesn’t work. This is a country that was founded on opposing viewpoint, multiple cultures, multiple religions, and diversification all over the place. To assume that you can stick to just one ideology, that of a far right-wing conservative point of view, and assume that everyone will follow is crazy. Our government must be more than that. It must remain flexible to accommodate the views and beliefs of all Americans; not just a select group. 

Weyrich was right: America doesn’t really place a premium on conservative, traditionalist values. Sadly, America places a premium on glamour, beauty, articulate voices, clean-cut images. Like Clinton, Obama understands this shallow, soulless aspect of America, and he knows how to play to those who worship empty images. Like Clinton, this new master of illusion will exploit America’s love of the superficial to make his next overseas “Presidential” trip official.

Obama is more than just someone who looks good and gives a good speech. He’s a man of the utmost integrity and, above all, he’s highly intelligent. I’m amazed at how many people can so easily dismiss him as being someone who merely is playing the American people like a violin. Intelligence it seems is a trait only shown by those who are arrogant, even more so when its from someone like Obama. Personally, I find it gratifying to know that there is at least one Presidential candidate who is extremely intelligent and, above all, really knows what the Constitution says. 

Conservatism didn’t die because of Clinton. In fact, conservatism isn’t really dead yet. What happened was that so-called conservatives within the Republican party morphed the party into the exact opposite of what the Republican party was supposed to be about. Yes, there is such a thing as having traditional conservative values in politics…but it’s just not about ones religious and/or moral beliefs. There’s a reason why our forefathers asked for a separations of church and state in the Constitution. It’s so that the individual rights of all people of all religions have representation within our government. For the people, by the people. What part of that do neo-conservatives not understand?