Dave Winer takes a shot at the Clark and Dean campaigns in response to their efforts at creating open-source/free software for use in campaigns. He says:
Wouldn't it be great if Dean and Clark went after Viacom, ClearChannel and Time-Warner, instead of the tiny companies that make blogging and social networking tools.
I have to say that this is something I have mixed feelings about. On the one hand, I can see Dave's point. It can be hard enough to make a living developing software without high-profile efforts at creating free versions of the same stuff. When these same campaigns talk about saving or creating good high-tech jobs, it will be easy to target them as being hypocritical-- if they're not willing to pony up themselves for software developers, can we really expect them to pull for us later on? In truth, I think the answer to this question is "yes," but that doesn't mean that you wouldn't be able to make the rhetorical point. What I think we're seeing here is an attempt to save money while at the same time appeal to a certain portion of the "geek" population.
...and that's where the other hand comes in. Free and open-source software for use in elections has the potential to lower the cost of entry for someone wanting to conduct an effective campaign. I see this as a good thing. Combine this with publicly-funded campaigns, and we have a chance to eliminate the whoring fundraising that is making such a warped mess of candidate's priorities. Then we may have a chance at taking on the ClearChannels and Viacoms of the world.
So Christmas sales aren't so hot for most retailers, although apparently places like Nordstrom's & Saks are doing ok.
Analysts have said a recovering economy was helping wealthier households more than it was aiding lower-income families.
Translation: rich-- getting richer. poor-- getting poorer. Raise your hand if this shocks you.
George W., you can put down your hand now.
Ok, so the alert level's at orange. Everyone got the heebies? Anyone? How about a dose of conspiracy theory? Well ok then. It's a slow day here anyway. Here are a smattering of random thoughts on the scare of the week:
I'm sure there are more/better theories out there, but I don't feel like searching for them.
Excerpt from memo to Roger Ailes:
The Saddam Show would send your ratings through the roof. Imagine the calls, the hype, the publicity for a show with the man everyone loves to hate. Think of the promos -- "he's bad-and he's back" dun, dun, dun. If the show works, we might discuss a channel. The Pentagon considered the last one I had so powerful that they had to blow it up to tune us out. It did big numbers. It could again.
Just checked my ad again, and it seems stuck at 3.0, after rising from 2.7 in the first 24 hours or so. So unless some massive group of people gives it a phenomenal rating, that's where I'm guessing it will stay. After seeing some of the other ads out there that are getting higher ratings I have to say I'm a little disappointed, but in a country that has produced such pop phenoms as Michael Bolton, "Home Alone," and pet rocks I can't say that I'm surprised.
From a NY Times editorial:
But the vice president, who turns 63 next month, may have other health concerns. He should have been checked for prostate and colon disease. He should be regularly monitored for side effects to prescribed medication � some beta blockers in drugs that protect the heart affect the ability to think clearly.
No comment.
Apparently they've unveiled a new design for the World Trade Center. I have no opinion on the design...a building's a building, after all.
But do they have to call it the "Freedom Tower"?
Maybe I'm just being hopeful, but I'm taking yesterday's court rulings as a sign that we're starting to move back towards sanity in this country:
The broad presidential powers invoked by the Bush administration after Sept. 11, 2001, to detain suspected terrorists outside the civilian court system is now being challenged by the federal courts, the very branch of the government the White House hoped to circumvent.The two separate appellate court rulings on Thursday swept away crucial parts of the administration's legal strategy to handle terrorist suspects outside the criminal justice system and incarcerate them indefinitely without access to lawyers or to the evidence against them.
The rulings are by no means a final judicial verdict on the administration's approach. But the rulings demonstrated powerfully the willingness of the courts to challenge the administration's procedures, which were put in place without Congressional approval in the tumultuous months that followed the Sept. 11 attacks.
So...I'm hopeful. It's unfortunate that the judicial system moves so much more slowly than the executive branch, but there's not much we can do about that. At least we're starting to see signs of push back from folks with some sense who aren't reacting to events out of plain fear, which is what I think the Bush administration has been doing for a long time.
Well, after exhorting everyone else to go check out the ads, I finally took a look myself. Turns out it's hard to judge other ads honestly when you've got an entry in yourself. Still, of the 20 I was able to view, there were a couple that I thought were pretty good. Also a couple of real stinkers that either made no sense, or just came across as rants. I didn't note the URLs of any, or I would have posted them here.
Oh, and my ad? So far the rating is a 2.7. I was seeing a lot of 2.5s last night, so my guess is that I'm right in the middle of the pack somewhere. About what I expected.
Ok everyone, the contest is now on. Turns out they're giving folks a random ad to watch, so if you just want to see my ad, check yesterday's post. Otherwise head over to the Bush in 30 seconds site to register and vote. I won't ask you to download ads repeatedly until you get mine. The final number of ads is just over 1,000, so you'd have to be pretty determined (or lucky) to do that.
It's good to see that I'm not alone in wondering what additional information will come out about Saddam and his capture:
It�s tempting, and not entirely wrong, to react emotionally to the pictures of the Iraq war that we do get to see. The capture of Saddam is a huge accomplishment. Who doesn�t hope that at last he will be held accountable for his brutal crimes?But our reactions can�t stop there. We can not look at these pictures naively, because they are not naively taken or distributed. Each has an explicit purpose--to create a war hero, to inspire our troops and demoralize the enemy, or to boost the president�s poll numbers. Almost always when a picture has a purpose, its truth is diluted.
We now know, of course, that Jessica Lynch was not really the hero, shooting to the last bullet, that the military portrayed her as; that the serious fighting wasn�t really over when the president landed on that aircraft carrier and said it was; and that the turkey was a prop. What will we eventually know about the capture of Saddam Hussein that contradicts the picture released on Sunday?
This is my entry in the Bush in 30 Seconds contest. I've posted the movie here for folks who might have older versions of QuickTime (hi, Mom!). Enjoy the clip here, but don't forget to go rate it on the contest site! (This clocks in at around 6.5 MB, so be patient while it downloads...)
CODEBASE="http://www.apple.com/qtactivex/qtplugin.cab">
From a review written by Joel Spolsky of Eric S. Raymond's new book:
I've encountered too many Unix programmers who sneer at Windows programming, thinking that Windows is heathen and stupid. Raymond all too frequently falls into the trap of disparaging the values of other cultures without considering where they came from. It's rather rare to find such bigotry among Windows programmers, who are, on the whole, solution-oriented and non-ideological. At the very least, Windows programmers will concede the faults of their culture and say pragmatically, "Look, if you want to sell a word processor to a lot of people, it has to run on their computers, and if that means we use the Evil Registry instead of elegant ~/.rc files to store our settings, so be it." The very fact that the Unix world is so full of self-righteous cultural superiority, "advocacy," and slashdot-karma-whoring sectarianism while the Windows world is more practical ("yeah, whatever, I just need to make a living here") stems from a culture that feels itself under siege, unable to break out of the server closet and hobbyist market and onto the mainstream desktop.
I would argue that what Joel describes here as Windows pragmatism is really just another form of snobbery. The only difference is that instead of turning up their collective nose at poorly designed software, Windows programmers are turning up their nose at what they perceive to be, in essence, ivory-tower programmers. This can be easily misinterpreted as cool-headed pragmatism, but those noses are still up in the air with disdain, dude.
Like everyone else yesterday, I heard that they caught Saddam. Joy in the street, gunfire (always gunfire), dancing, etc. Footage at 11. The whole time I'm thinking, I don't trust the media. They're cheerleaders. The Bush administration has a habit of milking things for all they're worth (think Jessica Lynch desperately fighting off Iraqis vs. getting injured in a car wreck), so I don't trust their story either. So I wait for the alternate version(s) to come out. Doesn't take long.
Take a look at this, from DEBKAfile:
A number of questions are raised by the incredibly bedraggled, tired and crushed condition of this once savage, dapper and pampered ruler who was discovered in a hole in the ground on Saturday, December 13:1. The length and state of his hair indicated he had not seen a barber or even had a shampoo for several weeks.
2. The wild state of his beard indicated he had not shaved for the same period
3. The hole dug in the floor of a cellar in a farm compound near Tikrit was primitive indeed � 6ft across and 8ft across with minimal sanitary arrangements - a far cry from his opulent palaces.
4. Saddam looked beaten and hungry.
5. Detained trying to escape were two unidentified men. Left with him were two AK-47 assault guns and a pistol, none of which were used.
6. The hole had only one opening. It was not only camouflaged with mud and bricks � it was blocked. He could not have climbed out without someone on the outside removing the covering.
7. And most important, $750,000 in 100-dollar notes were found with him (a pittance for his captors who expected a $25m reward)� but no communications equipment of any kind, whether cell phone or even a carrier pigeon for contacting the outside world.
According to DEBKAfile analysts, these seven anomalies point to one conclusion:Saddam Hussein was not in hiding; he was a prisoner.
I don't know if anyone's else has picked up on this yet, but it makes some sense. If he was really directing the insurgency, that would indicate that Saddam was maintaining some sort of power, however diminished. The picture we all saw was not a man with any power.
Heh heh. This must be what Al Franken (or Michael Moore?) meant by fighting back by being funnier & more attractive than the opposition.
I agree with this proposal. Apparently it's based on something called "Godwin's Law" which states:
As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one. There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress.
From Larry Lessig's blog:
In the buzz of disagreement about particular policies or particular quips, it is this that should be remembered: whatever the twist of views and positions is that carries one to 1600 Pennsylvania, there is only one candidate so far who has demonstrated a process that is different. And only one who has demonstrated a process that could translate into government that is different as well.
And how is his process different? Take a look at these sites:
Here's the short version. Bush is getting piles of money from people with piles of money. You know, those $2,000 hamburger dinners he's always jetting off to. These are the Grey Poupon guys, not French's yellow if you know what I mean. Dean's getting his smaller piles of money from people with much shallower pockets. He's getting money from people who have never participated before, and they're coming back.
Bush may present himself as a "regular guy," but neither he nor the people ponying up to keep him in office can really lay claim to that title honestly. I don't know whether Dean's a "regular guy" or not, but he's the only one I see who is demonstrably appealing to those of us who are.
Thanks to the miracle of the iPod, my ears were just treated to John Coltrane followed by Macy Gray. Mmmm...my ears are happy. Like strawberries & chocolate.
Personally, Heidi Klum does more for me, but whatever floats your boat:
The sad thing is, of course, neither Afghanistan nor Iraq anything else will provide the necessary climax. 9/11 just didn't give them a stiffy, it gave them priapism.
Oh, and here's a definition of "priapism," courtesy OmniDictionary and WordNet:
condition in which the penis is continually erect; usually painful and seldom with sexual arousal
Ok, so this blog will never make it past filtering software. I can deal with that.
U.S. Bars Iraq Contracts for Nations That Opposed War
The Pentagon has barred French, German and Russian companies from competing for $18.6 billion in contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq, saying the step "is necessary for the protection of the essential security interests of the United States."Bullshit. This is the real reason for the move:
The directive, which was issued by the deputy defense secretary, Paul D. Wolfowitz, represents perhaps the most substantive retaliation to date by the Bush administration against American allies who opposed its decision to go to war in Iraq.
Last time I looked at MAD magazine it was pretty [t|l]ame, but this is inspired.
A local unit's been called up to go to Iraq:
The mobilization departure ceremony for the U.S. Army Reserve 357th Corps Support Battalion was held Sunday afternoon at the Classic Center for the reservists that will be sent to Fort Stewart Wednesday, and overseas to Iraq once their training is complete.The ceremony was to honor the 57 reservists from across Northeast Georgia and their families before shipping off to replace active reservists already in Iraq. According to Lt. Cmdr. Frank Eubanks, this is the first time the unit has been activated since 1946.
Merry Christmas, guys.
Brief excerpt from NY Times editorial:
The prevailing theory among grown-up Republicans � yes, they still exist � seems to be that Mr. Bush is simply doing whatever it takes to win the next election. After that, he'll put the political operatives in their place, bring in the policy experts and finally get down to the business of running the country.But I think they're in denial. Everything we know suggests that Mr. Bush's people have given as little thought to running America after the election as they gave to running Iraq after the fall of Baghdad. And they will have no idea what to do when things fall apart.
So assume that W and the gang really are running the country into the ground. The political question then becomes this: when will things go to hell, and who's going to get blamed? If the sky really does fall, I just hope that it happens soon so that the right people get properly blamed for it, rather than it happening after someone new is in office.
This bit from a piece called "Meeting the Conservative Challenge" caught my eye:
...when JFK ran for President in 1960 close to 50% of the country identified themselves as Democrats, 30-32% Republican. Our majorities in Congress seemed permanent, and there was broad consensus around the two pillars of the 20th century Democratic Party � liberal internationalism and a post New Deal welfare state. Today, for the first time since FDR was President, more Americans identify themselves as Republicans than Democrats. It is close � 33-34% for the GOP, 32-33% for the Dems � but it represents a gradual, historic shift in American politics. The Republicans have formable majorities in Congress, more control in the states, and have broken the back of our governing consensus.
This is a tangent from the focus of the article, but I've been hearing a lot of noise about the huge spending increases that the Republicans have been shoving through Congress lately, and people commenting on how the party of fiscal responsibility has been spending like a bunch of drunken sailors (that may even be a quote). Now the internationalism thing doesn't fit this, but it occurs to me that either 1) Conservatives buy into the "welfare state" (although that's a loaded term) more than they let on, or 2) Conservatives recognize that people in the US want protection that only the government can offer (there, that's better) and are more interested in staying in office (a.k.a. "winning") than principle.
Stumbled across this over at Harper's, "The Proclamation of Baghdad", issued by the British in 1917. Here's an excerpt:
Our military operations have as their object the defeat of the enemy, and the driving of him from these territories. In order to complete this task, I am charged with absolute and supreme control of all regions in which British troops operate; but our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators. Since the days of Halaka your city and your lands have been subject to the tyranny of strangers, your palaces have fallen into ruins, your gardens have sunk in desolation, and your forefathers and yourselves have groaned in bondage. Your sons have been carried off to wars not of your seeking, your wealth has been stripped from you by unjust men and squandered in distant places.
Hmm...
Remember that trip to Baghdad Our Illustrious President took? Remember that turkey he was parading around with? Well guess what:
President Bush's Baghdad turkey was for looking, not for eating.In the most widely published image from his Thanksgiving day trip to Baghdad, the beaming president is wearing an Army workout jacket and surrounded by soldiers as he cradles a huge platter laden with a golden-brown turkey.
The bird is so perfect it looks as if it came from a food magazine, with bunches of grapes and other trimmings completing a Norman Rockwell image that evokes bounty and security in one of the most dangerous parts of the world.
But as a small sign of the many ways the White House maximized the impact of the 21/2-hour stop at the Baghdad airport, administration officials said yesterday that Bush picked up a decoration, not a serving plate.
Officials said they did not know the turkey would be there or that Bush would pick it up. A contractor had roasted and primped the turkey to adorn the buffet line, while the 600 soldiers were served from cafeteria-style steam trays, the officials said. They said the bird was not placed there in anticipation of Bush's stealthy visit, and military sources said a trophy turkey is a standard feature of holiday chow lines.
Ok, so maybe fake turkeys are typical at holiday meals for the military. How would I know? And maybe the W saw it and thought it would be a gas to parade around with the thing. From what I hear of him that seems like something he'd do.
But--
This administration is known for staging photo ops. They stick banners all over everything. I've seen photos of W that look like he's an angel descended from heaven, and another one where he's made to look like part of Mount Rushmore. So I'm skeptical about any innocent explanation for the fake turkey (on the platter).
From an article in Newsweek on the W turkey fly:
The feast that followed was another crystallizing photo op in what has become the central saga of our times, the war on terror.
I can't believe it when I see stuff like this. Iraq was (is) a war of choice. Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. If there are terrorists in Iraq, it's only because we brought them there.
Iraq is like the Joker, and Dubya's like Batman here-- if it hadn't been for Dubya & the gang getting their war on, Saddam would have been just another thorn-in-our-side dictator with delusions of grandeur. But no...Bush had to go and drop Iraq in that vat of chemicals and create God only knows what over there.
Once again-- Iraq is not part of the war on terror. Remember Osama? Tall bearded guy? Likes to have people crash planes for him? That's the war on terror.