The Fulcrum
Friday, October 17, 2003
An Apple a Day...
I'm a recent Apple convert and like all converts I am sometimes fervent in my conversion. But in this case, I think the fervor is for good reason.
Apple products work. And I don't mean that in the way that someone would say, "yeah, my IBM works," or "sure, my Dell works." What I mean is that my iMac (the last of the slot loading, all-in-one machines) works - all the time. I've left it running for 4 months at a stretch, rebooting only when I installed the occasional software that requires it. It has never - not once - crashed. And the software works. In the same way. I've had to "force quit" an application maybe three or four times in the two and a half years I've been using my iMac. But OS X is so well thought out, so well written, that such an event has never caused the entire operating system to crash. And when I have force-quit an application, I just start it right back up and everything keeps working.
When I say I'm a recent convert, that doesn't mean I'm a new computer user. My first computer was a Tandy, running at 10Mhz with no hard drive and only 256K of RAM. That was in 1985. I use an IBM Thinkpad at work. And every day, when I come in and have to wait through the interminable boot up, I miss my Mac. I feel the same way all day...
Anyway... what got me started on this post is that Apple announced the (long anticipated) release of its iTunes software and its attendant on-line iTunes Music Store for Windows. I've used iTunes for a couple of years and I absolutely love it. It is slick, stable and "it works." I've used Apples Music Store as well and, like so many other things, Apple just got it right. It's easy to navigate around the site and find what you are looking for, and after setting up your purchasing information in a very secure setup, you can buy music with just one click. Sure, there are other music stores out there that cater to Windows users, but they will immediately be playing catch up to Apple.
And not only does iTunes work well, Apples MP3 player, the iPod, is an absolute "home run." It works with Windows, too. I don't have one, but it's on my very short list of "stuff" I'd like to get, and everything I've read about them, every opportunity I've had to play with one in a store, has impressed me. Apple's got about 30% of the MP3 player market and this will likely grow with the release of the Windows software. Even the lowest end model holds more music (or files - it can act as a Firewire removable drive) than all the other models out there combined; 10GB. That's right; 10 GIGABYTES.
So all you Windows users out there, go download iTunes. You will absolutely love it. And while you're waiting for the file to download, go look around Apple's site. Especially look at the screen shots of the updated OS X "Panther." If you can't admit that these two things don't at least make you think about switching, you're just fooling yourself!
Fervent? Yep. For good reason.
Apple products work. And I don't mean that in the way that someone would say, "yeah, my IBM works," or "sure, my Dell works." What I mean is that my iMac (the last of the slot loading, all-in-one machines) works - all the time. I've left it running for 4 months at a stretch, rebooting only when I installed the occasional software that requires it. It has never - not once - crashed. And the software works. In the same way. I've had to "force quit" an application maybe three or four times in the two and a half years I've been using my iMac. But OS X is so well thought out, so well written, that such an event has never caused the entire operating system to crash. And when I have force-quit an application, I just start it right back up and everything keeps working.
When I say I'm a recent convert, that doesn't mean I'm a new computer user. My first computer was a Tandy, running at 10Mhz with no hard drive and only 256K of RAM. That was in 1985. I use an IBM Thinkpad at work. And every day, when I come in and have to wait through the interminable boot up, I miss my Mac. I feel the same way all day...
Anyway... what got me started on this post is that Apple announced the (long anticipated) release of its iTunes software and its attendant on-line iTunes Music Store for Windows. I've used iTunes for a couple of years and I absolutely love it. It is slick, stable and "it works." I've used Apples Music Store as well and, like so many other things, Apple just got it right. It's easy to navigate around the site and find what you are looking for, and after setting up your purchasing information in a very secure setup, you can buy music with just one click. Sure, there are other music stores out there that cater to Windows users, but they will immediately be playing catch up to Apple.
And not only does iTunes work well, Apples MP3 player, the iPod, is an absolute "home run." It works with Windows, too. I don't have one, but it's on my very short list of "stuff" I'd like to get, and everything I've read about them, every opportunity I've had to play with one in a store, has impressed me. Apple's got about 30% of the MP3 player market and this will likely grow with the release of the Windows software. Even the lowest end model holds more music (or files - it can act as a Firewire removable drive) than all the other models out there combined; 10GB. That's right; 10 GIGABYTES.
So all you Windows users out there, go download iTunes. You will absolutely love it. And while you're waiting for the file to download, go look around Apple's site. Especially look at the screen shots of the updated OS X "Panther." If you can't admit that these two things don't at least make you think about switching, you're just fooling yourself!
Fervent? Yep. For good reason.
Congress and UN Slap Down Bush
Okay, slap down might be a little over the top, but it's damn close to the truth.
While aWol and Co. are crowing about their diplomatic victory in the UN, what they are not saying is that basically the UN had its way with them. No money. No troops. And kindly get the hell out of there as soon as possible. Some victory.
Meanwhile, the Senate voted 51-47 to make half of BushCo.'s $20B Iraq rebuilding funds a loan, repayable by the Iraqis. This has the potential to sink the entire appropriation in committee - or at least slow it down significantly.
It's a good thing that the UN voted through this resolution, especially as written. It gives international impetus to the Bush administration to speed up its transition of power to an Iraqi government. It also, I think, gives the UN some leverage in other areas as well; specifically on getting command of "coalition forces" under a coalition command and getting the Iraqi constitution written and approved sooner rather than later.
I don't think that the "loan" provision will ever fly. It will get shot down or modified in committee. But the statement is more important than the provision actually being implemented. I think it would be wrong to saddle the Iraqis with the bill for our audacity, they should be able to make a clean, unburdened start.
We will, of course, see how both of these things are handled by BushCo. in the next several days. Already administration officials are touting the UN resolution as a huge victory (as if they really care what comes out of such a "useless" and "irrelevant" body). And although the loan provision has made the news, so far there hasn't been much rumbling from the usual right-wing mouthpieces.
Is this further detritus falling from the facade of a crumbling administration?
While aWol and Co. are crowing about their diplomatic victory in the UN, what they are not saying is that basically the UN had its way with them. No money. No troops. And kindly get the hell out of there as soon as possible. Some victory.
Meanwhile, the Senate voted 51-47 to make half of BushCo.'s $20B Iraq rebuilding funds a loan, repayable by the Iraqis. This has the potential to sink the entire appropriation in committee - or at least slow it down significantly.
It's a good thing that the UN voted through this resolution, especially as written. It gives international impetus to the Bush administration to speed up its transition of power to an Iraqi government. It also, I think, gives the UN some leverage in other areas as well; specifically on getting command of "coalition forces" under a coalition command and getting the Iraqi constitution written and approved sooner rather than later.
I don't think that the "loan" provision will ever fly. It will get shot down or modified in committee. But the statement is more important than the provision actually being implemented. I think it would be wrong to saddle the Iraqis with the bill for our audacity, they should be able to make a clean, unburdened start.
We will, of course, see how both of these things are handled by BushCo. in the next several days. Already administration officials are touting the UN resolution as a huge victory (as if they really care what comes out of such a "useless" and "irrelevant" body). And although the loan provision has made the news, so far there hasn't been much rumbling from the usual right-wing mouthpieces.
Is this further detritus falling from the facade of a crumbling administration?
Thursday, October 16, 2003
Voting Machine Fraud?
Just a quick entry.
Check out this story (link via Altercation), it's been brewing on the back burner, ever since the idea of computerized voting machines was introduced. It seems, however, that the worst nightmares may have already occured in Georgia. But because of the contracts signed with voting machine companies (does Diebold ring a bell? "We'll deliver the votes to President Bush" is their company's motto), the state of Georgia cannot look at the software or the machines for security issues. And, worst of all, there is no paper trail for a recount.
Anyway, go check it out. This is so damned scary.
And sad, since, in general, I'm all in favor of automating things and making them simpler for people to use.
Check out this story (link via Altercation), it's been brewing on the back burner, ever since the idea of computerized voting machines was introduced. It seems, however, that the worst nightmares may have already occured in Georgia. But because of the contracts signed with voting machine companies (does Diebold ring a bell? "We'll deliver the votes to President Bush" is their company's motto), the state of Georgia cannot look at the software or the machines for security issues. And, worst of all, there is no paper trail for a recount.
Anyway, go check it out. This is so damned scary.
And sad, since, in general, I'm all in favor of automating things and making them simpler for people to use.
Chicago, Get a Grip!
Leave Steve Bartman alone.
I've always been somewhat bewildered by anyone who takes sports so seriously that they schedule their time around televised sporting events - or even live events.
I've played more sports than I can probably count. Some, like football (American, that is) and baseball, were limited to highschool and college (intramural). Others I've played for longer periods; tennis, golf, raquetball, soccer, etc. Still others I've played at various times and places; lacrosse, softball, handball, volleyball. So I'm not anti-sport. When I have enough time to sit in front of the television for the four-plus hours it can take to watch some football or baseball games, I'd rather use that time for constructive purposes: sometimes to actually go outside and play a sport, sometimes to do other things that I need or want to do.
But what could make what should be grown, rational people become so rabid about the outcome of a game played by a team on which they've never played, and/or a sport in which they've likely never played (beyond sandlot) that they would threaten a young fan for momentarily forgetting the world-wide import of the game he was watching and try to snag himself a souvenir? It's beyond me. Really.
Maybe its the face paint; some insidious chemical has worked its way into their brain. Perhaps its the beer. Or the $10 hotdogs (or whatever combination of arm and leg they are charging now).
I meet these fan(atic)s all the time. At work, out and about everywhere I go. I just want to grab them by the collar and yell at them, "It's a game!"
But I refrain. I know that in the fevered mind of a fan(atic), there can be no reasoning.
I've always been somewhat bewildered by anyone who takes sports so seriously that they schedule their time around televised sporting events - or even live events.
I've played more sports than I can probably count. Some, like football (American, that is) and baseball, were limited to highschool and college (intramural). Others I've played for longer periods; tennis, golf, raquetball, soccer, etc. Still others I've played at various times and places; lacrosse, softball, handball, volleyball. So I'm not anti-sport. When I have enough time to sit in front of the television for the four-plus hours it can take to watch some football or baseball games, I'd rather use that time for constructive purposes: sometimes to actually go outside and play a sport, sometimes to do other things that I need or want to do.
But what could make what should be grown, rational people become so rabid about the outcome of a game played by a team on which they've never played, and/or a sport in which they've likely never played (beyond sandlot) that they would threaten a young fan for momentarily forgetting the world-wide import of the game he was watching and try to snag himself a souvenir? It's beyond me. Really.
Maybe its the face paint; some insidious chemical has worked its way into their brain. Perhaps its the beer. Or the $10 hotdogs (or whatever combination of arm and leg they are charging now).
I meet these fan(atic)s all the time. At work, out and about everywhere I go. I just want to grab them by the collar and yell at them, "It's a game!"
But I refrain. I know that in the fevered mind of a fan(atic), there can be no reasoning.
Halliburton: "Hauling Coal to Newcastle"
If you don't know the meaning of the quote above or its relevance to Halliburton, consider that during the heyday of coal as a fuel in England, Newcastle had the largest deposits of coal in the country. And, if you've read any number of stories today - this one, for example - about Halliburton overcharging the Iraq Provisional Authority for gasoline imported to Iraq, you'll understand the connection.
Spot market gasoline prices in the Gulf region are reported to be around $0.70/gallon. Halliburton's KBR subsidiary is selling it to the Provisional Authority for the equivalent of $1.62 - $1.70 per gallon. The P.A. then gets to sell it to Iraqis for $0.04 - $0.15 per gallon. Guess who foots the rest of the bill?
Check out the stories, then think about that $87 billion supplemental appropriations bill before congress, then imagine how much of that will flow to Halliburton. And just who is it that's at the far end of that flow of money? You know the answer.
Spot market gasoline prices in the Gulf region are reported to be around $0.70/gallon. Halliburton's KBR subsidiary is selling it to the Provisional Authority for the equivalent of $1.62 - $1.70 per gallon. The P.A. then gets to sell it to Iraqis for $0.04 - $0.15 per gallon. Guess who foots the rest of the bill?
Check out the stories, then think about that $87 billion supplemental appropriations bill before congress, then imagine how much of that will flow to Halliburton. And just who is it that's at the far end of that flow of money? You know the answer.
Wednesday, October 15, 2003
Transparent Pricing and American Jobs
I heard a very interesting report on NPR's Market Place last night. It had to do with "Transparent Pricing." But the reporter, Adam Hanft, had a new take on the term. You can hear the entire report here (scroll down - you'll need Real Audio).
In short, Hanft says that with true pricing transparency customers would be able to make more informed purchases - but not just about the content and place of manufacture, but also about the manufacturer's stand on important social issues like pollution, health care and retirement funding. Hanft says that a product's price tag should include details on the cost to the manufacturer not just of component parts, but of health care insurance, pollution prevention and other structural costs. Americans could then make truly informed decisions about which products to purchase.
Would you pay more if you knew a company didn't use sweatshop or poorly paid off-shore workers? Would you be willing to part with a few more dollars if you knew that the pension plan of the workers who made your product was well funded and secure, or that their health was well taken care of? If the answer to those questions are yes in the larger population, perhaps Wal*Mart wouldn't be quite so popular. Perhaps...
I might just do a little more research on this for later. Stand by.
In short, Hanft says that with true pricing transparency customers would be able to make more informed purchases - but not just about the content and place of manufacture, but also about the manufacturer's stand on important social issues like pollution, health care and retirement funding. Hanft says that a product's price tag should include details on the cost to the manufacturer not just of component parts, but of health care insurance, pollution prevention and other structural costs. Americans could then make truly informed decisions about which products to purchase.
Would you pay more if you knew a company didn't use sweatshop or poorly paid off-shore workers? Would you be willing to part with a few more dollars if you knew that the pension plan of the workers who made your product was well funded and secure, or that their health was well taken care of? If the answer to those questions are yes in the larger population, perhaps Wal*Mart wouldn't be quite so popular. Perhaps...
I might just do a little more research on this for later. Stand by.
Tuesday, October 14, 2003
Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 02-1624
Today, The Supremes will hear the case alleging that the Pledge of Allegience, as currently recited, violates the wall of separation between church and state. I think everyone knows the details around this case and the outbreak of wingnuttery it has caused on the right.
What is not always clear in discussions of this case are the bizarre twists and turns the Pledge has undergone in its history since about 1945. It was written and introduced to the public in a wave of patriotism that swept the US during and just after WWII. There had never been any kind of general pledge prior to that and especially not to the flag. The flag had always been held in high regard, but in a way similar to the flags of other countries. Once the the hot war of WWII cooled off, the Cold War with the "godless communists" began to heat up. It was this concern with communism that prompted congress to "amend" the pledge with "...one nation, under god..." where once it had just said "...one nation, indivisible..."
The issue here is, I think, plain to see and very explicable by the court. "Under god" is government tacitly saying that we are a nation under god. Some will argue that those who don't agree can remove themselves from the classroom, or that it is just an historical recognition of the founders' religiosity or a nod to tradition. But these are specious arguments. Like prayer in the classroom - or anywhere at school sanctioned events - those who's religions prevent them from claiming allegiance, or who's primary figure is something other than the "christian god" would rightly feel ostracized. Agnostics and atheists (Brights) would as well. And the tradition argument doesn't hold water either as it was inserted well after the original was penned. At any rate, all this twisting and spinning just results in proponents trying to have it both ways. It just doesn't work.
I have no special insights into how the Supremes will decide this case. I have been surprised too many times in the past to make predictions. However, past rulings on separation cases have generally upheld a rather strict wall of separation. I hope they continue this trend.
What is not always clear in discussions of this case are the bizarre twists and turns the Pledge has undergone in its history since about 1945. It was written and introduced to the public in a wave of patriotism that swept the US during and just after WWII. There had never been any kind of general pledge prior to that and especially not to the flag. The flag had always been held in high regard, but in a way similar to the flags of other countries. Once the the hot war of WWII cooled off, the Cold War with the "godless communists" began to heat up. It was this concern with communism that prompted congress to "amend" the pledge with "...one nation, under god..." where once it had just said "...one nation, indivisible..."
The issue here is, I think, plain to see and very explicable by the court. "Under god" is government tacitly saying that we are a nation under god. Some will argue that those who don't agree can remove themselves from the classroom, or that it is just an historical recognition of the founders' religiosity or a nod to tradition. But these are specious arguments. Like prayer in the classroom - or anywhere at school sanctioned events - those who's religions prevent them from claiming allegiance, or who's primary figure is something other than the "christian god" would rightly feel ostracized. Agnostics and atheists (Brights) would as well. And the tradition argument doesn't hold water either as it was inserted well after the original was penned. At any rate, all this twisting and spinning just results in proponents trying to have it both ways. It just doesn't work.
I have no special insights into how the Supremes will decide this case. I have been surprised too many times in the past to make predictions. However, past rulings on separation cases have generally upheld a rather strict wall of separation. I hope they continue this trend.
North Korea's Nukes
So aWol (and his neocon buddies) were so concerned that Iraq was developing, could develop, might want to develop nuclear weapons that we had to attack before we learned the hard way. Remember the "mushroom cloud" references?
Yet, despite the fact that analysts (and perhaps operatives, too) say that it is not likely that North Korea has reprocessed the 8,000 + spent fuel rods into weapons grade plutonium, BushCo. are oddly silent on the issue. In fact, some of the same administration hawks who were absolutely certain that the available intelligence showed Iraq was perilously close to having "the bomb," are being very cautious about the intelligence about North Korea.
Maybe they've learned a lesson in humility before incomplete intelligence. Maybe the neocon playbook never included the DPRK and they are at a loss as to what to do.
Whatever the reason, with aWol himself going to Bangkok next week for an Asian summit, you'd think the hawks would be beating the drums over this one. Yet they are strangely silent. Whether Kim Jong Il intends to build more bombs (or has built, some estimates are the latest round of reprocessing has given him up to eight weapons) or to sell weapons grade materials on the black market, this is very scary stuff.
North Korea should scare us all as Iraq never could. Not only is Kim a monomaniacal sociopath, but the million plus soldiers under his command are as fanatical as they come. There is no doubt that should Kim give the order, they would not only march on Seoul, but they would launch whatever nuclear or biological weapons they have.
BushCo has started to come around in some sense, they are at least making noises like they will talk with North Korea. But there are no concrete signs from this administration that they are taking this situation seriously, or, in fact, that they have any idea just what to do about it.
Yet, despite the fact that analysts (and perhaps operatives, too) say that it is not likely that North Korea has reprocessed the 8,000 + spent fuel rods into weapons grade plutonium, BushCo. are oddly silent on the issue. In fact, some of the same administration hawks who were absolutely certain that the available intelligence showed Iraq was perilously close to having "the bomb," are being very cautious about the intelligence about North Korea.
Maybe they've learned a lesson in humility before incomplete intelligence. Maybe the neocon playbook never included the DPRK and they are at a loss as to what to do.
Whatever the reason, with aWol himself going to Bangkok next week for an Asian summit, you'd think the hawks would be beating the drums over this one. Yet they are strangely silent. Whether Kim Jong Il intends to build more bombs (or has built, some estimates are the latest round of reprocessing has given him up to eight weapons) or to sell weapons grade materials on the black market, this is very scary stuff.
North Korea should scare us all as Iraq never could. Not only is Kim a monomaniacal sociopath, but the million plus soldiers under his command are as fanatical as they come. There is no doubt that should Kim give the order, they would not only march on Seoul, but they would launch whatever nuclear or biological weapons they have.
BushCo has started to come around in some sense, they are at least making noises like they will talk with North Korea. But there are no concrete signs from this administration that they are taking this situation seriously, or, in fact, that they have any idea just what to do about it.
Out of Touch and Way Behind
This past weekend was Canadian Thanksgiving so I have been away from the TV, away from the newspapers and, most importantly, away from the web. I've missed a couple of good stories, but the one with the most interest to me - and aparently, at least for now - to the press is the Army Astroturf fiasco.
Josh Marshal at Talking Points Memo and Hesiod over at Counterspin Central are doing a great job of bringing all the threads together on this one. It apparently involves a very similar - and in many cases exact copy - letter being sent to multiple newspapers around the country, signed by different soldiers. The last update is that a Battalion Commander has taken the responsibility for writing the letter and getting some of his soldiers to sign it to get the "real story" to the press.
I think the comments I left at Counterspin give my position on this very well:
It's disgusting and I hope that the real perps are exposed.
Josh Marshal at Talking Points Memo and Hesiod over at Counterspin Central are doing a great job of bringing all the threads together on this one. It apparently involves a very similar - and in many cases exact copy - letter being sent to multiple newspapers around the country, signed by different soldiers. The last update is that a Battalion Commander has taken the responsibility for writing the letter and getting some of his soldiers to sign it to get the "real story" to the press.
I think the comments I left at Counterspin give my position on this very well:
[snip]While I can appreciate soldiers wanting to get their side of the story out, this smacks of Defense Department propaganda. And coming as it does on the heels of BushCo.'s announcement that they are going to actively "get the story out" on their successes in Iraq, it can't help but put all these soldiers in the position of being dupes, pawns in Rummy's PR campaign. They work too hard, and put themselves in too much danger without this kind of help.
Like any large corporation, the military is very strict on what kinds of communications get sent to outside agencies - especially the press. No battalion commander I ever knew had the authority to release letters or any other communications to the press without the involvement of at least the post Public Affairs office. And that office is under the direct control of the post commander - typically a two star general.
And for anything that would potentially get wider dissemination that the local rag, the post commander would have to go to the Corps Public Affairs... and on up the chain.
No matter what get said on this by that leiutenant colonel or other spin meisters, this has got the finger prints of Dept. of Defense if not higher.
It's disgusting and I hope that the real perps are exposed.
