Wednesday July 31, 2002
Maureen Dowd gets it wrong in her latest column, claiming that Hillary Clinton got into a shouting match with Russ Feingold because of the soft money he wants to ban that she needs for sustaining her campaigns. But the context of the fight was exactly opposite what Ms. Dowd depicts. Hillary was in fact arguing against (and Russ Feingold was arguing in favor of) a type of fundraising that skirted on the edge of legality given the newly minted Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act. Hillary said that the Democrats would be buried alive by the Republicans and the media for that type of fundraising, stating to Russ "They’ll be all over you like a June Bug."
But don't let the truth get in the way of a hastily thrown together article, Maureen!
George Olsen (I seem to recall he had some association with the Web Standards Project, maybe still does) really goes out on a limb with his latest piece on web standards.
I'm waiting for one of these people to say, "Wait a minute. We have an untenable situation here. We have web standards that have not been proven to be even completely workable. Time after time browser developers come up against vagaries and counter-indications in standards like CSS and CSS2 that make it difficult to even develop the application to display them. These standards don't even have adequate test suites. In the case of CSS, the default behavior of some of the elements is completely counterintuitive. Yet the W3C keeps pushing ahead with more complex and involved standards, not even waiting for one browser maker (not a single one) to get things right. They're not even waiting for an implementation then can put a stamp of approval on. These standards are barely guidelines, if in the end they hold no one to account. It's time that the W3C stops with its incessant push forward and waits for the development community to catch up. And they need to make browser makers accountable for their improper or inadequate implementations, and praise those developers that get it right. (Maybe they need to offer certification to browser makers too, not just to website developers who are coding to standards.)"
We're going to continue to be stuck in this anarchic situation until guys like Olsen or others in positions of authority speak up honestly about this whole situation and stop belittling browser makers and site developers. The rules-makers need to be accountable as well. No one should get a walk. All parties are responsible for creating this mess, and everyone should have the guts to acknowledge that fact.
In order to keep those wily workers in their place, the Bush administration has decided to interpret regulations in the latest Corporate Reform bill in such a way that limits whistleblower protections.
If you get some time, read this article about an Ann Coulter speech at the University of Washington (thanks Eschaton for the link). At the end of the talk she's asked if she ever met Bill Clinton, and her response is, "No, and if I had I would’ve been fully wired." Following the gist of her talk, presumably she means wired with a belt of dynamite, not a wiretap.
Tuesday July 30, 2002
The name has caught on. Joe Conason calls TIPS the "citizen snitch" program. You can get your square Citizen Snitch banner at left, and a full banner here. Support your snitches!
I can't believe what I'm hearing. Skip Bayless is on Fox Sports Net actually trying to defend his opinion on Lance Armstrong. And Jason Whitlock calls Lance's win a "fringe accomplishment". Skip calls Lance a "one dimensional piston-pumping machine". He says that marathoners are actually more "athletic" than cyclists. This is just sickness personified. Jason calls soccer a fringe sport. Holy shit. For a more detailed response to another idiot's brainless rant about Lance not being an athlete, read this article at Jeff Cooper's blog.
Did Bush just say "Franklin and Delano Roosevelt"? Update: Listened to a replay. He said "Franklind.... Delano... Roosevelt"
Finally the Brazilians are fighting back against the Bush administration's efforts against their economy. The latest flap occurred when Paul O'Neill said, in effect, that he wanted to make sure that any new loan money to Brazil didn't get siphoned off into Swiss accounts somewhere. His unfortunate comments came as he was trying to deflect criticism that he lacks the "deft touch" of Robert Rubin.
After the real dropped 5% on the assumption that the US would be blocking further loans from the IMF to Brazil, the Brazilians demanded an apology, and they got one from an O'Neill lackey.
Investor upset that a leftist (a leftist, dammit!) might win the next election in Brazil has caused the real to lose almost a quarter of its value against the dollar this year.
You may want to read this article, which leads one to believe that beyond election manipulation in our own backyard of Florida, the Bush administration is working to manipulate the election in Brazil as well.
The Workers' Party in Brazil enjoyed a 20 pt. lead in the polls at the time of the writing of that article. The party's platform includes infrastructure rebuilding and a lowering of interest rates to help industry in the country. Even the Financial Times called the party's local and state efforts "moderate and efficient." The platform also includes a healthy skepticism over the Bush Administration's Free Trade Area of the Americas idea. But because of these radical leftist ideas, the party's potential win was named as the reason that Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch downgraded Brazil's investment rating. And here's George Soros promising an Argentinian fate for Brazil if the Workers' Party candidate Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva is elected.
Reeling over this downgrade, Brazil's markets gets to heap on a few more shovelfuls of insult from our Treasury Secretary. So much for democracy. I wonder what they have planned for our next election. Oh, I forgot. Iraq.
Monday July 29, 2002
It must irk Andrew Sullivan to no end that Paul Krugman's voice on American economic issues is starting to gain the stature of Thomas Friedman's opinions on the Middle East. In Paul's latest article for the NYTimes, he likens the economic situation in many American states to that of a banana republic. Take Tennessee, for example:
"When Tennessee considered a tax increase last year, legislators were intimidated by a riot stirred up by radio talk-show hosts. Only when lack of cash forced the governor to lay off half the work force did the state, which has the second-lowest per capita taxes in the country, face up to reality... The only reason Tennessee doesn't look like Argentina right now is that it isn't a sovereign nation; since the federal budget was in good shape until recently, there's a safety net."
But, due to a similar spate of irresponsible book-cooking by our current administration, the outlook for state and federal budgets is looking grim:
"State governments turned into banana republics in part because voters didn't realize that a charming, personable chief executive can also be an irresponsible opportunist, seeking political advantage through policies that ensure a fiscal crisis on someone else's watch. Now the same governing style has moved to Washington. And this time there's no safety net."
At The Rittenhouse Review: Evidence that the Republicans are trying to turn the rescue of the miners in Pennsylvania into some sort of conservative May Day.
"This was an effort totally focused on the right to life of brothers in distress, a compassionate conservatism if there ever was one. Nine individuals were in desperate need, and a whole community stopped everything else and concentrated all its attention on getting them out."
Add to that the interesting sentiment provided in this post (seen first at Eschaton). It seems that the conservatives are torn between knighting the miners for their traditional God-fearing values and smiting them with righteousness because they didn't come out of the mine with a flag stuck out their ass saying the Prayer of Allegiance.
Of the two, I almost prefer the Republicans stick with the latter idiocy, because the sight of them trying to act populist is about as asthetically pleasing as a goat in garters. I'm sure that someone somewhere finds the image appealing,but they should probably keep that kind of perversion from the light of day.
Saw on Eschaton a link to an off-page editorial by Paul Krugman on the topic of the right-wing vilification of Robert Rubin.
I find it interesting that given we have a stock market that is, even at these numbers, incredibly overvalued (according to estimates that "depressed" Neil Cavuto), we have a rush of people now looking to inflate these numbers even more. Let's erase those losses! Go team go!
Well, so much for having an XHTML-compliant weblog. IE6 mishandles (of course) Javascript code within XHTML, which leads to Javascript errors and nasty alert boxes when I add the hit counter code to the page. Lovely. Use Mozilla!
I saw a great interview on CSPAN last night with Beppe Severgnini, author of the book, "Ciao, America! An Italian Discovers the U.S.". For most of the hour Brian Lamb peppered Beppe with questions on the differences in quotidian life in Italy and America.
One of Beppe's points was that people in America are afraid of failure (in business, mainly). Because failure doesn't imply that you're a "loser", like it does in Italy. Apparently in Italy it is very difficult to start again after a bankruptcy.
But I disagree -- I think the stigma of failure is the same in America. The only difference is that in America you can simply move somewhere else where no one knows of your past failures. Americans are obsessed with reinvention (I don't except myself from this generalization) because it's so damn easy. Maybe in Italy the issue is that because the landsize is relatively smaller, and the population per acre is higher, there are limits to the number of jobs to go around, and there are expectations of taking jobs for life. So failure at one of these jobs implies a failure at life in some way. Or maybe the Italians take their work more seriously, and thus take failure more seriously.
According to the Washington Post, the Republicans, who have been rapidly mutating into McCarthyite thugs over the past year, plan on running on the proposition that the potential Democrat challengers to Bush are "Looking Backward", "determined to resurrect the old Democratic Party rather than follow the moderate course that helped Bill Clinton defeat Bush's father in 1992."
Sunday July 28, 2002
Here are two views from Canada (The Toronto Sun's Eric Margolis and The Toronto Star's Haroon Siddiqui) on the Bush administration's authoritarian/militaristic/stalinistic policies.
For inspiration, I prefer that which comes from people doing extraordinary things. By the time you read this, Lance Armstrong has probably already won the Tour de France. The athleticism required to ride even one of the Tour's stages is staggering. The athleticism required to climb the mountains is practically inhuman. But to do it all with such ease; Lance has definitely pushed beyond the capabilities of today's best riders. I think it will be years before someone comes along that can best his performance over the past four Tours.
Saturday July 27, 2002
Via Salon I have come across one of the most amazing cover albums I've ever heard - Black Sabbath covered by the Medieval music group Rondellus. The songs are sung in Latin (by both male and female voices), with bare instrumentation, and well, listen for yourselves to this clip from the song "Planetarum Vagatio (Planet Caravan), or listen here for the Real Audio version". Astounding. Here's a link to order it from CD Baby.
Bob Novak just equated the arrest of the Adelphia CEOs to Nazi and Stalinist roundups.
From the Village Voice: Buying Trouble:
"They thought they were making routine purchases—the innocent, everyday pickups of charcoal and hummus, bleach and sandwich bags, that keep the modern household running. Regulars at a national grocery chain, these thousands and thousands of shoppers used the store's preferred-customer cards, in the process putting years of their lives on file. Perhaps they expected their records would be used by marketers trying to better target consumers. Instead, says the company's privacy consultant, the data was used by government agents hunting for potential terrorists.
The saga began with a misguided fit of patriotism mere weeks after the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, when a corporate employee handed over the records—almost literally, the grocery lists—to federal investigators from three agencies that had never even requested them. In a flash, the most quotidian of exchanges became fodder for the Patriot Act."
Who would have thought that the act of saving a buck or two would have such a high cost? Whom do you trust now?
Why is it not surprising that when we finally find out how much the Republicans spent to win the 2000 election (4x as much as the Democrats), we also find out that Enron and Halliburton were there with their corporate jets to help out? The Republicans held off disclosing this information for 18 months, until the last possible minute before they would have to pay a $6.92 million dollar fine, and even then, their rep said, "We don't think we have a legal obligation to file this."
How long before Americans start understanding that the word "accountability" just doesn't apply to these people?
Friday July 26, 2002
Paul Krugman's piece in the NYTimes Editoral Page today is great, if only because he has a little fun with Andrew Sullivan. But more than that, there's this great bit:
"One reason... is Mr. Bush's infallibility complex: to back off on privatization [of Social Security] would be to admit, at least implicitly, to a mistake — and this administration never, ever does that."
This is the first time that I've seen a big-league pundit touch on the fact that the Bush administration's modus operandi is "never, ever admit that you're wrong". But more than just a political strategy, I think that it points out something fundamental about their thinking. This administration actually believes that it can do no wrong, that it has somehow channeled God and is doing His will on earth. This became more clear after September 11th, when Bush started telling people that he thought that it was God's will that he was in office at this time to lead the American people through this crisis. A number of the insane Republican pundits picked up on this, and started deifying Bush and his disciples. And I think it's clear that a large portion of the Republican population in our country is willing to do the bidding of our new GodKing. It goes a long way towards explaining the authoritarian measures that the Bush administration has implemented over the past year. Civil Liberties are obviously not an issue if people are being locked up for the right reason (we know they're criminal, otherwise why would we have locked them up?) The TIPS program is a good thing even if everyone with a brain that they like using thinks it's a bad idea. It's good because it's good and no one would misuse it because the American people are good. (This somewhat flies in the face of Charles Krauthammer's facile argument in today's Washington Post that all liberals "tend to be nice, and they believe -- here is where they go stupid -- that most everybody else is nice too." It seems that conservatives tend to think that too, when they want to push through some draconian authoritarian corporatist plan.) It's good for our people, for the country, for the world. Bad things are bad. Good things are good. It's that simple. Charles Krauthammer proves today that conservatives are actually this cut-and-dried in their thinking. And the weak-willed Andrew Sullivan calls this pathetic nonsense "charming" and "a classic". According to Krauthammer, conservatives actually think that liberals are stupid. These are the same people that elevated George Bush to power -- the President who (ironically) speaks down to the American public as if it were a roomful of 5 year olds.
What does all this say about these people? I'll leave the psychoanalysis to a professional. But it seems to fall into the same psychic minefield that allowed Newt Gingrich to rail about Bill Clinton's wayward penis while simultaneously shtupping his own secretary.
Thursday July 25, 2002
Needed a day off. Back tomorrow.
Wednesday July 24, 2002
Ok, it looks like I got the layout working in NN4. The page still looks less-than-ideal in that browser, but I imagine that so does a lot of the Internet anymore.
Well, apparently once you get a lot of content into the page, it does suck in Netscape Communicator. I'll worry about it tomorrow. Use Mozilla!
Also, I know this page isn't 100% standards perfect. I do a few things wrong, and Blogger does a few things wrong. I'll see what I can do to make it 100% compliant. A three-column layout using CSS is damn hard. It shouldn't be that hard. Nothing about CSS should be as hard or as obscure or as non-common-sensical as it is. But that's the future! Boldly going where no one has gone before! Using really crappy technology.
Ok, so, I've made the big move to Cascading Style Sheets. I made an attempt to make the page not suck in Netscape Communicator 4, but if it does on your machine, you're out of luck. Try Mozilla. The layout looks good in IE, but is less feature-complete. You shouldn't really be using IE. It's insecure, buggy, and just plain uncool. Branch out.
If you have any problems with the layout, please send them to the feedback link in the righthand column. If the layout is so bad that you can't even *see* the right-hand column, then just click here to send a mail. If you can't see this column, I'm in trouble.
Enough bad comments, and I will forsake CSS. This is more an experiment than anything. In the end, I think I got something that looks very close to what I had previously. If suddenly my hitcount drops to zero, I'll know there's a problem :-)
Via Eschaton, via Joshua Michah Marshall, comes a link to this Washington Post article on the Administration's cunning plan for the economy. Mr. Marshall writes:
"His [Lawrence Lindsey's] solution to the fix we're in is to jigger the capital gains tax. Obviously his advice is being blocked by political advisors who happen not to be insane. But if Lindsey is being sidelined because he's taken up residence on another planet who does that leave guiding the nation's economic policy? Not Paul O'Neill. No one likes or respects him at the White House. Don Evans? Dick Cheney?"
And from the article at the Washington Post:
"And the team will continue to blame congressional spending for a budget deficit now projected to be the highest since 1995. One official said Bush would be happy to see Congress send him an appropriations bill that he could veto. Had Congress done that already, the official said, 'It would have been a good thing; it would have shown consumers he's solid on spending.'
Much of the new spending, however, has come at the administration's request -- for the war on terrorism and homeland security."
Apparently Harvey Pitt never met a conflict of interest he didn't like. Now he wants to elevate his position to cabinet level! Harvey needs the rank and status that comes with being a cabinet member, so he can get perks like invitations to state dinners and burial at Arlington Cemetery.
Tuesday July 23, 2002
Gerard Baker points out that the true nastiness of Bush's business dealings came after Harken, in his work with the Rangers baseball team.
But then Bill Black and James Galbraith at the Boston Globe counter that there was in fact fraud and shady dealings at Harken.
Bush's poll numbers seem to be slipping. It's about time he gets his war on! Robert Scheer of the Los Angeles Times writes about the "like father like son" aspect of the Bush presidency, and how 43 is following 41's footsteps towards war in Iraq:
But while the end of Hussein's tyranny would certainly be a cause for cheers, the harsh truth is that the most exhaustive investigation in human history hasn't found a single credible thread connecting him with our current troubles.
In fact, if we are honest, the closest we can come to an identifiable foreign enemy is Saudi Arabia, where the Bushes love to do business and from whence the men and money came to destroy the World Trade Center.
In a slap in the face to his Republican friends, Bush is pushing ahead with the Citizen Snitches, despite the fact that the House version of the Homeland Security Office bans the program.
Monday July 22, 2002
There was an interesting comment from a pundit on PBS this evening, talking with Neil Cavuto (of all people). She said (again, paraphrasing), "I thought that after all these scandals erupted, CEOs would be having press conferences talking about how their books were squeaky clean, and that just hasn't happened. And I think that's lead to some of the problems we're seeing today."
That thought hadn't even occurred to me; Coca-Cola is the only company that has seemed to say, "we're going to try to do right, even if that means our earnings will be lower." The fact that other companies *aren't* doing that does not inspire any confidence.
Best line from Paul Krugman's interview on Lou Dobbs Moneyline (paraphrased):
"I think what's been overlooked... is that all of these members of the administration (except for Paul O'Neil) aren't really businessmen... but crony capitalists."
Paul Krugman's going to be on Lou Dobbs Moneyline tonight, talking about Bush and Cheney's business scandals.
Sunday July 21, 2002
From the NYTimes editorial page: The most chilling result in last week's New York Times/CBS News Poll was that 45 percent of the respondents said they thought "other people are really running the government" — exactly the same percentage as said the president was in charge.
When the public believes that an administration's underlings are really in charge, that administration is the last one that can afford to have lightweights in those positions.
And we take another step down the road of no return.
Saturday July 20, 2002
51% of the American population believes that Clinton's dick is to blame for these corporate scandals.
So much for the infinite wisdom of the American people. Apparently Clinton is responsible for the malfeasance of Bush and Cheney during their reigns at Harken and Halliburton.
If only everyone had a phantom to blame when asked to accept responsibility. Maybe Bush's overwhelming ignorance is the American public's way of shifting the blame for their own lack of sense.
"But the President doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground! Why should I be expected to understand any better?"
or
"He must not be too ignorant, he became President!"
A great interview with Mark Crispin-Miller at Buzzflash. Mark is the author of The Bush Dyslexicon.
Frank Rich's must-read article, "The Road To Perdition"
A few choice quotes:
"It's Forrest Gump does finance," says Charles Lewis, the center's founder, in looking at the story line of the remarkable George W. Bush business career.
For his first pitch, he appeared against a blue background emblazoned with the repeated legend "Corporate Responsibility." Next came a red backdrop, with "Strengthening Our Economy" as the double-vision-inducing slogan. What will be strike three — black-and-white stripes and "Dick Cheney Is Not a Crook"?
...their investigative journalists tried to break the cronyism code by which tiny Harken, which had never drilled a well overseas, miraculously beat out the giant Amoco for a prized contract for drilling in Bahrain. They also tried to learn what various Saudi money men, some tied to the terrorist-sponsoring Bank of Credit and Commerce International, may have had to do with Harken while the then-president's son was in proximity.
Friday July 19, 2002
A Vacuous Sac
As the DJA flirts with crossing the 8000 mark, we're left with the realization that our President, ensconced in his silvery abode of makeshift theoretical constructions cobbled together by conservative anti-government intellectuals, has not once in his 50+ years of on-and-off sobriety flung the shutters open to gaze upon reality.
The consequence of this fact has left even the most ardent Republican money-grubbing loyalists quivering on the bow in disbelief, their captain staring blankly from behind the wheel as the iceberg cuts a swath the size of Texas through the hull.
Our residing President (or is that our presiding Resident?), whose intellectual biorythm got stuck at its nadir back in 1951, is as ill-equipped as his father to understand the dreams and fortunes of commoners, and as one who has been the screwer and the beneficiary of all kinds of financial fucking over the course of his professional life, our gilded leader is simply unable to understand the feeling of emotional and fiscal betrayal coming from the rest of America. Thus his stupifying comment that this precipitous drop in the stock market is simply a "hangover" from the excesses of the 90's. If there's one thing our Captain Souse knows, it's a hangover.
So, we sit and daily watch Our Vacuous Sac emanate dust and fluff from the widening holes in his too-thin membrane, holes that are routinely patched with honey and flowers by our worker-drone media. Note to self: when you can see directly through to the other side of your President, you know you're in trouble.
A Promissory Note
With the revelations about Harken, our President seems little more than a promissory note, passed from one lined pocket to the next, a guarantor of future wealth and ease. Slowly but surely our George note navigated the channels of Texas privelege. His Republican investors who had spent years positioning and repositioning the upstart (passing the buck, as it were) lined up behind him in 2000: Jim Baker, daddy and the rest, all knowing the better times that awaited them. Their numbers may be small -- it took few people to raise George to the level of President -- but their portfolios are expanding, even as the market shrinks. Carlisle and Halliburton are taking advantage of the War on Terror and the American people, turning in their promissory note for big defense contracts.
It's lucky for them that Defense is the new Government, as the new Homeland Security Agency assumes the role of beef inspector and drowning child saver. The Homeland Security Agency is nothing but a shell game to convince the American people that something is being done about the war on terror, when in reality its sole purpose is to widen the umbrella of Defense over non-defense government agencies. The aspects of these agencies which could have some tangent to the War on Terror will get funded while the rest are left to atrophy. With ever-shrinking tax revenue, how soon before we find these expendable bits of our government privatized due to lack of funds?
These investors got their dividends. In the end they had to result to a vile manipulation of our system of government to do it, but they reached their goal. Not that these fundamental rules of our society ever really applied to them at all. We may find at some undefined point in America's future that a majority of people could find themselves outraged by such callous disregard for propriety, candor, and our freedoms. But for now, we're left with an America that seems to be looking out for #1. Seems a very Republican sentiment. Could it be that this is the President we actually want?
The case of the missing anthrax, and how anthrax doesn't like Democrats too much.
And here's yet another example about how Bush can't hold more than one idea in his head at a time, and once it's there, it's stuck, despite all attempts by reality to dislodge it. Bush is still mired in his Social Security privatization nonsense.
Another article on the Citizen Snitches. It notes that the Post Office isn't playing ball.
Thursday July 18, 2002
Gene Lyons' (and no, I refuse to spell it "Lyons's") latest column delves into Bush's mythical 70% approval rating. Gene writes:
fully 39 percent in that same Gallup survey "believe the president did something 'illegal' or 'unethical' in his role as a corporate director. Thirty-one percent believe that he 'did not do anything seriously wrong,' while 30 per cent have no opinion." Do the arithmetic, and it appears that some who rate Bush favorably also suspect he's a crook.
The 31 percent see-no-evil bunch, of course, represent core Republican voters who would applaud Junior for being in church if he got videotaped looting the poorbox.
Wednesday July 17, 2002
Specious wisdom from David Winer:
"We're learning about the pitiful information technology at the SEC and the FBI. They desperately need the combo of weblogs and search engines."
Jason Kottke is one of a growing number of people who believes that software should be made for the lowest common denominator. But the fact is that the simplest software performs functions that can't be encompassed in a play-rewind-fastforward-stop interface. Most software performs functions that require that the user actually understands why they're using the software in the first place. But even the most complex software/user interactions can become engrained physical-learning after only a few uses. Utilizing a computer is not the same as putting a pen to paper, and it never will be (even if we perfect a pen-based interface, there's more to computer interaction than simple input). Using a computer requires a mind that isn't passive. Software makers have brains and they utilize them. It should be expected that software users do the same with theirs.
Citizen Corps "TIPS" Program != Neighborhood Watch
A good indication that the Citizen Snitches "TIPS" program isn't just "neighborhood watch" as the Republicans would have you believe: their website lists Neighborhood Watch and the TIPS program as completely separate programs with distinct missions. TIPS is *not* -- I repeat *not* -- your local neighborhood watch program on steroids. This is an entirely different, much more frightening beast. The government is recruiting millions of people who have access to very private aspects of your life, and asking them to report on any "suspicious" activity that they find. These people, with the sanction of the government, are essentially performing searches without a warrant. Can any evidence that they send to their Citizen Snitch database be used to further an investigation? If the information is obtained by government sanctioned and mobilized operatives entering a home without announcing their affiliation, and this illegal "search" leads to an investigation, a search warrant, and an arrest, would the conviction stand up in court? Does this new program allow the government to do warrantless searches? What kind of erosion of liberties are we talking about here?
We have an administration that is mobilizing the population to be informants. Plain and simple. Neighborhood Watch was never about this. Neighborhood Watch is about people looking out for their neighbors -- reporting people trying to break into cars and homes, vandalize property, etc. It was never about reporting "suspicious" activity that would be logged in a federal database. Would we as Americans have access to our TIPS file? Or would this information be exempted from the Freedom of Information Act like everything else in the new Department of Homeland Security?
America already lives in a culture of mistrust. Although we are supposedly the most "free" democracy in the world, we walk around suspicious of others motives, untrusting of our doctors and dentists, our real estate agents, our tax collectors, our politicians, our airline pilots, our CEOs. Our freedom, coupled with a system that actually rewards and encourages white-collar excess and criminality (how many politicians supported American companies shifting their business operations to Bermuda to avoid paying taxes?) has lead to a dysfunction in this country where the motto is, "It's only wrong when you get caught." And the trusting people in this country, the oldest generation mainly, are routinely bilked by unscrupulous money-grubbers. To be trusting in this country is to be foolish.
With the advent of the TIPS program and the Citizen Corps, who is left to trust? The people we trust inherently, without realizing, the people who deliver our mail, who keep our utilities online and working smoothly, who maintain our roads and neighborhoods, are now potential government informants. Are your rights of free speech violated? Maybe not technically, but in spirit, they've been crushed. Here's an important bit from an article I linked to yesterday:
"Snitching creates a culture of paranoia. It isolates people, breaks down social solidarity, and prevents exchange of information between members of society. Everyone becomes obsessed with watching their own back. Nobody is a friend. Nobody can be trusted.
Snitching creates a culture in which every encounter between two citizens is mediated by authority: Big Brother is always in the room with you. And even if it isn't, you have to behave as if it is. The ubiquity of authority is the essence of totalitarianism."
Now every encounter will be an occasion for scrutiny and fear. Not knowing if you are talking with a Citizen Corps volunteer, will you feel comfortable exercising your right to free speech? Not knowing if your utility man is a Citizen Corps volunteer, will you feel comfortable letting him into your home? What behavior falls under the umbrella of "suspicious"? What behaviour gets you a red mark in the database? Now, in the words of Ari Fleischer, Americans will have to truly "watch what they say."
We saw how easily and quickly the right wing in this country branded any whiff of dissent as treasonous. That kind of fascist rhetoric fit them like a pair of jackboots. Trent Lott, on Chris Matthews last night, carted out the old line, "If you're not doing anything suspicious, you don't have anything to worry about." That sets my mind at ease.
Tuesday July 16, 2002
More on the new Citizen Snitch Brigade, from the YellowTimes, and why fostering a culture of paranoia and mistrust in this country isn't a very far step from what we have now.
Also, be sure to check out the pilot program of the Citizen Snitches, the "Citizen Corps". Note the patriotic colors and flag imagery. Note the adoring photo of our lovable and fearless leader. To celebrate the dawning of this new age of volunteerism, I've created a new banner for the group, reminiscent of the banners available on the Citizen Corps website. Just my little token of appreciation for all the hard work these people will be doing. Feel free to copy it and place it on your own website!
Getting More Frightening by the Day: #678
I first heard about this scary new fascist informant program from an Australian newspaper. But now even the Washington Times has picked it up.
From the Australian article:
" Historically, informant systems have been the tools of non-democratic states. According to a 1992 report by Harvard University's Project on Justice, the accuracy of informant reports is problematic, with some informants having embellished the truth, and others suspected of having fabricated their reports."
and from the Washington Times:
"Critics say that having Americans act as "domestic informants" is reminiscent of the infamous Stasi, the new-disbanded communist East German secret police service that snooped on dissidents and ordinary East German citizens for more than 40 years, compiling a huge catalogue of notes."
So we'll soon have borderline insane post-office workers, truck drivers, and utility people watching our mail, our behavior on the roads, coming into our homes and potentially spying without a warrant.
These new Citizen Snitches must feel proud to be the new frontline on the war of terrorism. Either that or they're just glad for the chance to wear their smart new black shirt and boots that they'll be getting when they join.
What we need is a database to catalog these new informants as we find them. Maybe we can tie a bell around their neck so we know when they're approaching.
Damn you, Blogger!
Monday July 15, 2002
A Republican judge speaks against the Bush administration's destruction of our Constitution, and asks of the Democrats, "Why aren't they speaking out?"
The Euro has surpassed the dollar.
Friday July 12, 2002
Where's the nearest nuclear-waste train station? I gotta catch the red-eye to Yucca Mountain!
Thursday July 11, 2002
Sadly, this cartoon seems like it could have easily come from the early part of the last century. How far and fast we've fallen.
Oh, and Qwest is under criminal investigation. Have a nice day.
Accounting scandal of the day: "SEC opens Bristol-Myers investigation"
Bristol-Myers Squibb is thought to have inflated sales by one billion dollars last year.
Wednesday July 10, 2002
Be sure to check out Joe Conason's weblog today. Some great quotes:
"Pitt represented Arthur Andersen, the accounting company used by Halliburton when Cheney was CEO and the company added those disputed cost-overruns to the bottom line. Will Pitt have to recuse himself? Can political appointees at the SEC (or the Justice Department) plausibly investigate the Vice President? When Al Gore was in office, conservatives fretted constantly about such problems."
"If you would like to understand why John McCain thinks Pitt should quit, try looking up 'When Bad Things Happen to Good Companies: A Crisis Management Primer.'
"That's the title of a January 1994 article co-authored by Pitt in the Cardozo Law Review, in which he advised that 'each company should have a system of determining the retention and destruction of documents. Ask executives and employees to imagine all of their documents in the hands of a zealous regulator or on the front page of the New York Times. Obviously, once a subpoena has been issued or is about to be issued, any existing destruction policy should be brought to an immediate halt.'"
So much goodness today. Here's a link to Loquendo's website. Loquendo is an Italian text-to-speech company doing remarkable things. Check out their demo, or their press release on their railway service achievement.
So, apparently now it's "Tabbed browsing considered harmful". A few brief comments, since the argument is really very weak.
Mr. Robertson writes, "The main problem I have with them is this: they only make sense when the task I'm performing requires only one application and that application is being used for only one task. This is a very rare occurence."
This is untrue on its face, but even if it were, the "one application for one task" usage is not the minority usage pattern that Mr. Robertson would have you believe. And there aren't any numbers or anything short of personal anecdotes to back his premise. In any case, he's talking about a specific usage pattern that tabbed browsing in no way negates (opening up a number of windows, and using each to browse different sites). There is no tabbed vs. new window conflict. You don't have to open any tabs *ever* if you don't feel like it. Sorry, one strike.
"We already have taskbars to solve the problem of switching between windows. Adding tabs to that means that we have to click on the application window in the taskbar and then bring the mouse up to the top of the screen (but not to the very top, so we can't take advantage of Fitts' law) to click on the tab."
Again, he's addressing a non-problem. People who don't use tabs don't need to use tabs ever for anything. Mr. Robertson seems to think that there is something that will inexplicably keep "New Window" openers from opening new windows now that tabbed browsing is on us. (Unfortunately for him, if there *is* something, it would be "usefulness".)
And Fitts' law just doesn't apply, because, well, it just doesn't. Again, the only conflict between tabbed-browsing and new-window usage is in the mind of the user. There is nothing stopping anyone from using one or the other method. (If using both together is confusing, then it won't be used, no? Is there a fundamental problem with that? I think not.) Fitts' law might place new-window opening in a better light in terms of motor-function usability (except for you Windows98 users, or anyone who has a taskbar that autohides when not in use), but that conclusion wouldn't imply that tabbed browsing serves no useful purpose or is in any way "harmful".
There seems to be some sort of assumption that only one web page can be the occupant of a window, and anything beyond that makes a window unusable, and that tabs are inherently unusable because of this and therefore should be shunned. I've gotten the impression from "anti-tab" comments that I've read in the past that apparently the general user is befuddled and put upon by the presence of an "open in a new tab" entry in the context menu. Maybe these users should apply for some minority status with the U.N. A tribunal can address their grievances and they can get some compensation. But to say that the mental anguish suffered by these poor souls should somehow lead to the abolishing of tabbed browsing is just folly.
In any case, Mr. Robertson seems intent on ignoring whatever usefulness anyone could ever derive from tabbed browsing. Hence the title, which in general is used when someone is making the case for the ending of some horrid technical practice.
I'm not going to bother going into why I find tabs so useful (I use them constantly throughout the day -- and to throw another wrench in Mr. Robertson's argument, I never open new browser windows now, removing one level of complexity but gaining a whole range of usefulness that tabbed browsing offers me). Instead, I'll point you to a nice argument from Hampton Maxwell in reply to Mr. Robertson.
The Andersen video with the clip of Dick Cheney promoting their services has finally appeared on the web. Check it out here, or go to the full story at BBC News, and click on "The BBC's Nick Bryant reports" link in the upper right of the page.
To quote Mr. Cheney, "I get good advice, if you will, from their people based upon how we're doing business and how we're operating—over and above just the sort of normal by-the-books auditing arrangement." (emphasis added).
Bush is losing some clout. Even Wall Street and Lou Dobbs give him a thumbs down for his speech on corporatist responsability. Seems the bloom is coming off the rose.
Saw this at Eric Alterman's weblog: TONY BLAIR's special relationship with George W. Bush
is under considerable strain. Not only do the two disagree on Yassir Arafat's
tenure as leader of the Palestinian Authority, but Blair has started telling
disparaging anecdotes about the President. Baroness Williams of Crosby recalled
a story told to her by 'my good friend Tony Blair' recently in Brighton.
Blair, Bush and Jacques Chirac were discussing economics and, in particular,
the decline of the French economy. "The problem with the French," Bush confided
in Blair, "is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur."
Tuesday July 09, 2002
On CNN this morning, the anchors were getting in some choice e-mails about Bush and what he should tell corporate leaders today. One reader wrote in, "8 months and 200,000 shares short".
The CNN hacks then proceeded to state that Bush had been exonerated -- "the SEC didn't find anything", and one of them actually said "at least it was 8 months and not one day". The poor guy was so confused that he actually thought that Bush had sold his shares 8 months before the drop of Harken's stock price. But actually he had made the sale only two months before, and he didn't file the paperwork for 8 months. Joe Conason, who wrote about Bush's shady dealings back in 2000 when it actually meant something to someone, describes Bush's most recent evasions in his "daily journal".
Mickey Kaus serves up a weak weak excuse for his weak hyperbole on violence and the political left. After being vague in his first bit of fluff, he decides that he wasn't really trying to tar the whole left:
"I wasn't suggesting that unions, or even their fringe backers, would be the new instigators of violence in this country... violence seems much more likely to come from radical environmentalists or fringe anti-globalists."
He then goes on to blame Media Whores Online for inciting people to a frenzy that could lead to violence. Media Whores counters his babble with a few choice quotes from a Free Republic reader. Here's an example:
"'Open Season' on these red bastards would be package bombs blowing everything from their shoulders up against the walls in their offices."
Let's face it: whatever fever-dream produced Kaus's hallucinatory rambling, to ignore the rising tide of right-wing violence (that in part led to Bush's takeover in 2000) is criminal. As one writer at Slate put it, "Re-imagine [the near-riot and violent intimidation at] Miami-Dade once more - this time the protesters are black Democrats. Life since then would have been a little more ugly for them than it has been for the [Republican] party hacks who actually did it, no?"
Joe Conason sums up Bush's less-than-brilliant evasion of serious questions regarding his stock sale at Harken, and with a few words omitted it could sum up Bush's tenure as Resident:
"In other words, everybody was responsible for his failure to observe the securities laws except him. It sounded a bit tinny when he reminded those listening to his press conference that his very favorite theme is 'a renewed sense of [personal] responsibility.'"
This is the first of Joe Conason's blogs for Salon.com.
Monday July 08, 2002
Sean Wilentz provides a nice counter to Scalia:
"In Chicago Mr. Scalia asserted, not for the first time, that he is a strict constructionist, taking the Constitution as it is, not as he might want it to be. Yet he wants to give it a religious sense that is directly counter to the abundantly expressed wishes of the men who wrote the Constitution. That is not properly called strict constructionism; it is opportunism, and it threatens democracy. His defense of his private prejudices, even if they may occasionally overlap the opinions of others, should not be mislabeled conservatism. Justice Scalia seeks to abandon the intent of the Constitution's framers and impose views about government and divinity that no previous justice, no matter how conservative, has ever embraced."
Here's more from Scalia's comments:
"...I try mightily to prevent my religious views or my political views or my philosophical views from affecting my interpretation of the laws, which is what my job is about."
"The senator was talking about the problem of the unfairness of the death penalty. You want to have a fair death penalty? You kill; you die. That’s fair. You wouldn’t have any of these problems about, you know, you kill a white person, you kill a black person. You want to make it fair? You kill; you die. And some states used to have laws that had mandatory death for certain crimes. My Court said that’s unconstitutional, although it was certainly not unconstitutional when the Eighth Amendment was adopted.
Now that may be a good idea or it may be a bad idea. My point is it’s not for me to decide. It’s for me to decide what the Constitution says. "
"I think the question, if I got it correctly, was do I think the death penalty is immoral because it will – I have to say it – it will inevitably lead at some point to the condemnation of someone who is innocent. Well, of course it will. I mean, you cannot have any system of human justice that is going to be perfect. And if the death penalty is immoral for that reason, so is life in prison. You think you’re not going to have innocent people put in prison for life? It’s one of the risks of living in an organized human society."
Too bad that the Web Standards Project was so busy kicking Mozilla in the teeth that they couldn't focus on the real problem. Now it's waaaaay too late. Thanks WaSP!
Yeah, Scalia is really that screwed up.
Sunday July 07, 2002
Paul Krugman rips into W.
Saturday July 06, 2002
Oh, the fun of referrer log watching. My weblog comes up on the front page of a Google search on "Brazilian whores".
Friday July 05, 2002
Here's an exerpt from the opening act preceding W's 4th of July speech:
"We have ridiculed the absolute truth of your word in the name of multiculturalism... We have been forced to honor sexual deviance in the name of freedom of expression..."
How screwed up is Mickey Kaus? You be the judge. He takes two incidents of political violence in all of Europe and turns them into an indication of a worldwide violent uprising of the left. He goes on to say:
"I've never been one to worry much about the threat of violence from the left in this country. But put these assassinations together with the Pim Fortuyn murder, and it's not difficult to at least imagine a day when left political violence might become the norm -- even here. ..."
I'm sorry, Mickey, but it's you sick fucks that have all the guns.
Alexander Cockburn: "Wild Justice":
"Welcome to Bush’s America, where a court has now ruled that vouchers are okay. So a child is free to go to Catholic school at public expense and be sodomized by a priest, preferably while both recite the Pledge of Allegiance."
Thursday July 04, 2002
Andrew Sullivan proves once again that he's a complete crackwhore. Here's the deal from TAPped's perspective.
Of course Robin Williams has a great Pledge of Allegiance joke.
Helen Thomas weighs in on Bush's Imperial Presidency.
Wednesday July 03, 2002
Here's the full text of Joe Conason's article from Harpers' Magazine, February 2000, detailing W.'s accrual of fortune and political fame.
"The fact that his political rise has been crowned with material rewards might, in the metaphysics of American capitalism, very well be deemed a sign of righteousness and divine favor. But viewed in less sentimental terms, the history of George W. and his millions is a success story about a privileged young man who grew up in proximity to money and political power, appreciated the relationship between them, and so learned to live happily ever after with his wealth and his conscience"
Bush violated SEC rules when he was a young, coked-up calf down in Texas. And it made him a rich coked-up calf.
Big deal, you say? What if he violated SEC regulations four times? Would it become a big deal then? Would it become a big deal if because his daddy was President he happened to get off without even a slap on the wrist?
Tuesday July 02, 2002
With the news that the corporate leaders of America had been seduced by our former elected Chief Executive into performing acts of fraud against investors and the public, Republicans have been finally been outed as the libidinous tarts they truly are.
I mean, if they're willing to fall into bed with Clinton at the drop of the hat, who's next? Some rough-and-tumble labor leader with a dark countenance and a shady past? A single mother from the wrong side of the tracks, trying to raise her children while holding down two jobs and fending off an abusive ex? A hippy tree-hugger currently holding residence in a redwood?
The problem that Republicans have is not, in fact, keeping the country focused on the war while they continue with their plan to dismantle the American government and social support system; it's keeping their brethren from falling into bed with every liberal that casts a lusty glance their way.
God forgive them, they might catch some liberal disease, like compassion, or self-sacrifice.
Monday July 01, 2002
Jihad! Allah Akbar! Meow!
The Plastic Cat -- another cool blog to add to my list; found this courtesy of a glance at my referrer logs this morning (it had a nice link to this blog). A left perspective from Ireland, with frequent comments on America's political scene.
The Blame Clinton brigade of conservatives have found new horizons of lunacy to march towards. Clinton is now to blame for the decline of capitalism and the corruption of our corporate leaders. Apparently Bill must have seduced them all in the White House and taken advantage of their prudish white little bottoms while whispering sweet nothings about corporate restructuring and offshore tax-dodges.
The Prayer of Allegiance judge talks back, saying that he's disappointed in our President:
"I'm a little disappointed in our chief executive -- who nobody ever accused of being a deep thinker -- for popping off."
