From California:

(07-18) 17:59 PDT Oakland — A 45-year-old parolee, described by his mother as angry at left-wing politicians, opened fire on California Highway Patrol officers on an Oakland freeway early Sunday and was hit by return fire while wearing body armor, authorities said. …

[Janice Williams , the man’s mother] said her son, who had been a carpenter and a cabinetmaker before his imprisonment, was angry about his unemployment and about “what’s happening to our country.”

Williams watched the news on television and was upset by “the way Congress was railroading through all these left-wing agenda items,” his mother said. …

Janice Williams said she kept the guns because “eventually, I think we’re going to be caught up in a revolution.” But she said she had told her son many times that “he didn’t have to be on the front lines.”

Gee whiz, I wonder what “news” network he has been watching.

How many times do we have to see police officers shot at by right-wing loonies spurred into violence by the hysteric, crazed, wildly exaggerated extremism spouted by Fox before someone holds them responsible?

Free speech is free speech, but there is also a little thing called “incitement to violence.”

Someone remind me, during the worst days of the Bush administration, when we liberals were at our strongest fervor pitch, how many liberals snapped like this, armed to the teeth, and headed off to kill large number of people and went shooting at police officers? Because right-wingers are starting to build up the score pretty respectably on their side. Is it that liberals aren’t as predisposed to violence, or was it that the loonies on our side weren’t pushed over the edge by the “Liberal Media” as much as right wingers are today by Fox and others like them?

And, by the way, because the guy was a felon, not to mention because they won’t like the emergence of another right-wing crazed police shooter, countdown before right-wing bloggers start claiming he was really a liberal in three, two, one…

Update: According to recent news reports, Byron Williams was winding up 3 years’ probation following being released after a 6-year term for bank robbery, and has a history of violence. But the irony:

His mother, Janice Williams, said that her son, who had previously worked as a carpenter and a cabinetmaker, was angry at left-wing politicians and upset that no one would hire him because he was a parolee.

The irony, of course, is the the left-wing politicians are the sort who would pass laws making it easier for him to find a job. It’s the right wingers who tend to be more of the “throw away the key” types, and balk at anything which rings of reform or rehabilitation.

The Tea Party is currently trying to deny the perception that there is a streak of racism among its ranks. One of the more obvious clues is the classic Obama “witch doctor” sign, which the Tea Party organizers first dismissed as the work of “a few bad apples,” but later attributed to sabotage by a group called “Crash the Tea Party”–though that now-defunct (and never prevalent) group did not form until a year after the witch-doctor signs started appearing. (Though they did serve as a great excuse for the Tea Partiers to hide their extremists behind.) The problem is that there have been a good number of racist signs (not to mention Confederate flags) held up at Tea Party rallies, which neither the organizers nor the participants seem to mind at all.

This week, Mark Williams, the former chairman of and current spokesman for the Tea Party Express organization, got into trouble when answering an NAACP call to repudiate racist factions within its ranks. Instead of issuing such a repudiation, instead of even just denying that such elements existed, Mark williams thought it’d be clever to instead write a snarky fake letter from NAACP president, Benjamin Jealous, to Abraham Lincoln. The letter (now removed from his site) is as follows:

Dear Mr. Lincoln

We Coloreds have taken a vote and decided that we don’t cotton to that whole emancipation thing. Freedom means having to work for real, think for ourselves, and take consequences along with the rewards. That is just far too much to ask of us Colored People and we demand that it stop!

In fact we held a big meeting and took a vote in Kansas City this week. We voted to condemn a political revival of that old abolitionist spirit called the ‘tea party movement’.

The tea party position to “end the bailouts” for example is just silly. Bailouts are just big money welfare and isn’t that what we want all Coloreds to strive for? What kind of racist would want to end big money welfare? What they need to do is start handing the bail outs directly to us coloreds! Of course, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is the only responsible party that should be granted the right to disperse the funds.

And the ridiculous idea of “reduce[ing] the size and intrusiveness of government.” What kind of massa would ever not want to control my life? As Coloreds we must have somebody care for us otherwise we would be on our own, have to think for ourselves and make decisions!

The racist tea parties also demand that the government “stop the out of control spending.” Again, they directly target coloreds. That means we Coloreds would have to compete for jobs like everybody else and that is just not right.

Perhaps the most racist point of all in the tea parties is their demand that government “stop raising our taxes.” That is outrageous! How will we coloreds ever get a wide screen TV in every room if non-coloreds get to keep what they earn? Totally racist! The tea party expects coloreds to be productive members of society?

Mr. Lincoln, you were the greatest racist ever. We had a great gig. Three squares, room and board, all our decisions made by the massa in the house. Please repeal the 13th and 14th Amendments and let us get back to where we belong.

Sincerely

Precious Ben Jealous, Tom’s Nephew NAACP Head Colored Person

Got that? In an attempt to claim that neither he nor his group is racist, he publishes a letter claiming that the NAACP is a group of “colored people” who are lazy, shiftless parasites who live off the government dole, expecting white people to be taxed so they can buy wide screen TVs. In fact, black people like the idea of whites taking care of their needs so much, they want slavery re-instated because they don’t want to have to find jobs.

Yeah, that’s not racist at all.

Ok, shooting fish in a barrel, I know. Still, it’s kind of hard to see that and not wonder how far gone people like this are.

Keep in mind, also, that Williams not only believes that there is not a racist bone in his body, but that the NAACP is instead a whole bunch of anti-black racists. Just because someone claims or even thinks they’re not racist by no means indicates that they are not, in fact, flaming racists.

On the same day, Williams held that not only was the Tea Party not racist, but that the NAACP was; quote, “Racists have their own movement. It’s called the NAACP. ” He also took a hit at the NAACP, claiming it was racist because it is “an organization with the words ‘colored people’ in the title.”

Now, either Williams was being disingenuous, or he is woefully ignorant of recent history; at the time the organization was formed, the term was one considered a respectful replacement for the alternative–it was only after the term was abused in radically racist ways later on that it became uncivil. The name was kept for continuity, and, one might assume, as a reminder of exactly why the term fell out of use in the first place.

Williams, however, took it not only as a way to throw the accusation of racism back at the NAACP, but in his “letter to Lincoln,” he went all Rush Limbaugh and used the term excessively, as if it was OK because it was part of the name of the organization.

Williams also reiterated an excuse I have heard many times, including from commenters here, which is supposed to cover Tea Party organizers and leaders from having to take responsibility for their organization: “I am not a leader of anything. The tea party movement is a grassroots, bottom-up organization.” Interesting for an organization with chairmen, spokesmen, and highly-organized teams across the country which have combined into a federation setting up series of coordinated nationwide tours and events, issuing press releases and having leaders, spokesmen and other representatives make endless television appearances. But they’re not organized! And have no leaders who can make statements!

The whole “we’re just a bunch of folks who got together” meme is in part a way of claiming legitimacy via grass-roots origins (partly true), but is also used as a way to dodge responsibility. When Williams was asked to condemn racism in his group and at his rallies, he said he couldn’t because he (former chairman of and then spokesman for the Tea Party Express) was not a “leader.” He claimed, “I’ve been appointed a leader by the media apparently. Everybody who goes to a tea party is a tea party leader.”

Well, apparently this leader-less non-organization suddenly experienced some form of manifestation because the Tea Party Federation (not an organization, mind you!) kicked Williams and his Tea Party Express non-organization out of the non-organized federation of leaderless citizens, right after it (collectively, one may assume) itself accused the NAACP [PDF] of being racist for suggesting that the Tea Party has racist elements. So, I guess that by ejecting Williams and the Tea Party Express for… um… well, they didn’t say. But it’s clear it was for racism, and since the Tea Party has no racism, and they’re ejecting Williams and his group for (apparently) being racist, that means that the Tea Party Federation must be racist!!!

So we are to believe that the Tea Party movement, since it is not an organization and has no leadership, is incapable of making official statements or censuring its out-of-control fringes–even though it has just done exactly that, within a few days of the events that prompted such action.

Fact is, there has always been structure, they have always had leaders, and currently they have lots of spokesmen and representatives, and have always been capable of making statement and taking stands.

They’ve just been too afraid of alienating the mass of their membership by doing so. Until now, as Williams pretty clearly crossed a line, and being a leader and spokesman, could not be dismissed as “someone in the back of the crowd.”

William’s response to being booted? Get this: “That careless individual tea partier who assumed the mantel of ‘leadership’ did so long enough to turn a critical and serious movement and delicate peace with skeptical groups into a World Wrestling style personality conflict with me at the center.” So, the Tea Party Federation is in fact not an organization, and despite the federation’s spokesman issuing a press release from the federation’s web site after an organization vote was taken to approve the action, it was actually just one self-anointed, attention-seeking non-leader.

Somehow, I don’t think this whole “we’re just an unorganized crowd of folks” thingy isn’t working out for them so well in the long run.

But by all means, do please keep going. You’ve already practically handed Harry Reid his re-election (not that I think he’s the most capable Senate leader by a far cry), have caused Democrats to win safe conservative seats here and there, and stand as the best chance for Democrats to stem the loss of seats in the midterms after winning the White House.

Why can’t local stores ever carry cool stuff like this?

A 26-year-old college student from Munich drove to a Hell’s Angels clubhouse, dropped his pants and mooned the gang, then threw a puppy at the bikers before escaping on a bulldozer, which he later abandoned on a highway.

Seriously, I never imagined I would ever type that sentence, even more so that it would describe a real-life event.

One can only guess that this was not a planned adventure. I mean, I don’t think even a crazy person would think, “Okay, now I have to make sure I pick up the puppy and choose a biker hangout close to a construction site with bulldozers.” This event would have to be the definitive example of “making it up as you go along.”

When I was a college student, I remember a presentation given by a classmate. This person came from a wealthy family, and they were kind of tired of the assumption most people had about how snooty and self-important they were because of their wealth. The course was on language and its usage, and so this person centered on that aspect of it. They pointed out that a lot of the terms we think rich people use are in fact affectations from fiction. One example was the word chauffeur; wealthy people actually don’t use that term, they just say “driver,” and as it happened, her family didn’t have one. She had several examples of how language was used in general use to form a stereotype of that class of people. She wasn’t trying to say their life wasn’t posh, but rather that they weren’t as stuck up as people automatically assumed due to those stereotypes.

There’s a similar assumption made by people about Apple fans–that we think all Apple products are perfect, that Macs never crash, that Jobs can do no wrong. It’s a presumed conceit that kind of grates after a while. Apple fans know as well as, if not better than anyone else that Apple is prone to error and is a money-making company that often charges a premium–nor do we ever say differently. But because we do love most of the stuff Apple makes and–like any fan–we tend to say good things about the stuff we’re enthusiastic about. But when we do, the stereotype is applied and makes us a bit defensive and insecure–like we have to be careful about praising Apple gear when we think it’s good, just like a news agency nowadays has to be careful about saying anything good about a Democrat lest they be labeled “Liberal Media.”

If you read this blog, then you’ll know that I have my gripes about Apple, same as everyone else. I hate the mice Apple makes–never liked them, never use them. Their Mail app is subpar and since Eudora stopped being developed, there hasn’t been a fully decent email client for the OS. Lots of Apple apps seem needlessly bereft of features and options for the sake of simplicity (seriously, Jobs, just hide them where most people won’t see them and let the rest of us deal with the complexity). Macs and their apps indeed do crash, and my own pet peeve is memory management. I love Safari and can’t get that monkey off my back, but it’s use of RAM is terrible. And so on.

The iPhone is no exception. Every product has its flaws. Most phones have a weak spot in terms of reception. The iPhone 4’s is probably worse than most, considering its placement (other phones’ weak spots are usually in places less apt to be touched, like at the top of the device). But seriously, this particular flaw, while a flaw, just isn’t the huge deal it’s being made out to be. Seeing as how the iPhone 3G had similar issues that were eventually alleviated through software adjustments, I am pretty sure this one will also be improved upon to a certain degree, enough to make it livable even in the worst cases. But frankly, it’s something that probably only affects a few percent of users to a degree that would make it a deal-breaker. Probably 95% or more of us would never have noticed it at all without the media attention. I understand that the HTC Desire has battery life issues. But its fans love it anyway. Good for them. The few people who just can’t stand that will return the phone and get another. Same with the iPhone 4.

As for how it was handled during its development, it was most probably just another trade-off. A more elegant design means no easy swapping of batteries, for example–that’s a trade-off that the iPhone is famous for. Yes, it is a bummer we can’t swap out batteries, but it turns out most people live with it just fine, and those who can’t just get a different phone. Jobs was probably informed of the reception issue during development as well, and probably decided this was another trade-off: it will only affect a small number of people only in certain situations and can be gotten around in those cases with a different grip (if the problem crops up only occasionally) or by using a case (if you have the problem all the time). Just as with other trade-offs, most people will live with it just fine, and those who can’t will just get a different phone. Same as always.

Really, is there anything else to say about it than that?

Okay, in my last post, I was trying to be as critical as possible about Jobs’ presentation about the iPhone 4, trying to see the worst-case scenario about Job’s claims. However, this guy at PC World is an excellent example of how ridiculously inflated this whole thing is–he says that Apple must “kill” the iPhone 4 ASAP and rush out a new model:

Jobs went to great lengths to defend the iPhone 4, arguing that the antenna glitch was overblown, and claiming that phones from other manufacturers suffer from the same problem. He also presented statistics to bolster his case: A measly 0.55 percent of iPhone users have contacted Apple support to report antenna or reception woes.

But none of that matters. The iPhone 4 is now tainted in the consumer’s eyes. It’s no longer a triumph of form and function, but rather a crippled device that requires protective headgear to work properly.

We could debate the merits of the iPhone 4’s antenna design all day, but that’s beside the point. Perception is reality here, and the public now views Apple’s latest offering as The Phone That Drops Calls. And no one can blame AT&T this time either.

Oh, please. Frankly, the whole issue is overblown, incredibly, way out of proportion. Look, I don’t fully accept Jobs’ numbers as proof that there’s no issue–the low return rates, for example, are in part due to the fact that the early adopters are heavily populated with Apple fans who are less apt to part with their sweet new device–but Jobs has a perfectly valid point in that several other phones have similar problems and nobody is even complaining about it, much less saying that the models are doomed to oblivion because of it.

Let’s be objective here: the iPhone 3G had similar reception issues. So did the 3GS. So does the Droid Eris. So does the Blackberry, and other phones as well. Why is it that with these other phones it is a non-issue but the iPhone 4 is supposedly radioactive and now a pariah? As the author says, “none of that matters.” The facts don’t matter. Reality doesn’t matter. The media–him, for example–have spoken, they have judged the iPhone 4’s problems to be treated completely differently than other phones’ similar flaws, and have relegated it to the trash bin of consumer electronics.

The iPhone 4 antenna story is the result of a snowball effect, amplified by a media sector looking for a hot story to sell ads and Apple-hating crowd which live to puncture the inflated hype about Apple products. A few users note the antenna signal dropping when the phone is held a certain way. For a few days, most other people are like, “Really? I hadn’t noticed. Hey, how can I replicate that?” The story gets out, videos are produced, more people try to find the problem, and while most can’t, more than enough can make bars disappear and take more videos of that, causing more people to try it. Meanwhile, the media sees a story it can’t resist making a brouhaha about it. Rinse and repeat. As Andy Ihnakto wrote:

Yes: customers wailing and rending their garments in anguish and outrage en masse. It’s a demonstrable and repeatable problem, but mostly it’s being experienced by people who are actively trying to make it happen … folks like me, who write about technology and review new hardware.

How many people would have even noticed there was a problem at all without the media hype? Vanishingly few.

The PC World author’s rant is a classic example of the media creating a story and then reveling in it. The author himself dismisses the fact that there is high user satisfaction with the device, and instead insists that the product is now worthless only because people like him have said so and now everyone should believe it. Facts don’t matter, only what we tell you to believe.

When Steve Jobs does this, it’s called the “Reality Distortion Field” and is called out as bogus. What happens when the media does it?

So Jobs had his mini-follow-up keynote explaining the antenna issue. His take: there’s no problem, but since we love you guys, if you really insist, here’s a free bumper and you can get your money back, okay? Just because it’s you.

Now, the numbers he gives seem convincing: only one more dropped call out of 100 than the 3GS, 1/3 the return rate compared to the 3GS, and only one-half of one percent of iPhone 4 users contacted AppleCare about the problem.

Sounds like there’s no problem. Should we believe him? Well, the numbers could be solid evidence–but they could also be cherry-picked and deceptive.

If we want to give Jobs zero leeway, one could certainly imagine some dissembling there. Compared with the 3GS, only one more call per hundred is dropped: is that a good rate or a bad one? If the 3GS drops 20 calls per hundred and the 4 drops 21, that’s both bad. But if drop rates are usually 1/2 of 1% and the iPhone 4 drops 1.5%, that’s 3 times worse. Also bad. What’s a “good” rate? We’ll probably hear opinions very soon. But as someone pointed out, that number probably doesn’t count calls that were attempted but never got through.

1/3 the return rate of the 3GS: within what time frame? He only said “early” returns, but I don’t think he specified that the numbers for the 3GS were for exactly the same number of days as we’ve seen for the iPhone 4. Also, why were people returning 3GS’s at that frequency? 6% sounds like a lot. And is it a fair comparison even if accurate?

Finally, the number of iPhone 4 users who contacted AppleCare about the reception issue: someone calculated that 0.55% is about 16,500 calls about that issue–not an insignificant number. Also, let’s not forget that if it’s a reception issue, people will probably call AT&T more often. And, he didn’t compare this number with iPhone 3GS numbers like he did the other two figures–why not?

Jobs also showed 3 other phones with bar-drops caused by “death grips,” and “we could have gone on and on” about more phones. Okay, but it’s a good bet that those were the three worst-performing phones, that the signal strength was set just right to cause a maximum apparent loss, and the grip exactly right for greatest effect. And the “on and on” was, what–90% of all phones? Or 2%?

I want to defend Apple, but when someone is selling something, and their pitch has openings like that, there’s usually a reason why.

Nevertheless, it could be exactly as Jobs portrays it: not a big deal, but getting blown way out of proportion by media hype–so Apple has to do something.

So, everybody gets a free case. Whee! I already have a couple, using one most of the time. But hey, I’ll take it. Apple can’t make enough of their “bumpers,” so they’ll contract out for a few different designs and then everybody gets to choose. Apple can afford it. And if that isn’t enough for you, you can just return the phone for a full refund, no restocking fee.

So, has Jobs stopped the whole panic thing? Who knows? Probably the media will get tired of covering it anyway and people will still buy the phone except for those who have huge difficulties. In the end, however, what Jobs said won’t make too much of a difference in real life: if your phone is not performing well enough, you’ll return it. If it’s OK for you, or the case is something you can live with, then you’ll keep it.

My guess: there is an issue, but it depends on a number of factors, including the variances in parts quality and construction, user handling, reception strength, and probably voodoo figures into it somehow–but in the end, maybe only 1 in 20 or 30 users will even notice anything, and probably only 1 in 20 or 30 of them will have any real problems with it. Not to downplay it, but it’s only partly a phone, and even with its problems, it’s still a pretty good one. Even CU thinks so.

So a few will be unhappy and return theirs, the Apple haters will add this to the standard list o things to carp on, and tons of people will sign up for the free cases and just keep on going like they were. Meanwhile, life goes on.

That’s the headline:

GOP: No more help for jobless, but rich must keep tax cuts

WASHINGTON — Republicans almost unanimously oppose spending $33.9 billion for extended unemployment benefits for some 2.5 million people who’ve lost them, because they say it would increase federal budget deficits.

At the same time, they’re pushing a permanent extension of Bush administration tax cuts, especially for the wealthy, which could increase federal budget deficits by trillions of dollars over the next 10 years.

How do they justify this?

Good question. The answer: Darwinian philosophy thinly disguising a well-known bias for rich people. Poor people vote Democratic; you don’t want to give money to those people. Besides, they lost their jobs, and conservative economic philosophy says that losers don’t deserve pity or help–that’s socialist entitlement bullcrap. Rich people, on the other hand, deserve to keep the money they’ve earned–because they’re so good at investing it in stuff like making businesses that employ those jobless people (and, um, they make sizable campaign contributions, ahem).

Forget that the economic engine is driven primarily from money spent by people just like the ones who are jobless, while more money for the rich is what causes the economy to stall. Rich people can be as rich as you can make them, but none will invest in new businesses if the common folk don’t have any money to spend.

And that thing about paying for stuff and how deficits will destroy us? That just applies to Democrats, you silly. Haven’t you been paying attention?

Wow. Pretty interesting quote:

“It looks like the iPhone 4 might be their Vista, and I’m okay with that,” said Kevin Turner, Microsoft’s chief operating officer, in a keynote speech at Microsoft’s Worldwide Partner Conference (WPC), which runs through Thursday in Washington, D.C.

First of all, this is the first time I can recall a Microsoft official publicly admitting that Vista sucked. I am pretty sure they never did that before. Nice to have it officially confirmed by Microsoft itself. However, Turner might be jumping the gun a wee bit. Apple definitely has something it wants to say, as it has announced a press conference to be held this Friday, just a day or two off. And I doubt it’s to say that the iPhone 4 has unresolvable problems. It’s possible they could be announcing a recall or admitting to something bad, but Apple press conferences usually aren’t about that. Apple tends to deal with bad news more quietly, though I don’t think they’ve ever had a product get this much bad press before.

Nor does it seem likely that Apple will just make another smoke-blowing announcement like the one where they said that the problem is due to how the bars are calculated–Apple corrects that in iOS 4.1, but it has no effect on the reception loss, nor did anyone really buy that as the core cause of the problem. As I commented in an earlier post, if it was just a matter of how bars are displayed and not reception loss, then calls would never be dropped. I doubt Apple would actually hold a press conference, especially at this point with so many seeing the reception issue as a big deal, to make another flimsy excuse.

However, there is something significant that might help predict what’s coming: people have reported that signal loss issues are primarily experienced by people who got their iPhones the first day of release (see comment #2 for this post). The idea is that the reception issue was either a bad initial batch or was an issue that Apple fixed very quickly. Gizmodo is reporting that Apple is somehow involved in a “silent recall,” as people with reception issues returned their iPhones for whatever reason and got a new one in return and found the reception issue didn’t exist with the replacement device. This is not universally accepted, but it could explain a lot.

Some report that the switch involves physical differences between the iPhone as originally released and the one being delivered now, possibly including a new, faint coating along the metallic edge, giving the metal more of a matte finish.

Whatever the case, one thing seems clear: the reception issues are not universal. Most iPhone 4 users simply cannot replicate the signal drop at all. Of those who can, some say that it only happens in certain areas, others say they have to try hard to get it to happen, and others report that despite the drop in bars they don’t get dropped calls or have problems with data rates. Of the remainder, many use cases, and some simply adapt by holding the phone a certain way. So despite the huge publicity about the whole thing, the fact is that few iPhone 4 users really have any real-world difficulties due to this issue. It is telling that CU, which has made the loudest splash by “not recommending” the iPhone 4, also did not notice the issue in their initial review. Of the people who now say they notice the issue, how many would have seen it without the huge media hype around it?

And there still remains the remote possibility of Apple somehow devising a software fix; some have mentioned that the issue could be resolved by the way the iPhone switches frequencies to find the strongest signals.

So, what will Apple announce Friday? My guess is that it will identify the problem as some sort of limited glitch with only certain batches, probably identifying it as nothing wrong with their design but instead some mistake by a parts maker, like a bad batch of antenna parts which lacked a specified coating or whatnot. While they will not call it a recall, they will instead probably announce that anyone with a bad iPhone can submit theirs for an exchange if they are suffering any issues–which is kind of what they have been doing anyway already.

Ironically, even though CU hit Apple for the reception issue and said it could not recommend the phone, it nevertheless gave the iPhone 4 the highest rating of all cell phones currently out there–even counting in the down-checks for reception loss. Not to mention that the iPhone 4, in the United States, despite all the bad press, still has a wait time if you order it, of 3 weeks.

I don’t recall Vista ever having those issues.

Here’s an excellent example at political game-playing versus a journalist who got fed up with being lied to. Mark Haines of CNBC got into a scrap with a guy named Hans Bader, a counsel to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a think tank opposed to corporate regulation.

Bader was coming on the air to try for the umpteenth time to resuscitate the old “Jones Act” non-fiasco, claiming that the Obama administration has been sucking up to unions by refusing to waive the Jones Act, which prohibits foreign-flag vessels from taking part in port-to-port trade between U.S. ports. The claim has been that Obama has sacrificed the environment to help the unions–as if the right wing really gave a crap about the environment. What they really want is to (a) break down union standing, and (b) bash Obama with something, anything that they feel can stain him.

Bader claimed that there were a number of cases where the Jones Act prohibited foreign vessels from assisting the clean-up in the gulf, and gave two examples. The first was the Dutch offer, which Bader used to say was the “Irish need not apply” standard which theoretically scared off scores of other offers which were, as a result, never made, or so Bader claimed.

Haines blew that claim to pieces the next day, having researched it and found that the Dutch offer was made in anticipation of a leak being found, but the offer was turned down because the leak had not been found yet, nor its scope understood. Yes, the administration took too long to anticipate the scope, and yes, the EPA’s strict regulations (the Dutch equipment wasn’t good enough to meet normal standards, but would have been far better than not using anything at all) stood inanely in the way of using of the Dutch equipment for several days. But after the scope of the emergency was understood, the Obama administration returned to the Dutch and accepted the offer. The Dutch equipment is now in use–and the Jones Act was never an issue in this case.

As such, it could never act to discourage foreign assistance. Nor was it widely publicized or well-known before just now, and so would not have acted as a deterrent anyway, thus demolishing Bader’s secondary point that there are countless imaginary offers that would have been made had not Obama so thoroughly discouraged them.

The second example Bader brought up was a vague mention of a “foreign deck barge” that was reported in the publication Human Events–a right-wing publication. No details are given of which country offered it, what use it could be, or anything else. I have found no corroboration of this claim anywhere, and so like the Dutch report, if this is not completely fabricated or taken wholly out of context, it is likely irrelevant–for example, in that same report, the explanation was given that the deck barge’s purpose was served by a U.S. deck barge and therefore was not needed. If true, then there is no purpose for the Jones Act to be waived in such a case–unless the right wing now favors using foreign equipment while US equipment lays idle. In any case, the right-wing complaint about the Jones Act does not even apply.

Bader published a defense of his case, but danced around the fact that he was simply wrong. He excused himself in the case of the Dutch offer simply because he found it reported in the Voice of America, as if he could not be held responsible for checking his facts. Nor does he provide any corroboration for the second example beyond a vague report in a clearly biased magazine. He even used his tiredness to somehow excuse the case he made, or how he made it. But none of that can defend the fact that he was dead wrong.

Bader even quoted the text of the Jones Act to suggest that it can be used to prevent foreign offers of help–and yet completely ignores the text in the Jones Act which clearly exempts cases of assistance in oil spills!!

Haines is clearly a bit too upset–but if my job was to hear lying talking heads spout this crap every day, I’d be likely to fly off the handle now and then myself. Haines does make a flub, claiming that Bader could not name one–he did, and although it was later proved false, Haines did not know that for certain. Also, I think Haines went a bit over the top calling Bader “Senator McCarthy”–but again, in light of the fact that he knew he was being lied to, and considering the manner of the lie, I can’t fault him much for that.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years…

There’s a push from right-wingers to repeal the 17th, along with some other amendments as well, not to mention some new amendments they want added. Curious, as the right wing has also been busy of late bashing Obama, Kagan, and Thurgood Marshall for saying that the Constitution, when written, was an “imperfect document.” Strange that they wish to tinker so with perfection.

In any case, I was curious as to why they 17th was a sore point with them. What’s wrong with the people electing senators directly? Well, according to the groups who want this, if the people elect senators directly, that means that the individual has less power. The only way to empower the individual is to take away their right to vote for a senator and put it into the hands of the state legislature. That makes sens–wait, huh? What?

Well, they do seem to have a point: they say that since public elections are driven by money, that means that senators don’t really listen to individuals from their state, and instead give their full time and attention to corporations who fund their elections. OK, fair enough, as far as it goes–but I don’t really see it as being that big a difference.

First, you have the illusion of a state legislator or a congressman paying more attention to you simply because they have smaller constituencies and they must be elected more often. But do they really pay any more attention to you than they do their financial backers, or does it just seem that way?

Second, the link between you and your senator through your legislator would still be removed. Your local legislators would have their own agendas, no doubt, and if they truly controlled the senators, they would be just as wont to abuse the power as anyone else. Not to mention that there would still be plenty of chances for others to get in the way. And that leads to the third objection to the change: money follows power. Instead of dealing out the money men, the money men would simply move to sway state legislators instead of senators directly, and you’d be back at square one.

No, there’s only one way to attack corruption of this kind, and that’s to directly address the issue of money and elections. Two things need to be changed–more descriptively, two obscenities must be erased from the law books. First, the concept that a corporation is an individual and has the same rights as one. The individual rights of a corporation rest in the rights of the people who make it up; the corporation itself is a legal fiction to serve an economic purpose. Giving corporations personhood creates super-powerful “individuals” whose psychological makeup is, by nature, that of a sociopath. The fact that they control large amounts of money and thus power in our government is at the heart of what is what is most wrong with us today.

The second obscenity is the concept that money equals free speech. No it doesn’t. If money equals free speech, then we live in a plutocracy. And that’s the current legal status. If money is free speech, then anyone who makes more money instantly has more power, which goes against the very idea of a republic which practices the principles of democracy:

Republic: a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.

In theory, a republic could be consistent with a plutocracy, but that’s not what we were brought up to believe. Maybe democracy has always been a fiction to placate us, but if we’re even going to pretend, then we must hold that the idea of money being equal to speech is poison to what we believe in.

What we need to do is to change politics in two ways, and they have to be doozies. The first is to limit the way elections are funded. The only money that should be allowed in an election must come from individual citizens and nowhere else. And each citizen may contribute no more than $20 to any one election (including their own–no personal fortunes) or specific issue. Why $20? Because more than that and the money of one individual starts to outweigh the money of others who cannot afford it. Either that, or do away with contributions altogether and make elections funded completely by the federal government. Whichever the case, the idea is to prevent large donations from making their way to politicians and thus corrupting the system.

The second way is the real game changer: political advertisements. This is where “speech” really comes into it. And this may require an amendment to that holiest of amendments, the First Amendment itself. Like it or not, political advertising sways elections, and those advertisements are bought with money. It must be made so that public advertisements which impact elections, either on issues or candidates, must be regulated. Not forbidden, but limited to those funded by the people directly. Each advertisement can only be funded by individuals giving no more than $20 each. Remember above, I mentioned the $20 limit applying not just to candidates but to issues as well; this is what I was talking about.

What’s more, the ads can only be paid for by groups that specifically assemble for the purpose of representing such issues or candidates; you can’t have unions or organizations assembled for any other purpose doing it, else you have people who gave money for something else suddenly finding their money spent on something they disagree with.

Again, either this, or nothing–no ads at all, and we assert the right to use the public airwaves, allowing politicians to make speeches, give presentations, and have debates for specified blocks of time. This does not obliterate free speech–in fact, many countries do it. In Japan, where I live, that’s how it’s done–no campaign commercials. Other countries limit advertising as well. It may go against the grain of free and unfettered speech, but it is the only way to remove the worst of poisons from the system.

Is this a curtailing of free speech? In a way, yes–but in a very fundamental way, no. Because free speech is not supposed to be about rich people having more say or a louder say than anyone else–it is supposed to be about all people having the right to say whatever they want, whenever or wherever they want. But the central principle of that is that everyone is equal, and money playing a part destroys that essential equality. The system I describe above would not prevent anyone from speaking freely–it would only prevent a few from drowning out the rest simply because they have more money than others.

We’ll never get around money buying power. Rich people will still own and control newspapers and media networks, and there are other ways to use money to influence the people as well. But just because money will always have a say doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t do our damnedest to limit what influence it does have.

This is a fascinating little video made by performance artist Gavin Nolte (via technabob), a concept which, at first, struck me as incredibly funny: he stuck 25 German GPS navigation computers on his windshield and they all gave him directions at once. As I watched the video, however, it seemed less funny and more fascinating, how the various computers seemed to work, what similarities and differences were apparent.

On November 17th, someone with an IP address apparently located in Turkey hacked the servers used by the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia. 160 MB of data was stolen before the breach was noticed and the server shut down. Within a few days, the stolen data was sent, via Russia (which is highly dependent upon oil and gas revenues), to groups opposed to climate change. Groups with vested interests in fossil fuels and heavily biased against the very concept of global climate change scoured the stolen emails and documents, cherry picked “random” information which, out of context, made it seem that climate change was fraudulent and the scientists who studied it were dishonest hacks, and then executed a “highly orchestrated, manufactured scandal” which the “liberal” media immediately lapped up and made a world-wide sensation.

The damage to the reputation of climate change studies is done; despite the fact that the accusations are now completely discredited and the scientists in the “scandal” cleared of any fraud or misdoing, people around the world now have the impression that climate change science is tainted by fraud. Those who disbelieved before now feel they are vindicated, many who doubted now are swayed away from the side with real evidence on its side. And everywhere there will be the stigma of mistrust, however undeserved.

And the liberal media whose agenda is supposedly to front claims like climate change? Are they covering the story of how “Climategate” itself was a fraud and a crime with anywhere near the same fervor and hype that they covered the fraudulent claims in the first place? Of course not. A few retracted, but none cleared the scientists with a fraction of the volume or intensity in which they smeared the researchers.

It is the sad fact of the nature of the media, and how it is so easily manipulated by those who have no scruples: scandals run on page one; stories about how the scandals were not scandals at all run buried in the back. Not only are they not as sexy, but the media don’t much like admitting very loudly how easily they were scammed. And so the scammers get what they wanted.

I’m curious: in the BP oil spill, they tried plugging it with junk shots and so forth. Why wouldn’t a needle approach have worked? I assume that the problem with caps in general is that the pressure of the oil bursting forth blows off caps. But what if you made a cap in needle form, tapered at one end and with a weighted cap at the other, like a slender, 100-yard-long ice pick? The tapered end would be considerably smaller than the aperture of the well head, but the other end would fit. If that were lowered into the well, it would initially have little trouble going in because the oil coming out would gush around it; but as it descended and the thicker parts of the needle came down, the pressure from the well would have to work against the full weight of the metal in the plug, which would hopefully be heavy enough to counteract that pressure.

Not knowing anything about how these things work, I am sure there are fatal flaws in the idea. I just wonder what they might be.

Update: Seems like I wasn’t the first with the idea (by about 6 weeks). Some ideas on that page as to why it might not work–primary being obstructions.

I snapped a candid shot of this guy, as he is something of an icon in Shinjuku. I remember him way back in the 80’s or 90’s, I forget how far back, but he was riding his bicycle and wearing his rainbow wigs all the way back when. I never stopped him to ask what the hell his schtick was. Is he working for some quirky company that has hired him over the decades to be their mystery mascot? Or is he just presenting an aggressively creative take on homelessness?

Anyone know who he is?

I remember back when politicians’ campaign posters seemed like entrants in a nationwide Ugly Man contest. Seriously, most of the candidates were hideous. Huge warts, metal teeth, bad comb-overs, buggy eyes–the works. It seems that candidates today are more hip to the concept of not looking like diseased toads.

Which, in a few different ways, is sad.

Also hard to miss: a lot more women on the posters today than there were 20 or 30 years ago. There’s even Josei-to, or the “Women’s Party.”

Imagine one of your children brings home their 4th grade science textbook. You decide to have a look at it, and on page 40, you read this:

Electricity is a mystery. No one has ever observed it or heard it or felt it. We can see and feel and hear only what electricity does. We know that it makes light bulbs shine and irons heat up and telephones ring. But we cannot say what electricity itself is like.

We cannot even say where electricity comes from. Some scientists say that the sun may be the source of most electricity. Other think that the movement of the Earth produces some of it. All anyone knows is that electricity seems to be everywhere and that there are many ways to bring it forth.

Now, what exactly would you think of that text? Me, I’d immediately contact the school and ask what the hell they’re teaching my kids. Of course, if that were the text that was used, it would mean that the religious fundamentalists had gotten control over the school system and were using textbooks published by Bob Jones University. The textbook in question–“Science 4: Students Text”–is home-schooling fare, or, in other words, texts for parents so extremist that they go to radical lengths to prevent their kids from getting exposed to the secular wickedness served up at public schools, and there are no private religious schools nearby with a fanatical-enough curriculum to satisfy them.

The passage above (seen scanned here) has been raising a lot of attention since PZ Myers featured it a few days ago on Pharyngula. You gotta know that it has led to a lot of attention because BJU Press has yanked the “Look Inside” feature for that one book’s class set off their web site, one would assume to avoid more embarrassment.

However, it doesn’t take much searching of their site and leafing through sample chapters of other texts to find stuff that’s interesting, though nothing quite as spectacularly buffoonish as that 4th-grade passage on electricity. Certainly the text is, to say the least, suspect as “Science.” Take this page from a 6th-grade text on goelogy:

Places where the plates meet are called plate boundaries. Scientists think that currents in the molten rock of the earth’s mantle may move the plates a few centimeters each year. This movement may cause the plates to separate, to collide, or to slide along their plate boundaries.

Some scientists believe that at one time the earth could have been a single large landmass that they call Pangaea (pan JEE uh). Because there was no recorded observation, we cannot be sure that such a landmass existed. We also cannot know how the landmass may have broken into pieces. However, the Bible tells us in the book of Genesis that God sent at great flood to destroy the wickedness on the earth. Genesis 7:11 states that “the fountains of the great deep [were] broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.”

Many Creation scientists think that the earth’s surface went through catastrophic changes during the Noahic Flood. These deluges could have caused the great landmass to break and separate. The plates may have moved with such tremendous force that landforms such as mountains could have been formed as plates collided.

Some scientists claim that landforms took millions of years to form, but it is likely that they formed in a much shorter period of time.

Note the determined dissembling and introduction of doubt when it comes to facts not embraced by the church. “Because there was no recorded observation,” and “we cannot know,” in addition to the insertion of biblical events to explain the form of the Earth. Not to mention the cute capper at the end, “it is likely that they formed in a much shorter period of time.” Yeeess, that is “likely.” Not that we’re making any claims here! We report, and you, the student, decide!

If nothing else, it is an interesting look at how the fundie crowd teaches “science” to their kids–with enough of the subject matter intact to make them aware of all the basics other kids know, but with just the right amount of fundie flavor to keep them out of hellfire.

Also note the repeated use of “some scientists think,” “some scientists believe,” and “some scientists claim” liberally applied to almost every statement of scientific fact, no matter how established or non-controversial. (Note, however, that when creation scientists are mentioned, it’s “many,” not “some.”) The intent is, naturally, to create a sense of doubt concerning anything that mainstream scientists say, as if everything is the field of science is just speculation, nothing more than theories and opinions, and therefore one can take creation science or other fundamentalist biblical interpretations just as, if not more seriously.

Or, I should say, some bloggers think that it is likely that these texts are full of it.

Of course, I am sure that these home-schooled kids will be set straight when they eventually attend Glenn Beck University (accreditation pending).

When I got my iPad, I bought Apple’s $29 video adaptor, the one that goes from the Dock Connector to VGA. When you attach it to an iPhone 3G or 3GS, the phone immediately tells you that the cable won’t work with that device, even if it’s not connected to anything. But with the iPhone 4, it does work.

Of what use is that? Well, the only video adaptor previously available cost $49 and only worked with RCA cables–low-res. So the new adaptor is 40% cheaper and presents much better video.

Many might still not want one, however, as the iPad and iPhone 4 are limited in their video output: neither will display a direct screen mirror, but instead will only show up on the attached monitor if apps which specifically allow video output are used. Right now, that is mostly any video on iPod/Videos apps, or on YouTube (also Keynote on the iPad). But other apps may add this ability, allowing for much wider use–and many may find it sufficient to be able to output videos alone. We’ll see if the future brings more apps that can take advantage of this.

Seriously. I would just love seeing slides in every train station. I would totally use them all the time. Too bad in the U.S. it would just lead to countless lawsuits. In Japan, people in charge of stuff simply wouldn’t allow something this light-hearted.

While on the subject of revolutionary thought, I decided to check in on that favorite of right-wing topics: the Second Amendment. What makes the most fascinating reading is to review the earlier drafts of the amendment, most of which had a telling clause attached to the end:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

I always found this telling because if, as the right wing claims, the Second Amendment is all about an individual right to keep and bear arms, then what sense would it make to add a clause regarding conscientious objection? That clause clearly indicates that the amendment was not intended to express an individual right to bear arms, but instead was intended as a collective right to assure the existence of a public militia, at the time considered the only way to evade a government tyranny. This is not to say that an individual right to keep and bear arms was not intended–it seems that it was simply assumed that if one wanted to, one could–but that the Second Amendment was never intended to serve that particular purpose. It was to protect local militias from being disarmed by a federal government. If you’re demanding your Second Amendment rights, then you are demanding that you should serve in the militia, which today is the National Guard. So by all means, go to it.

The discussion and debate regarding this clause makes that point even more clear. One might think, for example, that the final clause regarding compelled service were struck because it would make the amendment appear to not be about an individual right; that, however, was not the case. Consider these excerpts:

Mr. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts — This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the government; if we could suppose that in all cases the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms. What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now it must be evident, that under this provision, together with their other powers, congress could take such measures in respect to a militia, as make a standing army necessary. Whenever government mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward. The assembly of Massachusetts, seeing the rapid progress that administration were making, to divest them of their inherent privileges, endeavored to counteract them by the organization of the militia, but they were always defeated by the influence of the crown.

It is notable that Gerry, from the outset, clearly defines the amendment not as an attempt to secure the individual right to keep and bear arms, but instead to ensure that an armed public will always be available to serve as a militia so as to protect any one state from the tyranny of an over-reaching federal government. Many get caught on phrases like “rights of the people” and jump to the conclusion that this means, in this context, an individual right to bear arms–but the rest of the context makes clear that it is a collective right to protection by means of a militia that is being discussed. This neither affirms nor denies an individual right; the Second Amendment simply was not about that at all.

This is bolstered by Benson’s displeasure with the clause, which stemmed from a desire to leave exceptions to military service to the judiciary:

Mr. Egbert Benson of New York — Moved to have the words “But no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms” struck out. He would always leave it to the benevolence of the legislature — for, modify it, said he, as you please, it will be impossible to express it in such a manner as to clear it from ambiguity. No man can claim this indulgence of right. It may be a religious persuasion, but it is no natural right, and therefore ought to be left to the discretion of the government. If this stands part of the constitution, it will be a question before the judiciary, on every regulation you make with respect to the organization of the militia, whether it comports with this declaration or not? It is extremely injudicious to intermix matters of doubt with fundamentals. I have no reason to believe but the legislature will always possess humanity enough to indulge this class of citizens in a matter they are so desirous of, but they ought to be left to their discretion.

Even more interesting is the take of Mr. Scott, who expressed something one does not often hear about: that it was a common presumption that religion was in decline, and could even imagine a time when there was no religion in American society! This notwithstanding, he also speaks entirely in the context of the amendment’s purpose being to compel the public to military service.

Mr. Thomas Scott of Pennsylvania: objected to the clause in the sixth amendment, “No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.” He said, if this becomes part of the constitution, we can neither call upon such persons for services nor an equivalent; it is attended with still further difficulties, for you can never depend upon your militia. This will lead to the violation of another article in the constitution, which secures to the people the right of keeping arms, as in this case you must have recourse to a standing army. I conceive it is a matter of legislative right altogether. I know there are many sects religiously scrupulous in this respect: I am not for abridging them of any indulgence by law; my design is to guard against those who are of no religion. It is said that religion is on the decline; if this is the case, it is an argument in my favour; for when the time comes that there is no religion, persons will more generally have recourse to these pretexts to get excused.

Mr. Elias Boudinot of New Jersey, President of the Continental Congress: said that the provision in the clause or something like it appeared to be necessary. What dependence can be placed in men who are conscientious in this respect? Or what justice can there be in compelling them to bear arms, when, if they are honest men, they would rather die than use them. He then adverted to several instances of oppression in the case which occurred during the [revolutionary] war. In forming a militia we ought to calculate for an effectual defence, and not compel characters of this description to bear arms. I wish that in establishing this government we may be careful to let every person know that we will not interfere with any person’s particular religious profession. If we strike out this clause, we shall lead such persons to conclude that we mean to compel them to bear arms.

Boudinot follows Scott, and ends by again defining the purpose of the amendment: to compel the people to bear arms for the purpose of an effectual defense of the state.

Once again, this is not to claim that no individual right to keep and bear arms exists; as I have stated previously, I believe the amendments to the Constitution cover that right, but not in the form of the Second Amendment, rather in the form of the Ninth Amendment, which states: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” This is reinforced and extended to state governments in the Fourteenth Amendment. The individual right to keep and bear arms, like it or not, is a traditionally held right and has never been repealed, and so it stands. But not by fiat of the Second Amendment, as so many people like to assume.

I can only presume that this belief on the part of most people is generally due to either simple presumption and a failure to sufficiently research the record, or perhaps a desire to avoid paying too much attention to the 9th and 14th amendments, which, in right-wing circles, have somewhat of a bad reputation. The Ninth Amendment, for example, if followed scrupulously, also provides a right to privacy, among other rights–and privacy includes medical privacy, which makes outlawing abortion problematic. Not to mention that the Ninth Amendment is in itself a bane to strict constructionists, whose entire claim is based upon denying the idea that rights not enumerated in the Constitution exist at all. The Fourteenth amendment is currently disliked on the right, primarily for that bit in the highly relevant Section 1 which says that all persons born in the United States are automatically citizens.

I find it fascinating that the right wing tries to eviscerate Obama, Kagan, and even Thurgood Marshall for stating that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were imperfect as constructed, and yet so clearly disdain and wish struck such integral parts of the document themselves. Of course, as you will certainly know from reading this blog, I have never held that consistency is a conservative vice.