The Huffington Post has a great excerpt from an upcoming Al Gore interview with GQ. Reproduced below is Gore’s response to the question of the president’s responsibility for 9/11. It’s virtually a perfect answer and response from the man who, had he been president, probably would have kept 9/11 from happening at all:

GQ: Do you feel that we would be safer today if you had been president on that day?

AG: Well, no one can say that the 9-11 attack wouldn’t have occurred whoever was president.

GQ: Really? How about all the warnings?

AG: That’s a separate question. And it’s almost too easy to say, “I would have heeded the warnings.” In fact, I think I would have, I know I would have. We had several instances when the CIA’s alarm bells went off, and what we did when that happened was, we had emergency meetings and called everybody together and made sure that all systems were go and every agency was hitting on all cylinders, and we made them bring more information, and go into the second and third and fourth level of detail. And made suggestions on how we could respond in a more coordinated, more effective way.

It is inconceivable to me that Bush would read a warning as stark and as clear [voice angry now] as the one he received on August 6th of 2001, and, according to some of the new histories, he turned to the briefer and said, “Well, you’ve covered your ass.” And never called a follow up meeting. Never made an inquiry. Never asked a single question. To this day, I don’t understand it.

And, I think it’s fair to say that he personally does in fact bear a measure of blame for not doing his job at a time when we really needed him to do his job. And now the Woodward book has this episode that has been confirmed by the record that George Tenet, who was much abused by this administration, went over to the White House for the purpose of calling an emergency meeting and warning as clearly as possible about the extremely dangerous situation with Osama bin Laden, and was brushed off!

And I don’t know why–honestly–I mean, I understand how horrible this Congressman Foley situation with the instant messaging is, okay? I understand that. But, why didn’t these kinds of things produce a similar outrage? And you know, I’m even reluctant to talk about it in these terms because it’s so easy for people to hear this or read this as sort of cheap political game-playing. I understand how it could sound that way.

… But dammit, whatever happened to the concept of accountability for catastrophic failure? This administration has been by far the most incompetent, inept, and with more moral cowardice, and obsequiousness to their wealthy contributors, and obliviousness to the public interest of any administration in modern history, and probably in the entire history of the country!

Damn straight.

I have posted before on the whole idea that 9/11 was eminently preventable. Here I list the many PDB’s that outlined the al Qaeda threat loud and clear (“Bin Laden planning multiple operations,” “Bin Laden network’s plans advancing,” and “Bin Laden threats are real,” in addition to the infamous “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States“); I outline some of the various warnings and clues (available in 2004) that came at the White House from all angles (multiple warnings from Clinton administration officials, the FBI, and the CIA, as well as intel that al Qaeda was planning to use airplanes as weapons).

Then I lay out a scenario in which, had Rice been doing her job, had she followed the strategies followed in the Clinton administration, she could have rolled up the 9/11 plot weeks in advance. Simply put: Rice should have been paying attention to the intel coming in from the agencies (that was her actual job, after all), she would have been focusing on any reports about terrorism (because of all those warnings) and she would have noticed the two terror suspects who were arrested and were taking flying lessons; from there, a single call to the FBI to immediately check out flight schools around the country for terror suspects would have netted virtually all the 9/11 participants and would have prevented the attacks with weeks to spare.

This is not rocket science. This is not the result of not having enough appointments passed by Congress. This was something that could have been achieved with a skeleton crew. It is what the National Security Advisor is supposed to do. And the media has given the Bush administration a 100% free pass on this one.

This is likely because in the beginning, no one wanted to challenge the administration’s story that there was no way to see it coming, for fear of appearing unpatriotic–the idea was that we all had to stand together, behind the president, and wave the flag. Since then, the likely reason for reticence is partly that “the time has passed” for such a statement and one would be criticized for not saying so earlier, but even more because anyone in a notable position in the media is fully aware that if they forward the idea today, they will be mercilessly attacked by the partisan attack dogs (closely followed by the media in general), and labeled as a partisan ultra-liberal, a conspiracy theorist, or worse.

But none of that changes the facts. The warnings were clear and in great number. The infrastructure to coordinate the information was available, and had been pointed out to the new administration. The necessary action to stop the terrorists was simple and easily achievable.

There is no good reason why this should be a discussion for future historians only.

One of the drawbacks of the new Intel Macs is that you can’t run Classic apps on them–at least not officially. That’s where SheepShaver comes in. It’s actually a Classic Mac emulator for Windows, Linux, and other OS’s–including Mac OS X. And if there are Classic apps you need to run, this will allow you to get an Intel Mac. Well, probably; I haven’t figured out all the kinks in the system yet. But I just started tonight…

I tried to use SheepShaver a few times before, but was stopped cold by one of my pet peeves: crappy documentation. As I’ve said before, I absolutely hate it when people go to so much trouble to build a really cool app that you’d love to use–but they write the instructions so only people who know tons about running a command-line interface can make heads or tails of it. It’s like writing a really cool novel–in Aramaic. With no translations available.

Well, fortunately, a translation exists for SheepShaver, and what makes it maddening is that the instructions are so easy. Easy enough that you wonder how the app’s makers could have been so brilliant as to make an app like this, and yet be so stupid as to write pages of documentation without creating so simple and easy-to-follow a instruction list as this guy did.

What it comes down to is this: you download SheepShaver. Then you download something called a ROM (don’t ask). You need to have a Classic OS installer disk (OS 8.5 to 9.0.4, if you use OS X); a universal installer (not specific to the Mac you bought) would be best, but a restore disc can be used as well, as it turns out). Run the SheepShaver app, locate the ROM, create a virtual disk, and start it up.

Now why couldn’t they put it so simply?

Of course, there’s a bit more to it than that, but the Uneasy Silence guy covered all that the average user would need to know. And if you want it to work perfectly, then you’ll still have to go to a support forum and check out fixes people have come up with. For example, I still can’t get the audio to work–a big glitch if I want to use that sound editing app which works so well in OS 9. And for some reason, the screen redraw is slow as molasses if I use a large resolution.

As for overall usefulness, there are not really too many apps I need to use, but a few that I’d like to I kind of miss–old games, for instance, and the sound editing app I came to really like. I still have my G4 PowerBook, so Classic still runs on that, but sometimes I want the big screen and a more comfortable computing environment. But this would likely be more useful for my dad, who needs to run a Classic app for the work he does–one that won’t ever get upgraded to Mac OS X.

This from MyDD:

Democrats took nine legislative chambers, and lost none. The gains came in Indiana (House), Iowa (House and Senate), Michigan (House), Minnesota (House), New Hampshire (House and Senate), Oregon (House), and Wisconsin (Senate).

My take: Republicans have been shameless and unapologetic in how they redistrict states in non-census years. If this is upheld by the courts, then Democrats should do the same. Indiana and Iowa would be important places to make such changes, as would be Michigan.

Frankly, I think that redistricting nationwide should follow a strictly random, mathematical formula designed to be geographic and not political in nature. But until that day arrives, Democrats would be fools not to be as vociferous about redistricting as the Republicans are. I am not one to advocate unilateral disarmament in a battle where the other side goes to the greatest lengths to bend and break laws, rules and traditions to their favor. If a strategy is legal, then we should also do it. With the GOP playing the cards, if they control most state houses, they will simply latch on to that control and run with it–as we have seen. But, when we have an advantage, the Republicans will cry foul and demand a fairness measure–then we can implement it. If it is incumbent upon us to sacrifice our control in order to make the change for fairness, then so be it. That’s how it has played before, and it likely will not change. But it must be bilateral, else the Republicans will never stop with the shenanigans.

I knew I was leaving something out of the Zune post. Another scam by Microsoft: their currency system. When you buy music from the Zune online store, you don’t use cash, or even credit–you use Microsoft “points,” like Disney Dollars or funny money.

How is it a scam? Well, first off, the points are not made equal to dollars or cents, there’s an ‘exchange rate’ at play here. Microsoft never actually quotes real money amounts when stating the price of a song, they say it costs 79 “points” instead. That makes it sound like Microsoft is selling music for 79 cents, but because a $5 purchase of “points” gets only 400 points in your account, that 79-point purchase really cost you 99 cents–the same as the iTunes Store.

Of course, there are benefits to having the point system. Unfortunately, those benefits are for Microsoft, not for you. For you, it’s nothing but a liability. In addition to fooling you with an exchange rate, Microsoft also does not allow you to buy exactly the number of points needed to buy music–you always must buy too many points. When you buy from the iTunes Store, your credit card is billed for the exact amount, 99 cents. But in the Zune Marketplace, you can only buy points in whole-dollar chunks, starting at $5. Since music costs 99 cents a song, you have 5 cents left over when you use up the purchase amount. Essentially, when you buy a song for 99 cents, Microsoft is not giving you your penny change. Or, at least, they’re keeping it in their pocket until you buy 100 songs.

Now, to you, this may be small change. But imagine millions of customers buying less than 100 songs. Say, 10 million people buying ten songs each is an extra million bucks Microsoft squeezes out of the deal. Though you might think that a company worth umpteen billions of dollars wouldn’t need to create a scam just to squeeze another million out of gullible customers.

But the scam doesn’t end there: you can only buy Microsoft points in denominations of $5 or higher. Which means that you can never buy one song. You have to buy in chunks of five. Which, of course, most people will not do. Most people will either never use up all the points they have, or they will take time to do it, which means more millions of non-reimbursed dollars for Microsoft, and more time for the pre-paid cash to generate interest for Microsoft before they have to pass the money on to the music labels.

Of course, unless you read a review like this, you don’t learn about it until you’ve plunked down $250 for a Zune player, by which time you’re committed. And then you discover that Microsoft has no respect for you and believes you’re just another sucker who’ll do whatever they want.

In a publicity move (it’s working, people like me are talking about it), KFC has created an image of Colonel Sanders in the Nevada desert near Area 51; the image is big enough, they claim, to be visible from space:

The KFC Corp. on Tuesday launched a rebranding campaign with an 87,500 square-foot image of Colonel Sanders in the Nevada desert which the company says makes Kentucky Fried Chicken the world’s first brand visible from space.

“If there are extraterrestrials in outer space, KFC wants to become their restaurant of choice,” KFC President Gregg Dedrick said in a statement.

Har! That’s funny! Do you feel like getting some lard-saturated poultry for dinner now?

So as not to be a total shill for a Pepsi subsidiary, a guy once told me that Colonel Sanders was a pederast.

I also am told that the above is a publicity stunt pulled off by General Zorg’s Cydonian Fried Thoats.

Mmmm… thoats.

Zune is now out there. Kind of. It’s not exactly flying off the shelves, apparently. Not like the PS3, for example, where huge throngs of people lined up to buy them and they sold out instantly. With the Zune on it’s first day out, Best Buy in San Francisco sold all of ten units in the morning–which the store’s manager said was “better than I expected.” That kind of sums it up.

The Zune is obviously intended as an iPod-killer, but has been beset by problems from the start. First was the choice of names. I mean, really–“Zune”? Is that supposed to be a combination of “Tune” and. . . what, the letter “Z”? The logo they chose is not exactly all that spiffy, either. The Zune includes a logo sticker (again copying Apple), but who would want to slap that thing on anything they own?

What’s more, the design ain’t great; it’s bigger and clunkier than an iPod, and though the plastic casing may be more resilient to scratches and smudges, it’s also less appealing. The wheel/circle, apparently intended to be reminiscent of the iPod’s scroll wheel, doesn’t scroll, it just covers four buttons. And the colors include white, black, and. . . brown. And people say that the brown is the best-looking one. Maybe I’m prejudiced, but when your new product looks its best in the crap-colored version, you know something is probably wrong.

Microsoft is pushing this as being better than an iPod, touting two main features: the WiFi interconnectivity, and the larger video display. Neither of these selling points, however, live up to the hype. The screen is a touch bigger than the iPod’s, but it is the same resolution–which just means that the image quality will be a bit poorer as well. Just hold your iPod an inch or two closer and the difference will cancel out.

But the WiFi “sharing” is the big thing. I remember seeing a clip from the Oprah show where all the audience members were given a Zune, and a guest (presumably from Microsoft) gave the selling point: you can send songs from one Zune to the other! If your friend has a song that you don’t have, you can ask them to send it to you, then it’s on your Zune! Microsoft is even using a new slogan, “Welcome to the Social!”

What the MS rep on Oprah, and MS’ pitches in general fail to mention is that the “sharing” is limited by Digital Rights Management (DRM) restrictions. Any file sent from one Zune to another is only playable three times. If you don’t use all three plays in three days, it becomes unplayable anyway. It does not disappear, though–it remains on your Zune as an advertisement linked to Microsoft’s Zune music store. Wouldn’t it be fun to litter your playlists with ads for songs? To see a listing and think you have music, only to have it not play, and instead urge you to buy it? Wheee!

Update: I forgot to mention–once you’ve sent a piece of music to a friend, you can never re-send it to the same person again. So, no loophole there. Also, to be fair, it seems that the ‘littering’ of sent-but-unplayable songs will be limited to an “in-box” and not your main library–I think. So it’s possible that you won’t be constantly tripping over unplayable music equivalent to ads.

But let’s say you don’t mind the DRM or the ad-littering. Still, how often will sharing be possible? Think about it. I have an iPod. So do many people I know, fellow teachers, students, friends. And yet I cannot remember the last time I encountered anyone using an iPod at the same time I was and there was any likelihood that either of us would share with each other. Maybe some people would use it more than others, but frankly, I think that this feature will go to waste for most people.

But the WiFi feature has other down points as well. Even non-protected songs get zapped by the DRM. Even if you make your own song, when it is transferred from one Zune to the other, it again gets zapped–three plays or three days. And WiFi should be a powerful feature–it could be used to connect to the web with the Zune as a mobile-phone-style browser, it could allow you to buy songs online at hotspots, it could connect to digital cameras and other devices–but the Zune does not. Hell, it won’t even connect to your own computer via WiFi! It is currently only active for Zune-to-Zune transfers, and that is limited to photos and music files with the DRMs (no videos). One imagines that MS will eventually enable the other abilities, but for them to have it so limited at launch is disappointing.

Another down point of the Zune, this one not related to the user experience, is Bill Gate’s decision to sell out to the music companies. Gates decided to give a cut of each Zune sold to Universal. It is only $1 per $250 Zune, but the precedent is the damning thing. It is virtually blackmail, and Gates is caving in so he can enter the market–but by ding so he is opening the gates for more gouging in the future, weakening Apple and other makers of players who until now have resisted the media companies’ demands of extortion. More on that later, in a different post.

Finally, one last screw-up: Zune is incompatible with Vista. I’m sorry, but when your two big November releases are Zune and Vista, and neither will work with the other, someone isn’t doing their job right. Especially when Vista has been in Beta forever and most software by third-party vendors will work on it. Both Vista and Zune have been in parallel development for so long that for them to be incompatible is almost unforgivable. I know there will be an upgrade by January (erm, I think there will be), but nevertheless, this is not a well-played release. [Update: Microsoft now claims that Zune will be compatible with Vista “by January 30, 2007”–presumably the release date for the consumer version of Vista.]

By the way, why do people seem to be grimacing in the Zune software images? It’s not just the frame above, there are a few more as well. Maybe they tried to install it on Vista. . . If this is their attempt to show people singing, their photographers did a terrible job. It looks like the woman above is in pain. And are those other two women making out? What a bizarre image.

Okay, all bashing aside: Apple should be worried. Yes, that’s right, I just said that. But why? Was I insincere in all the criticism? Nope. I think it is 100% accurate, and the Zune is a piece of crap. So why should Apple be worried? Because everything that Microsoft releases is a piece of crap. . . in the beginning. MS has a history of this: release a piece of crap. Then make an improvement, And another. And then another. And by the time the piece of crap is somewhat less crappy, MS has used their marketing thuggishness and 800-pound-gorilla status in the marketplace to sell a million of them and make people feel like the piece of crap is exactly what they should be using, for some reason they cannot quite pin down. MS Word was a piece of crap. Internet Explorer was a piece of crap. Windows was a piece of crap. And the Zune is a piece of crap. Therefore, with Microsoft’s deep pockets to subsidize it for many years while they work their marketing magic, it could actually be a threat.

And Zune does have some potential. The WiFi, as earlier stated, could be expanded to include some very good features. The iPod went through redesigns, so the Zune will eventually look less like a really bad remote control. And if Microsoft has shown a talent for anything, ripping off Apple is it.

Of course, eventual Zune dominance is far from a sure thing. While we all know that MS would never improve anything unless someone was nipping at their heels, we know just as well that Apple would be improving things even if no one is within a mile of them. Apple will not rest on its laurels with the iPod. If Apple does indeed soon release its full-screen touch-controlled iPod, it will deliver a crushing blow to the Zune. And while MS can copy Apple, they can’t duplicate Apple’s finesse and coolness.

It’ll be a competition, but in the end, I think Apple will win over Microsoft on this one–just like Google has. Despite Microsoft’s best efforts, they aren’t even close to Google in what Google does. And likely the Zune will be a repeat of this. I don’t think the Zune will be as big a disaster as some predict; I think it will still be there ten years from now, but I don’t think it’ll ever get to be on top.

A science and technology story: researchers have discovered a type of molecule that can detect glucose levels in human tears. They are working on a way to incorporate the substance into contact lenses. A small, translucent dot in the wearer’s field of vision would change colors depending on the glucose levels, creating a continuous monitor instantly accessible to the user. No more sticking yourself and using blood testing gear.

They are working on a way to check cholesterol levels in the same way. (But do cholesterol levels change quickly enough to merit including them in contact lenses?)

This just in:

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut said yesterday that he will caucus with Senate Democrats in the new Congress, but he would not rule out switching to the Republican caucus if he starts to feel uncomfortable among Democrats.

At the very least, Lieberman is using this as a power play, telling the Democrats in no uncertain terms: treat me like a prince, or I’ll pull a Jeffords and hand control of Congress over to the Republicans. At the most, Lieberman is setting the stage for a defection he plans anyway at some point. Either way, Lieberman is playing this game for Lieberman, not for the Democrats and not for the people of Connecticut. You do have to admit, it’s a good setup for him: if he can blackmail the Democrats, he can steer the party like a tail wagging the dog; if he defects to the GOP, he could gain a position of power in the party and get almost as much from them.

Connecticut Republicans, who were Lieberman’s main voter base, will get the most from this. Connecticut Democrats come away looking like the dumbest fools on Earth.

Of course, there is one mitigating factor that Kos points out: in 2008, Democrats stand to pick up even more Senate seats; while this is not a foregone conclusion, it is a solid probability. If and when this indeed happens, Lieberman’s power suddenly evaporates. If he stayed with the Dems but blackmailed them for every last bit of power he could, then he’ll likely get an instant demotion and will be sent to the doghouse, where he can caucus with the Republicans all he wants. If he defected to the Republicans, he’ll be just as powerless. And if he does either one, he’ll probably alienate so many Connecticut Democrats that he’ll never be able to get elected there again, no matter what he runs as. So if Lieberman plays his hand too hard, he’ll have two years of glory and then his career essentially ends.

Bush opposes Democratic plans to allow Medicare to negotiate for drug prices so seniors will not be gouged for medication costs. The rationale: “What [Democrats] really want is government-run health care.” Because private industry is doing such a great job. Democrats want to enable Medicare to have pharmaceutical companies duke it out for contracts, driving down the prices. Bush says that’s bad.

At the exact same time, Bush is pressuring the British to open up their own government-run health care system to more American pharmaceutical firms. Why? Because “Allowing all new drugs to be used in the NHS would result in the companies ‘fighting it out’ on price,” says a Bush administration official.

Somehow those two stories don’t mesh right, but I can’t quite put my finger on why that is….

Who’s the person who likely sent white powder to liberal politicians and left-leaning media personalities? Who might act like a terrorist? One of those liberal al Qaeda lovers, perhaps? Nope. A right-wing Freeper, that’s who. Wingnut Chad Castagana has been arrested on suspicion of having mailed the powder. I can only imagine the talk on the Free Republic: “Let’s face it, David Letterman had it coming!”

Pennsylvania Republicans knowingly scammed minority voters, hiring 300 African-Americans to hand out bogus fliers to voters in mostly-black districts which identified the top Republican candidates as Democrats. This was not an isolated abuse, it was “calculated strategy,” and an official one.

A sterling example of Republican’s choice for representation: freshly re-elected Republican Congressman Mark Olson. Now arrested for beating his wife.

USA Today confirms Newsweek’s poll: Bush fell 5% in their new poll to 33%. Expect other polls to mirror these results.

Though for the life of me, I can’t imagine why his numbers are going down.

As part of their campaigning, Republicans warned America that if Democrats won the election, they would use their control of the Congress to investigate the Bush administration, and even try to impeach him. They painted this as an unacceptable outcome.

Crooks & Liars reminds us that twelve years ago, Newt Gingrich promised that if Republicans took control of Congress, that is exactly what they would do: investigate Clinton to death. And that is one promise he kept, right up to the impeachment.

Funny. A 15-year-old real estate deal and an extramarital affair justified massive investigations and a culture of abusing oversight for partisan political purposes; conservatives felt righteous in campaigning on that, and even more justified in carrying out innumerable investigations. But, a dozen years later, endless lies to start a war, endless corruption with big business and lobbyists, and endless violations of the Constitution are not cause to investigate a Republican president–and conservatives warn Democrats they’d better not even think of investigating Bush, or they’ll smear them as partisan attack dogs.

Like I said, funny.

About a month ago, somebody asked me if there was a way they could write their email address on a web page and yet avoid having it picked up by spammers. I was about to tell them it was impossible, but then I had an idea–and it seems to have been a good one. I tested it, and indeed, it did work. The best part is, it incorporates a technique used by spammers themselves, and beats them at their own game!

A little background first. Putting an email address on a web page, or for that matter, anywhere on the Internet where the public can see, is an open invitation for spam. Spammers use automated programs, called “bots,” to “harvest” email addresses. The bots scour every last web page, discussion group, and other public piece of information on the Internet for anything that looks like an email address. When they find one, they add it to a list, and start sending spam to it.

I know this is true because I have tested it. FIrst, I create a brand-new email address (e.g., “brandnewemailaddress@blogd.com”), one which has never been used before, and one which no one but me knows about. I then put the email address up on this blog’s main page. To ensure that only spammers can see it, I make the address the same color as the background, rendering it invisible to the human eye. Five months ago, I put up one such address, and after a week, spam started coming through; after one month, it had drawn 41 spams; this week, it has been getting about 7-8 spams per day, and has collected about 500 spams altogether.

So, I know these bots are constantly surveilling my web site. I know that any email address posted in such a fashion will be picked up. So how could I post an email address and not have it be picked up?

The idea came from a technique I saw spammers use themselves. When spammers send email, they know that certain words will trip spam filters, and that will send their spam to the waste pile, where it will never be read. One key word, for example, is “Viagra.” So spammers who want to use this word will try to disguise is. One way is to misspell the word, for example, “V1@gra” or any other of a hundred variants. But the technique I saw spammers use years ago works to foil the spammers themselves.

It involves the use of HTML code. HTML is the language used to write web pages. If you go to the “View” menu of your browser and choose the “View Source” command (or anything that promises to show the “source”), you’ll see the same page, but as it appears originally, the source code. You will see that it is filled with stuff inside <angled brackets>. On a web page, anything in angled brackets is considered a command for the browser. As a simple example, “<b>” is a command to make text bold. One “harmless” command is <!– text –>. That is a comment command, an exclamation point followed by double-hyphens within a set of angled brackets. It doesn’t do anything, it’s intended solely as a comment in the code. Because it’s an HTML command, it does not “render,” that is, it does not get shown to the viewer on the web page; it is “edited out” by the browser.

Now, spammers used to use this as a way to break up a word so it would get past the spam filters for email. For example, instead of writing “Viagra,” if they instead wrote “Vi<!– text –>ag<!– text –>ra,” the spam filters of the time would not see the word “Viagra,” but since an email reader will render HTML code, the stuff in the brackets would disappear for the person who was looking at the email, and they would see “Viagra” in the clear. Clever! Until, of course, the email spam filters were updated, and it no longer worked for spammers, so they stopped doing it.

But apparently, the spammers never updated their own bots to filter out their own trick! I tried writing an email address in the clear, broken up by this old spammer’s trick, and it has been a month, and not a single spam has been generated! In all other tests where I put up email addresses, spam started coming within a week, and dozens had come by the end of the first month.

So if you want to post an email address so that people can see it but spammers (who are not people, after all) cannot, then add those comment commands within the HTML code on your web page. Look at this new email address I just made:

spammerssuck@blogd.com

Now, I didn’t really type that in the HTML code. You see it as being in the clear, but if you were to look at the HTML code for this page, you would see that it really looks like:

spa<!– toy –>mm<!– blue –>erss<!– bottle –>uck@blo<!– phone –>gd.<!– box –>com

Note that in the HTML comments breaking up the email, I inserted random common words–another spammer’s trick, to throw off filters. But really, you could probably put anything in the comments, it likely doesn’t matter.

Now, will you be safe by doing this forever? Hard to say. Spammers might never pick up on this, or they might write a fix for this tomorrow. Heck, they might read this blog regularly, and I might be tipping them off. My guess is that they won’t bother changing their code to account for this trick until a significant number of people start using it. So if you’re forced to put your email address up on a web page anyway, and you don’t have access to complex coding that might protect it, then you might as well give this method a try.

Yet another of my Internet peeves: stuff like this.

Now, I could have gone ironic and left it at that. But my point is that the post consists solely of a link, but does not describe at all what the link is. This TPM post is more egregious than usual, as it only consists of the word “Yep,” which is a link to a Daily Kos story. Josh Marshall is a repeat offender with this.

There are three reasons I don’t like it when people have links and yet give no clue as to what they are. The first reason is that I don’t like jumping around. If I am on a page where many entries might appear and I haven’t finished all of them yet, I might not want to leave the page to look at something and then have to come back.

The second reason is that I don’t like being led blindly about. I want to know where I am going to before I go. For me, a blind link like Marshall’s is equivalent to someone holding something I can’t identify up to my nose, and without explanation, saying, “smell this!” If you write a post about something, it stands to reason that you should make clear what you are talking about. If you don’t have time for that, maybe you don’t have time for writing the post. Take a minute and at least write a short note about where you’re leading people and why. If the mystery was intentional, I like that even less; being coy may be fun for the writer, but it’s a lot less fun for the reader. Maybe the article is one I’d like to read–but maybe not. People who have slow Internet connections and have to wait a while for pages to load must be really annoyed by stuff like this.

The third reason I am uncomfortable with this is because links go bad. If the post’s archive is kept, people will find it with Google–but the link the entry points to could disappear at any time, especially news stories, which often have a very short lifetime. Without any exposition in the blog entry, the reader will be mystified at what the blogger is talking about. Broken links can also nullify the point of an entry by making key data or evidence inaccessible; ergo, bloggers should take the time to copy and paste the relevant portions of the page they are linking to, so the pertinent information is preserved.

An associated peeve often appears in comments left by readers, usually combative ones: some will make a vague argument (“I disagree with what you said”), and for a riposte they will link to an article–but they do not explain which part of my argument they disagree with, nor why, nor what it is in the article that supports their point. Unless the entire article is their point (which it almost never is), then I am left to read through an often lengthy piece (usually an annoying diatribe by a right-wing pundit), and then guess as to which part of the article the visitor was referring to; essentially, I have to do all the work of creating the visitor’s argument for them, and even then, I am not sure if I understand what they were thinking about. In such cases, I usually ask for specifics and refuse to respond until they are given.

Long story short, it’s best to be specific, and not count on links to tell a story that you should be making yourself.

Coming soon, another pet peeve: people who constantly whine and complain on their blogs. I hate that.

The first post-election poll results are out, and Newsweek has Bush at (for them) an all-time low of 31%. It will bear watching for more results; Newsweek, while no a total outlier, is usually on the low end of results. Bush, having rated 35-41% in the week before the election, may not get a score higher than 36% this week, if the previous range of figures holds. No one is missing the fact that the poor showing in the midterm elections and the Rumsfeld resignation are mostly responsible for scoring palpable hits on his popularity (what little of it he has left). Both of these are bound to hit Bush hard, as both are things that will upset his base as much as, if not more than, anyone else.

One of the down sides to living in Japan is the loudspeaker trucks–as you know well if you are a long-time reader of this blog. True, we don’t get robo-calls during an election, and I admit that this could be worse than loudspeaker trucks. But only marginally. At least you can avoid the robo-calls by leaving your house.

My location has turned out to be pretty bad, in fact: there is a spot on the road just outside my building which all the loudspeaker trucks favor as a staging area for long rants and raves. They’ll stop there, deploy their banner-toting crew, and do their schtick for ten, twenty, or even thirty minutes at a go. During heavy election season campaigning, we sometimes get one or two of these every day. The are, of course, scheduled for times when the most people are at home trying to relax in peace and quiet.

There seems to be an election on right now; I haven’t heard of this in the news, but I sure can hear the loudspeaker trucks. Yesterday, as I tried to teach a lesson, no fewer than three trucks drove past the school, almost drowning out my lecture. As for the people pictured below, I honestly can’t say whether they are a political campaign (I couldn’t see the side of the truck where a candidate’s name would usually be plastered, though the lack of a name on all sides is a hint they may not be campaigning for a particular candidate). All I know is that this is an election season of some sort, and these people blared away for 15 minutes as I tried to do my morning blog-reading.

The caravan parks and begins to unpack their wares; the speakers waste no time, shouting their message from the moment they arrive

Getting the banners out

The first of several speakers

The Banner Brigade, fully deployed

Two weeks ago, I caught some audio of a guy with a loudspeaker truck; the audio is here (800KB wav file). This guy was on an anti-American kick, and at one point even shouted, “America dai-kirai!!” (“I despise America!!”) The significant thing about this audio was that I never actually saw the guy or his truck–when he made this speech, he was at the very least a few hundred meters away, maybe more. And yet I could hear him blasting away with my windows closed.

Brad DeLong makes an excellent point: 32,100,000 Americans voted for Democratic candidates, while 24,524,000 voted for Republicans. That’s 57% for Democrats and 43% for Republicans (which shows the influence of Republican gerrymandering at the state level–Democrats get 57% of the vote, but win 53% of the elections in the House). Now, remember, Bush supposedly had a “mandate” in 2004 from winning 51% to 48%, and many Republicans even argued he had one in 2000 after losing the popular vote by half a percentage point.

Clearly, “mandates” aren’t all they’re claimed to be most of the time. Winning by more than 10% would seem to me to be about the minimum for a mandate, though a much greater margin would be more defensible, of course. I don’t believe that there is an actual mandate out there, but if you want to claim that anyone in politics has had one in the past six years, Congressional Democrats have it now. Certainly, if you ever claimed Bush had one, you’d look pretty silly trying to say that the Democrats don’t now, having won a greater margin of votes than Bush ever did.

Deja vu from 2000: Bush says he will be bipartisan, then gets as partisan as you can get. After trying to give the impression to the press that he heard the voters’ message and will work with the Democrats, he immediately turned around and pushed a stridently partisan agenda, urging the lame-duck Republicans to push through legislation on oil drilling, the Bolton nomination, warrantless surveillance authorization, and a host of other hot-button issues that he thinks will not pass before a Democratic Congress. Right out of the gate, Bush is in his default lying, back-stabbing form.

Some conservative pundits are acting even more bizarrely than usual, which is to say that they are meeting my expectations of them. Rush Limbaugh out-and-out admitted that he was lying to his audience about the Republican candidates (Olbermann video here), and that in fact, he hated the Republicans he was supporting (he calls what he did “support”?), but that he lied to everyone because “the stakes were high.”

Meanwhile, Jonah Goldberg wrote a concise narrative on what Bush should do. The final scene: Bush stands in front of the press corps dressed in nothing but a loincloth, his face bloody and his torso bearing the claw marks off a bear he just killed, as he throws the bear skin over Helen Thomas. And, no, I am not making that up.

Ann Coulter, meanwhile, shows no change from normal as she criticizes the Democrats for not assailing the Diebold company after their “paltry” win. Apparently, she’s not paying attention to what we’re saying, though she never does anyway. She then uses the “sixth year” of Lyndon Johnson and Gerald Ford’s tenures to show how the pickups by the Democratic Party were “the death throes of a dying party.” Seriously, you can’t make stuff like this up.

Michelle Malkin backs up Coulter’s assertion that just because the Democrats won control of both houses, that means Democrats don’t think that Diebold machines are objectionable. What neither she nor co-moonbat Coulter realize is that Democratic candidates won these races despite all the election fraud, not because of it. What, they actually believe that Diebold machines are solid and unimpeachable, or somehow actually helped the Democrats this year? Yeah, right.

Among most conservatives, however, the party line is that Republicans deserved to be taken out to the woodshed and maybe this will beat some sense into them, that this is cathartic and will be a rebuilding term for them, while the Democrats really didn’t win, they just benefitted from the Republicans’ loss. Not entirely inaccurate, but it’s also not much more than the best attempt to put a shine on the turd Republicans laid this year.

Bob Harris points something out:

• Not one Democratic incumbent lost in the Senate.
• Not one Democratic incumbent lost in the House of Representatives.
• Not one Democratic incumbent lost in any state Governorship.

That’s something.

Virginia is looking like Webb is going to take it; with 99.88% of precincts reporting, Webb is ahead by 7000 votes, just above 1/4 of a percent–but enough to make a recount unlikely to reveal a change. [Update: AP has called it for Webb. NBC has too, and both say Dems control the Senate.] Rumors are flying that Allen is being advised to concede the election and not call for a recount. Meanwhile, Montana is looking more and more like a lock; many have called it for Tester, and with virtually all of the precincts reporting, Tester leads by .8%, or about 3000 votes. Burns has so far not conceded yet, but even a paid recount won’t be possible; Burns or the canvassers would have to come up with compelling reasons for a recount beyond the fact that the vote was close.

So it is looking pretty certain now (though not absolutely certain) that the Democrats have beat the odds and run off with both houses of Congress–a clean sweep. The majority is only marginal, filibusters could still be easily managed by Republicans (so long as they don’t mind being flaming hypocrites, which has never been a problem with them), dissent among moderates could still swing votes their way on some issues, and there is always the presidential veto–something Bush has only used once in 6 years, but is likely to use a lot more from now on (obstructionist!).

However, the shift is big enough for two major changes: first, the shock of the change and the shift of public support away from Republicans, while not exactly worthy of the term “mandate” (I am not prepared to wield that term as casually as conservatives have been), is still a clear indication that “stay the course” is not what the people want. And second, and this is really the big one, the Democrats will now be in full charge of the agenda of Congress–committee heads and leadership–which means that they, and not the Republicans, will now decide what comes up for a vote and what does not. Not to mention oversight: Dems will now be able to call for investigations, and you can bet there will be a lot of them. And about time.

Rumsfeld is icing on the cake, the cherry on top, the bow on the package, the pièce de résistance. (Though here’s a question: was the timing of the announcement arranged so as to take the edge off of the inevitable weakening of Bush? Had Rumsfeld waited another week, polls might have showed Bush taking a palpable hit; Rumsfeld’s resignation now will either help Bush’s numbers in the wake of the election, or can be used as an excuse for low numbers, thus blunting any claim that Bush’s emasculation has any support in the public as a whole.)

And there is another bright point for Democrats: as you may recall, Republicans made dire predictions were the Democrats to win even just the house. We would raise your taxes through the roof. We would appease the terrorists. We would crash the economy. We would bring ruin and devastation, a veritable plague of biblical proportions.

Bush once noted that he is a “master of lowered expectations,” and he was correct: Republicans have often played on “misunderestimations” before elections, but this time, they have unwittingly played that exact card for the Democrats. Just like Bush in presidential debates where simply not looking like a moron would be perceived as a “win,” all the Democrats have to do is not bring about the apocalypse, and they will be a success to anyone who feared that any of the right-wing’s dire warnings had anything to them. This is reinforced by the fact that, in fact, many did not vote for the Democrats as much as they voted against the Republicans; if the Democrats do even marginally well, they will suddenly appear to be palatable alternatives, and may build on this week’s victories in the next election.

With 99% of all districts reporting in, Tester still leads Burns, but only by a slim margin: 48.92%-48.51%, with Tester leading by only 1,586 votes. In Montana, if the vote between two candidates is closer than 0.25%, a free recount can be asked for; if the vote is within a half percent (as it stands now), a party can request a recount, but must pay for it if the recount shows he indeed lost. It is also of note that Montana requires paper ballots, so no electronic skullduggery is possible here.

But with 99% of precincts reporting, it is looking better for Tester, as only a few thousand votes are left to count.