The Meaning of Bipartisanship

October 27th, 2009 Comments off

I’m not the only one feeling confused by Obama and the Democrats’ eagerness to get the single Senate vote of Olympia Snowe. Sure, she might have pulled one or two other moderate Republicans (although, how many are left now?) along with her, but frankly, I doubt it–Republicans are far too partisan on this issue. Even Snowe’s vote was not assured, for crying out loud.

Now that Reid had come to his senses and has put his money on the Opt-out Plan, Snowe is deeply disappointed:

Snowe issued a statement Monday, saying she was “deeply disappointed” with Reid’s decision on the public option. She argued that a decision in favor of a trigger “could have been the road toward achieving a broader bipartisan consensus in the Senate.”

Oh, please. Your single vote is not “bipartisan.” Nor would even a few more. More than a dozen Republicans voting for it, maybe.

But you know what? The bill is already bipartisan. Remember that in the days of GOP control, there would be none of this “bipartisan” talk at all. Nothing. The GOP would write the bill as they liked and shove it through Congress, screaming bloody murder if the Dems even hinted at a filibuster.

What we have today is far different: despite the Dems holding a 60-seat supermajority, a Republican filibuster is assumed, and instead of rants and tirades and threats of the “nuclear option,” the Dems have been bending over backwards to try to get Republicans on board. Instead of pushing it through quickly like the GOP would have done, they allowed for delay while knowing full well it was for no other reason than to allow Republicans to take their best shot at savagely attacking the bill.

Already a host of compromises have changed the legislation, and that’s why it’s a bipartisan bill even if every Republican votes against it. Partly because the Democratic Party already includes a number of conservatives, but mostly because Republicans have had their say and have helped shape the bill. Were is truly a “partisan” bill, it would be single-payer Medicare-for-Everyone. Just because the Dems started from a position that was already bipartisan does not mean that that bipartisanship doesn’t count.

The GOP can wail and rant and kick and cry, they can hold their collective breath till their collective face turns blue (or, more appropriately, red), they can vote as a solid block against the bill with not a single “yea” vote–but the bill is bipartisan already.

Bipartisanship means giving voice to the other party; Republicans never gave this to Democrats, but Democrats have given full voice to Republicans. Bipartisanship means allowing compromise and coming to a point well away from what you want in order to appease the other side and address their concerns; Republicans never gave Democrats an inch, but Democrats have given Republicans a mile.

Just about everything the Democrats have done so far smacks of bipartisanship; just about everything the GOP has done so far smacks of strident partisanship.

Suck on it, GOP: you played dirty as hell while the Dems tried to placate you, but you lost. Now go cry in your milk before you start your attempts to smear and sabotage the health care reform that will pass.

Quandary

October 27th, 2009 1 comment

The Public Option is now in. Senate and House both have the “Opt-out” plan, which strikes me as a win-win for Dems, as it mollifies the “Moderates” (read: somewhat-less-radical conservatives) while not really giving away anything. Unless the states themselves will be setting up Public Option plans and/or paying for them, I see no reason why anyone would want to opt-out–and the Republicans who do can be vulnerable for denying their constituents cheap, effective health care. Is my read on that right?

Now, Republicans in Congress have a tough choice: when it becomes inevitable that the health care reform bill will pass, how will they vote? If they stick with opposition and the plan proves popular–as is probable–it’ll look bad for them. Right now they’re not opposing the bill because they really believe it’ll lead to Socialism or Death Panels–they’re opposing it because they want to make Obama fail and to follow industry lobbyist direction. When the bill’s passage becomes inevitable and they risk looking like partisan industry shills who opposed what is most likely to be a very popular law, how many will switch?

Of course, the GOP is not only extremely partisan right now, its members are very strictly controlled, almost the opposite of the Democrats. Likely they will stick to their opposition, and simply try their hardest to paint the law as destructive in the 2010 midterms, before it will have had enough time to prove that it works. After that, they’ll just try to take credit for it.

Ars Reviews 7 … Badly

October 26th, 2009 Comments off

There is now an exhaustive review of Windows 7 on Ars Technica. I have not read it all, but did read the first several pages and last conclusion–and instantly found things that turned me off to the whole review. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trashing W7, it’s supposed to be good; it’s just that this reviewer comes across as less than credible.

The lesser of the two questionable items is on the last page:

Windows Vista, for all its (alleged) flaws, was the best version of Windows ever shipped.

OK, maybe I missed something, but I start to get the feeling here that this reviewer possibly isn’t the most unbiased observer ever. Vista was the best ever before 7? Maybe in a narrow, specific manner that only a power user who can tweak the system and work around problems easily could appreciate, but to the average user, I don’t think so.

Another red flag was the fact that although the reviewer took up a 7-paragraph page just on installation (half of it spent talking about how Vista is so great), he made a glaring oversight: he completely ignored the transition from XP to 7, something that 80% of all Windows users will have to suffer through. There is no upgrade from one to the other; instead, you are forced to archive your data on a separate drive while 7 reinitializes your hard drive and does a clean install–so you lose all your software, and are forced to reinstall all of it. Another clue that this guy is married to Vista and is disconnected from the experiences of a majority of Windows users.

But the bit that really raised red flags was right on the first page:

Just as XP was fundamentally not as bad as its initial reception would lead one to believe, the same was true of Vista. Stripped of the Vista name and placed in front of unsuspecting users, “Windows Mojave” was warmly received. And even corporate customers have started to migrate to the OS.

This I do know for sure about: Mojave was a scam. In a marketing attempt to get people to like Vista, they loaded it up on a specially prepared, souped-up PC, made sure that all the peripherals were compatible with fully-functional drivers, then brought people in to watch someone practiced with the system dance through demos designed to look impressive. That’s what you call “stacking the deck.” The crappiest software ever could be made to look cool if presented in this way.

As I noted at the time, people who were shown Vista in this fashion were not given a copy to take home, so they did not discover the headaches involved in the installation of the OS, shortcomings of their hardware in running it, or the lack of drivers for their peripherals they were bound to run into. They were not even allowed to really use it themselves without an expert guiding them, or discover the problems like the annoying nagging that the security system would make them endure in normal use.

For this reviewer to accept Mojave wholly as evidence that people liked Vista simply screams bias.

As for corporate customers, that statement is highly misleading: some were migrating, perhaps. Most were steering clear of it. Even now, almost three years after its release, only 20% of all Windows users have Vista installed–and many if not most of those people only have it because it came with a new computer. But corporate customers? That’s a joke. Mac OS 10.5 (Leopard), on the other hand, is running on more than half of all Macs, and that’s after two years. 10.6, Snow Leopard, is already on about 15% of all Macs, and it’s been out for just a few months. In less time than Vista took to get 20% to change to it, the new Mac OS’ have gotten two thirds of all users to switch over.

The fact that this guy is so blind to the flaws, shortcomings, and obvious realities regarding Vista makes it questionable as to what he thinks of 7. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to claim that 7’s not the best Windows ever, that does seem to be the general consensus. I’m just not going to trust much coming from someone who thought Mojave was in any way credible.

Categories: Computers and the Internet Tags: by

The 13-Show Killing Zone

October 25th, 2009 4 comments

All too often some really good shows get sacrificed before the altar of the imperfect ratings system before they even get a chance. The original Star Trek is an excellent example of this; even under a more forgiving system 40 years ago, it was canceled after just two seasons; it went for a third season only because of a massive fan protest. When the show closed, a ratings expert told the executives that they had just canceled their best-rated show–back then, they did not pay enough attention to demographics, and did not understand the show’s power with the strongest of purchasing groups. Trek went on to create a television and movie franchise that is still reaping dividends.

But now, shows aren’t allowed to go for even two seasons before they are allowed to survive; we are now in the age of 13-episode semi-seasons–and if a show doesn’t do well right away, it can get axed even before all of those episodes can get on the air. And so, even with demographics, the networks and studios are still making rash, impulsive, even panicked decisions, axing superior shows because the “numbers” told them to. The same old system persists: dreck goes on forever if it can draw a flash crowd, but quality with potential staying power gets trashed because it isn’t given a chance.

Network television today has a severe case of attention deficit disorder. Imagine someone who leaves the theater if they’re not sufficiently entertained in the first ten minutes of a movie; that’s what’s controlling television today.

Dollhouse is an interesting case, partly because of the history preceding it. Joss Whedon had previously debuted in network TV with a show called Firefly. Fox aired the show, although “aired” is a generous term here; it was a half-hearted thing at best. Firefly was one of the best shows many had seen in a long time, and given time (and proper respect by the network), would almost certainly have developed the same success that Trek eventually did. Unfortunately, because it was botched by Fox, it did not find footing in the first few weeks it was on, and so got canceled. It was later given a chance to tie things up with the feature film Serenity, though it was more of an abortive last gasp than anything else.

Whedon continued with Fox to create Dollhouse, which is traveling in a similar direction in some ways: a very good, high-quality show, it did not find a mass audience in its first dozen episodes, and so was slated for cancelation… until Fox apparently found its senses just long enough to allow the show to hang on by its fingernails. It is undoubtedly because this is Whedon, a producer with a string of success in his past, and they realized what a huge mistake they had made with Firefly. But even then, it was a close thing–and may yet fall into the scrap heap.

Look at Pushing Daisies–a fantastic show, funny, well-made, full of promise. Dead. That seemed to be a no-brainer to keep for the long term, but no. It’s as if shows aren’t allowed to gain momentum, and save for the one exception with Dollhouse, no major network has the guts to look at a show, see its potential, and subsidize it long enough to really see what it can do.

One recent show you may not have even heard of was an ABC series called Defying Gravity. Canceled after just 8 shows (the 13th and final episode just aired), it was a straight-up sci-fi show about a future interplanetary space mission. Not very well-publicized, it was further sabotaged by a horrible description–it was characterized as a space mission where the crew was subjected to reality-show-like treatment. The thing is, that was nowhere near the actual plot of the show. Using Lost-style past-and-present synchronized storylines, the show was about the crew training for the mission, and 5 years later going on that mission, taking them to five planets of the solar system, supposedly for exploration and science purposes. As was slowly revealed throughout the season, their purpose was in fact very different–and although a good deal of progress was made in advancing the story, now we’ll never find out what the writers intended, as the show has been axed. But it had good writing, acting, and production quality, and promised to be an excellent show. But ratings weren’t good enough in the first two months for ABC, so screw it.

Four years ago, there were three SF shows that failed in their first year: Threshold, Surface, and Invasion. Invasion kind of deserved to die, but the other two showed tremendous promise. Threshold was sharp, funny, and edgy, and a bit like Fringe is today (thank goodness that one seems to be going OK), and absolutely deserved to keep going. Surface was a bit more goofy, but had a very interesting mythology. What I really liked about the show, however, is that it went where few shows go: taking a story that begins in the present day and the world we know, and then shaking things up. TV shows love to be coy, love to have beneath-the-surface worlds that never get revealed publicly, presumably to allow viewers to imagine that “it could actually be happening.” Me, I love a show that completely changes the game, and shows how the world could change. Surface did that, but was canceled just as the game-changer happened.

It seems that the only place where a potentially good show can make it beyond 13 episodes nowadays is on cable. Some shows there far outlive their potential (Stargate: Atlantis really wasn’t as good as shows like Pushing Daisies, and though it’s not even close to being as good as Defying Gravity, Warehouse 13 is going for a second season), but some shows have much-deserved runs which never would have been possible on network TV. Take, for example, Battlestar Galactica; that’s a definite canceled-in-13-episodes network fiasco, but instead it got a 5-year run and was fantastically popular. One can bet that the SciFi channel made a bundle off of that show.

Babylon 5 is another example, one of the earliest in fact, of a show that lasted on cable way beyond its network survivability; it not only lasted four seasons in its original form, but even got a fifth year on a different network (TNT picked it up). Admittedly, it should have died at the end of year 4, but it was brilliant right up until then. One could even trace this phenomenon back to Star Trek: The Next Generation, which used syndication to survive–a good idea, as the networks would undoubtedly have axed it after its first year.

Maybe another change will come, but in the meantime, be prepared to continue the network ritual of seeing quality come, getting attached to it, and then seeing it stupidly and mercilessly torn down. It’s like reading a really good book and wanting to finish it, but having the publisher snatch it out of your hands after the first five chapters.

Categories: Media & Reviews Tags: by

Quick Note: Ads on Web Sites

October 24th, 2009 1 comment

I use ad blockers, like Pith Helmet for Safari. With Snow Leopard, SIMBL and Pith Helmet got disabled for the most part, so I added Click to Flash. Most of the ads show up now, but Flash is blocked unless I specifically allow it. And I confirmed something that I always knew:

I am perfectly fine with a web site full of ads. I might even click on one sometimes, despite a strong personal principle not to encourage them. But if any are moving or animated in any way, I bolt for the door. I can’t stand the damn things. If I can’t turn them off somehow, I never come back to that site. Ever. And I’m pretty sure that I’m not alone on this.

Categories: Quick Notes Tags: by

The Difference

October 24th, 2009 2 comments

A lot of people decry not just people like O’Reilley, Limbaugh, and Hannity, but Olbermann and Maddow, as if they were of the exact same stripe. And there are similarities: all are stridently partisan political pundits with popular media opinion shows. But there is a great difference: the ones on the left are far more fact-based. They don’t make up crap as much, or exaggerate as much, or mislead nearly as much as those on the right. And that’s a very significant difference: while being a partisan is one thing, being a dishonest partisan is much worse.

I will admit happily and freely that I watch the liberals–but I would stop watching them in a heartbeat if they stooped to the lying, dishonest depths that the right-wing hacks commonly lower themselves to.

Categories: Quick Notes Tags: by

No, Really! It Works! I Swear!

October 24th, 2009 8 comments

Classic:

Looks like they forgot to plug in a cable. People have pointed out a touchscreen on a standard desktop computer monitor is pretty pointless–nobody is going to reach out to their screen like that to control it all day. The orientation problem will have to be fixed before it is actually something people will want to use. Microsoft’s jump into this functionality is an excellent example of kitchen-sink mentality: use something because it’s there, rather than because it’s a good idea.

If John McCain Were President…

October 24th, 2009 1 comment

John McCain is threatening to circumvent the FCC’s authority to decide Internet policy–he is that committed to reversing a decade and a half of successful Internet policy and handing control of the Internet to the Telecoms for free (those campaign contributions were just a coincidence). He is spouting the industry line that Net Neutrality will introduce “government control” which will impose “oppressive regulations” which will stifle “continued innovation that will in turn create more high-paying jobs for the millions of Americans.”

Which, of course, in technical Internet terminology, is commonly referred to as “bullshit.” Net Neutrality, far from oppressive regulation, is a policy which says that government and industry must take a “hands-off” stance and let people use the Internet as they see fit, without anyone standing in the way. McCain wants to end that, and burden the Internet with slowdowns, fees, prohibitive industry-mandated rules, and other garbage which will win you nothing but will cost us all. OK, maybe he doesn’t want that, but it’s what he’s trying to make happen.

Without Net Neutrality, the Telecoms can and will start telling you what you can and cannot do on the Internet; they will start charging you and everyone else more, and will not spend any of it on “innovations,” just like they failed to the last time they got Congress to give them something in exchange for empty promises of investment and upgrades.

If Net Neutrality is shut down as McCain hopes, the Internet economic engine will have an industry-wide tax imposed which will go straight into the pockets of the Telecom shareholders. It is this that will stifle innovation, making it more difficult for start-ups to get off the ground, slowing down the economy and killing off jobs in a valuable area.

McCain, like so many other Republicans, is nothing but a witless shill for the industries that fund him. He’s been in the pocket of the Bells since the 90’s, and will continue to be. Yet another reason to be thankful that he lost.

IT IS CONFIDENTIAL RESPOND IF INTERESTED

October 24th, 2009 1 comment

Looks like the Nigerians are finally actually doing something:

It turns out Nigeria is taking measures to fight Internet scams—law enforcement there has shut down close to a thousand websites and made 18 arrests as part of a new initiative to save the nation’s reputation and crack down on Internet scammers. The program, called “Project Eagle Claw,” has only just begun, but Nigerian officials expect it to be fully operational in 2010.

Nigeria’s Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) described the initiative as “a renewed bid to clap down” (*clap clap*?) on Internet fraudsters. So far, the agency claims to have shut down 800 scam sites in addition to making the arrests, with many more apparently to come.

EFCC Chairman Farida Waziri said Wednesday during a US address to the National Conference of Black Mayors that Nigeria was working with Microsoft to fully deploy Project Eagle Claw, and that it will soon be able to take down up to 5,000 fraudulent e-mails per month.

Hmm. I expect to get an email soon:

Subject: URGENT NOTICE FOR YOUR KIND ATTENTION

DEAR KIND SIR:

It is understandable that you might be a little bit apprehensive because you do not know me but I am Farida Waziri, Chairman of Nigeria’s Economic and Financial Crimes Commission. I write you this proposal in good faith, believing that I can trust you with the information I am about to reveal to you. I seek your consent because as a result of many arrests of Nigerian entrepreneurs, I have a large sum of monies in the total of US$ 25 MILLION that I must transfer to a bank account overseas.

With the recent change of government in my country, I cannot directly transfer out this money without the help of a foreigner and that is why I am contacting you for an assistance. If you accept to work with me, I want you to state how you wish us to share the funds in percentage, so that both parties will be satisfied. If you give me positive signals, I will initiate this process towards a conclusion.

Your earliest response to this letter will be appreciated.

One would think that every individual on the planet has received enough of these emails that it would have stopped working quite some time ago. It’s been a tired gag for years already. Heck, one of my first posts back in 2002 was on these scams, and it wasn’t new even then. What kind of morons are actually sending money to these guys?

On the other hand, we have millions of people who believe hucksters who say that Jeebus rode on dinosaurs and send them sizable donations on a regular basis so they can build megachurches, Judgment Day theme parks, and TV ministries.

I guess they must be using those mailing lists.

Categories: People Can Be Idiots Tags: by

What Health Insurance Is About

October 23rd, 2009 Comments off

More warm and fuzzy news about the kind, sweet people at health insurance companies, this time about how they are abusing rape victims. The short version: a woman who was raped took anti-HIV medication as a precaution. Result: she is now uninsurable, as the insurance companies don’t want to risk taking on someone who might have AIDS. The message: if you get raped, don’t try to prevent HIV or else you’ll be uninsurable.

I thought that the whole idea of insurance was to spread out the cost of health care by having healthy and unhealthy people covered. The healthy people cover the excess costs of the unhealthy people, on the chance that they might someday join the ranks of the unhealthy. What an idiot I am–it’s not about something stupid like that. Rather, it’s about insuring only healthy people and taking the excess as profits. What was my addled Socialist brain thinking?

Categories: Health Issues Tags: by

Good Lord in Heaven and All That Is Holy

October 23rd, 2009 3 comments

Apparently this is real: The Windows 7 Whopper:

J7Whopper

There’s a Burger King at Sunshine City, a few blocks from where I live. I’ll have to check that out. Not that I will actually order one of these abominations–the four-patty “Mega Mac” was bad enough. How many thousands of calories could be in this thing?

Don’t be fooled by the price: at’s 1450 yen (about $16). The “777” yen ($8.50) price is for the first 30 customers of the day. A promotion which, on second thought, might actually last all day.

The Apple Microsoft Store

October 23rd, 2009 7 comments

Microsoft had a big opening of their first retail store, this one in Phoenix, Arizona. It’s kinda hard to miss the fact that, like so much of what Microsoft does, it’s a complete and shameless rip-off of Apple’s original idea.

Msstore01

Gizmodo has a report and many more photos from the store. Among my favorite comments:

…it’s not the Microsoft can’t open a store, of course they can, it’s just that it looks EXACTLY like an Apple store. Once again, if Apple gets it so wrong, as MS claims, why do they keep imitating them?

I am so totally taking my Apple with BootCamp running XP in there…

Update: Ironically, Apple opened their 275th store (In Cardiff, UK) on the same day–and the lines looked longer than Microsoft’s.

Categories: Computers and the Internet Tags: by

Windows 7: The Wrong Way and the Right Way

October 23rd, 2009 1 comment

Not everybody was apparently excited to come to a party centered around the installation of an OS on someone else’s computer. This one, the user reports, didn’t end well:

The folks at Funny or Die, however, had less trouble gathering an age/gender/race-diverse crowd for their Windows 7 Torrenting Party:

Snark.

Categories: Computers and the Internet Tags: by

Back Over 200 Again

October 20th, 2009 5 comments

Finally, Apple stock has fully recovered from the pounding it took from the sub-prime shock. It reached $200 back in late 2007, before it plunged to $119, and later to $78 (I bought in a year before the peak at $93). It has slowly been recovering since March of this year, and over the past two weeks it has been hovering at $190, after spending the better part of a month around $185.

Today, after the end of trading, Apple announced huge earnings (in part because of changes in accounting rules), their highest ever–almost $10 billion in sales, and $1.67 billion in profit.

Apple shares in after-market trading rocketed to $202.

From a political point of view: the $78 low, by the way, happened on Bush’s last day in office. Under Obama, Apple stock has risen 260%. Not that that means anything significant, but I have been much happier with my stocks going up rather than down.

On top of that, the word is that the new hardware lines should be debuting tomorrow.

Categories: Mac News Tags: by

For Example

October 19th, 2009 1 comment

I know that this is old hat, but it bears pointing out.

Conservatives claim that Obama is “bankrupting America” because, in response to an economic crisis, he put forward a stimulus bill in his first month in office which will eventually cost the United States a total of $787 billion.

On the other hand, conservatives to this day say that George W. Bush saved the American economy almost exactly eight years ago because, in response to an economic crisis, he put forward a tax cut plan (primarily benefitting rich people) in his first month of office which was projected to cost the United States a total of $1.6 trillion.

I’m pretty sure that $1.6 trillion is something like double $787, but I didn’t use a calculator to check. Of course, since 2001, inflation has made that $1.6 trillion into $1.9 trillion, but who’s counting? Well, these guys are (PDF), actually, and they say that Bush’s overall tax cuts wound up costing the United States $2.5 trillion. Again, no calculator, but I think that’s triple what Obama spent.

So: Bush spends $2.5 trillion in tax cuts mostly for rich people, and he saved the economy, while Obama spends $787 billion on a stimulus to create jobs, and he’s bankrupting us.

Did I miss the part where conservatives offered a cogent explanation of how these two opinions are reconcilable?

Categories: Economics, Right-Wing Hypocrisy Tags: by

And to Prove We’re Not Right-Wing, Here’s Karl Rove…

October 19th, 2009 Comments off

The White House has come out fighting against Fox News, correctly identifying it not as a news organization, but a propaganda tool for the Republican Party–something that everyone has known for a long time, but right-wingers deny so they can keep up the pretext.

Karl Rove has complained about this White House stance bitterly. Keep in mind that Rove was the Republican Party’s star political operative for more than half a decade, arguably longer. He personifies right-wing politics more than anyone else alive. And he now works for Fox News.

So we have Rove, working for Fox, attacking the president for saying the Fox is a Republican outfit.

Isn’t that like a serial killer denying he’s a murderer by saying, “If you keep calling me that, I’ll kill you like all the others”?

Categories: Right-Wing Hypocrisy, Right-Wing Lies Tags: by

Obama Derangement Syndrome

October 18th, 2009 8 comments

A conservative cartoon, Day By Day, encapsulates it fairly well. Hard to tell if the cartoonist actually believes this or not, but it’s clear that many people do–he’s putting in his panels what so many are ranting and tearing their hair out about all the time now. One can imagine the cartoonist either believes it all, or that he believes some but wanted to push it and so included some ideas that he may not agree with.

But that’s not the point. The point is that the list he comes up with is a real one, made up of actual claims, complaints, grievances, and conspiracy theories from the right wing. The thing of it is, this list is not even the craziest one out there–it is actually fairly reined in, relatively mild. The examples listed in the cartoon below don’t go as far as Bachmann’s FEMA-built concentration camps; it stays just barely on the “reasonable” side of the paranoid rantings on the right. Looking at the list, it’s so familiar in its content, but at the same time, makes you ask the question, “which planet do these people live on?”

Screen Shot 2009-10-18 At 10.10.12 Am

The first utterance very nicely frames something that conservatives have been all over lately, but which is ultimately very puzzling: the implication that nothing really happened under Bush, but now, under Obama, stuff is actually happening. Like most of the stuff in the panels above, it’s not just the cartoon making stuff up, this is what’s really out there. Conservatives express strong fears of the Constitution being torn to shreds now–as if Bush’s term in office didn’t do massive damage to our rights but somehow Obama has taken a flamethrower to the document. As if Bush did not do everything he could to fully negate the Fourth Amendment, making the case that the government had the right to spy on Americans without a warrant (and actually doing it). As if he did not violate the Fifth through Eighth Amendments by jailing people without access to an attorney, without informing them of charges, without allowing a trial, and by legitimizing torture. These were as real as you can get, and set government policy that generates precedents that could actually weaken the Constitution. The irony is, what they see Obama is doing to violate the Constitution is imaginary–paranoid hyperbole loosely based upon harmless facts, like the Medicare provision for end-of-life counseling combined with decade-old writings by one advisor being seen as adding up to insidious “Death Panels.”

What else on the list? The “racist” supreme court justice: Sotomayor is supposedly a racist because she said that a “wise Latina woman” would have better judgment than a white man. As spelled out here, the quote was taken fully out of context: Sotomayor said that in sexual discrimination cases, a wise Latina woman would have a better understanding of the nature of the offense and therefore could be a better judge on the issue–not racist at all.

Economy-busting stimulus bills: This is another fascinating example of Bush-Blindness-Obama-Hyperbole; Bush dug us into debt to an unimaginable degree, but these people had no problem with it–when asked, they usually reverted to the idea that “debt is good,” that it allows us to control the economy. Bush gave away more than the stimulus cost to pay off the banks, and though conservatives didn’t like it, they barely seem to remember it now. Obama spends a relative pittance to Bush’s total giveaway over the years, Obama working to actually revive the economy, to create jobs–and it’s actually working–and suddenly he’s spending too much. See here for a good rundown of the difference between Obama’s and Bush’s debt creation–you can see that Obama’s well-spent, effective stimulus cost less than any one of several Bush boondoggles.

Nationalization of Banking, Insurance, Auto, and Health Care: Uh huh. Obama controls the banks now. And he runs the auto industry. Riiiighhht. This is fascinating as well, in that it takes the idea of bailouts–which Bush initiated half the time–which have a few, minor, very weak strings attached–and transforms them into complete takeovers of the entire institutions. It’s like saying that I run Apple now because I made a minor stock purchase. But this is an excellent example of what the far right has been doing: take a kernel of truth, inflate it a thousand times and more, then start getting paranoid about it.

Unaccountable Czars: Bush had more, but no one complained then–not even liberals. A “czar” is nothing more than a task manager on a specific issue; they have no dictatorial power beyond what the respective agencies or the president himself wields. The term was crafted long ago as a political way of saying “we’re on the problem.” As for the “Diktats” on what we can “eat, buy, earn, or say”? How do you respond to stuff like that? I repeat, I know this is a cartoon, but as I noted above, this is virtually straight from the mouths of so many conservatives today–they really do believe this.

A “White House that openly posts anti-semitic rants”: I have to give up on this one, I could not determine its source. Seems like others on the web are scratching their heads here as well. Closest I could come were mentions of Van Jones, but I could not track down the explanations.

Embracing Islamic Terrorists: one can only imagine. His Cairo speech? His initial steps in the Middle East peace process? His willingness to speak to foreign leaders? Obama reading Fareed Zakaria’s book? Who knows, it seems that anything Obama does which in any way can be connected to the Middle East is invariably seen as “embracing Islamic terrorists.”

“A Cipher for President”: the old “Obama as Mystery Man” cliché. This is part of a long-standing smear on Obama from back during the election, saying that we “don’t know” anything about who he “really” is–nothing more than a completely unsupported attack intended to frighten people away from voting for him. The man’s life is just as open, if not more open than anyone other president’s in recent history (unless anyone can tell me in detail about Bush’s years of alcoholism and drug use in detail). The man wrote an autobiography and a tome outlining his political philosophy, for crying out loud.

Obama’s “mentors”: a “Child Rapist”: again, I had to look this one up. Turns out he’s talking about Frank Marshall Davis, a journalist, poet and political and labor movement activist who was targeted during the McCarthy era. Like so many conservative conspiracy theories, this one is based upon a string of suppositions transposed over an exaggerated relationship. Davis probably wrote a book under a pseudonym in which the author wrote that the experiences described were supposedly based upon actual fact–something never determined to be true (Michael Crichton includes the same claim in many of his purely fictional novels)–and in the book spoke of a three-way romantic relationship between the author, his wife, and a 13-year-old girl. Conservative conspiracy nuts then connect this to Obama because in the book Dreams From My Father, Obama mentioned “Uncle Frank” as being a friend of his grandfather’s. Not a word about him being a mentor or even an influence of any sort, just kind reminiscences of a figure from his childhood. From this we get a “child rapist mentor.” At least Muir did not go so far as to chime in on the wingnut claim that Davis was actually Obama’s father.

The “Domestic Terrorist” is of course, Bill Ayers. Of course, it has long been established that Obama’s connection to Ayers (whose ‘terrorist’ status is just as challenged but let’s just let that lie for now) is tenuous at best–Ayers contributed $200 to Obama state senate re-election bid, they lived in the same neighborhood, served on a board together, and that’s just about it. Having fleeting contacts and possible scattered meetings means nothing, let alone “mentor” status. A good, thorough debunking of the web of fiction surrounding this is here as well as at FactCheck.org.

A Racist Minister: this is as close to the truth as the rant gets. Obama did admire Jeremiah Wright, and Wright was his minister for several years, and he did say objectionable things. “Mentor” is a different issue, as is the insinuation that Obama agreed with everything the man said.

Assorted Communists: again, one can only imagine. So general it could refer to any number of imagined paranoid rantings.

Uses government to attack private citizens: go fish, I have no idea on this one. Again, too general to track down.

Union thugs to stifle free speech: this comes from a scuffle at a town hall meeting that tea-baggers were trying to overrun. The event, for Democratic Representative Kathy Castor, was at least in part sponsored by local unions, ergo the “union thugs” charge. The venue had a maximum capacity of 250 seats, but more than 1000–mostly protesters bused in from outside the district–tried to get in. When the door minders had to stop admitting people and intended to close the doors in keeping with fire regulations, the tea-baggers, assuming they were being unfairly kept out, started screaming, shoving, and a few got into minor scuffles with the door minders. After the doors were closed, they continued to shout and bang on the doors. As you can see in this Youtube video of the event (different angle here), the tea-baggers were the loud, rowdy, and pushy ones. One guy, named Randy Arthur (you can see him near the doors in the video), later claimed that he was slammed against a wall, and had scratches on his chest. (The video seems to show that after the room’s capacity was filled, he tried to shove his way in, but had to be restrained by a door minder.) There was zero verification that union people were minding the doors, that Arthur was not himself an aggressor trying to get in after the hall had been filled to capacity, or that any of this was to “stifle free speech.” Closing an event due to fire laws is not stifling free speech, and plenty of tea-baggers got in. But, as you can imagine, the right wing blew this event way out of proportion, claimed Obama was using union thugs to beat up protesters, and here we are.

ACORN felons manufacturing votes: It started with McCain/Palin accusations about stealing votes, but as FactCheck.org points out, there were only scattered cases of a few hired workers trying to get paid for no work by falsifying registration forms. None of these led to actual false votes, none were perpetrated by ACORN itself. This kind of false-registration scam by workers is endemic to voter registration organizations of all stripes. Since then, ACORN has become the favorite punching bag of the right wing, which has both stirred up a wide variety of false rumors and smears, and has tried to infiltrate/expose with questionable results. Mostly, opposition to ACORN is fueled by the fact that it is legally registering large numbers of low-income voters who will more often than not vote Democratic, and by the longstanding campaign by the right wing to claim massive voter fraud is being perpetrated, so that the Republicans can institute new voter laws which would disenfranchise large numbers of Democratic voters.

FCC throttling free speech: This apparently comes from the fact that Mark Lloyd, the “chief diversity officer” at the FCC, wrote an opinion a few years before being assigned to his post saying that since talk radio is strongly tilted toward conservatism, that some policies could be adopted to address the imbalance. Whatever Lloyd’s claims actually were (to get the full story I would have to find, read, and analyze the original work, something I don’t have time for), there is nonetheless no evidence that such policies are actually being enacted by the FCC. This is a common right-wing tactic: find everything ever written by everyone even tangentially connected to the Obama administration, find something written years ago as a theoretical suggestion that could then be distorted and presented as a crazed, wild-eyed conspiracy, and then claim that since this person is now in some official position, that means that the years-old musing is now an official policy forwarded by Obama himself. This was half of the genesis for the “Death Panel” claim.

Illegal monies from overseas to establish itself: I think this refers to the claims that some Obama campaign contributions came from overseas, in particular Arab countries. Add it to the pile.

A news media so biased: Well, this is too easy. The news media is biased–very strongly biased–but demonstrably, very demonstrably, to the right, not to the left. But the right wing’s pipe dream fantasy has it being a left-wing cabal infiltrating all but Fox News, which, of course, is fair and balanced.

The culture steeped in anti-Americanism: essentially, anything and everything that does not fit the right-wing standard of approving of or defending most of what Bush and Cheney did, or a completely pro-Christian agenda, or a pro-ultra-right-wing agenda, so forth and so on. Under their standards, trying to get the Olympics for Chicago in 2016 was “anti-American.” Really, almost anything Obama or the Democrats do is ultimately represented as “anti-American.”

Illegal aliens bribed with amnesty to vote Democratic: does he mean the mass amnesty that Reagan gave in the 80’s to bribe them to vote Republican? Or the amnesty Bush 43 was trying to get for many years?

And finally: 47% of Americans pay no taxes and live off of those who do produce. The figure comes from the Tax Policy Center, which claims that in 2009, 47% of households will owe no federal income tax–not exactly the same as 47% of Americans paying no taxes at all, but let’s ignore that for the moment. The insinuation is that we’re talking about half of America (presumably the liberal half) somehow evading taxes and instead leeching off of the (presumably Republican) half who actually produce stuff–another common right-wing fantasy.

What the figures actually mean are that the incomes earned by enough hard-working Americans have dropped so low in the past eight years under Bush that the number who fall below the minimum tax brackets and exemptions has increased dramatically–this number is reportedly almost 60% higher than it was in 2000. Too many Americans work multiple jobs for too little pay, with too few benefits. The minimum wage is a sick joke. To say that they are leeching off the productive ones while rich bankers use taxpayer billions granted by Bush to give themselves huge bonuses for failing under conservative fiscal policies… well, you get the idea.

This is not a conspiracy by lazy liberals to mooch off of productive responsible conservatives, it’s the dying gasp of America’s middle class, falling into poverty because of the economy that conservatives champion. It’s no secret that Democrats are the ones who preside over economies where all groups do well and more people pay taxes, whereas in Republican administrations, the gap between rich and poor widens and so many fall into poverty.


Okay. Once again, the cartoon is not real. But the claims that the cartoon lists are all too real in terms of these being the relatively more level-headed claims of the conservative half of America. These beliefs by so many on the right have nothing to do with reason, facts, or evidence, but instead are virtually all conspiracy theories based on rumors and lies.

Such ideas have always existed. But they have never been expressed so vehemently, in such volume, with such distortion and separation from reality, and believed by so many people in so short a time as they are now.

The whole ‘controversy’ about how the comic ends with the ‘liberal’ character joking about the knife somehow being a veiled assassination threat is bogus; that’s a far stretch, at best. What is important here is the concise and succinct showcase of Obama Derangement Syndrome in one of its more mild forms.

GOP For Rape

October 17th, 2009 2 comments

In the continuing Republican saga of “Let’s oppose anything and everything if it’s proposed by any Democrat we don’t like, no matter how stupid it makes us look” (causing the conservatives to cheer the American loss of the 2016 Olympics, and rage in disapproval of a U.S. president winning the Nobel Peace Prize), we now see 30 Republican senators voting against an amendment proposed by Al Franken to refuse federal contracts to any contractor that contractually bans employees from suing coworkers for rape.

This stemmed from a case where a 19-year-old woman was gang-raped by coworkers in Iraq working for KBR, a former Halliburton subsidiary. When she tried to file a complaint, she was ignored, forced to work alongside her rapists, and was not provided appropriate medical treatment. Eventually, when she tried to report the rape, she was locked in a shipping crate to prevent her from doing this.

When she returned to the U.S., she tried to file suit–and then discovered that the fine print in her contract prevented her from publicly suing her rapists.

What’s more, she is not alone–several women have come forth with similar stories.

Franken’s amendment would deny government contracts to any company forcing this clause on their employees, thus giving them no choice but to stop using the clause in contracts.

Thirty Republican senators voted against the amendment, apparently feeling that repeated gang rape was not serious enough of an issue to withhold government funds so as to interfere with legal issues involving government contractors–despite the fact that many of these same Republicans have lobbied to do the exact same thing regarding Acorn.

As usual, the major networks did not cover it quite so well as did Jon Stewart:

Too bad the Pulitzer Prize is not awarded for television journalism–lord knows that he’s done more real reporting than any ten “journalists” on TV today. (Stewart has, however, won two Peabody Awards.)

Musical Fascism Receives a Blow

October 16th, 2009 Comments off

Good news, everyone: a federal judge swatted down a claim that every time a ringtone sounds, the copyright holder must be paid. The claim was that in addition to being paid for the ringtone outright, the rights-holder should also get money every time a “public performance” occurs–i.e., your phone rings.

A step in the right direction, but by no means a complete and final answer to the music industry’s relentless drive to have everyone pay them money every time anything happens with anything even remotely related to music.

Categories: Corporate World, Law Tags: by

Multi-touch Solution

October 16th, 2009 1 comment

After watching Jeff Han’s presentation at TED, I am pretty sure that multi-touch is the next UI step after GUI. There have always been questions, however–most specifically, how do you match hand positions with the screen? This question has been most relevant currently to tablets, specifically the rumored Mac tablet: how do you position the thing? With desktop computers, the question would be even more relevant, seeing as how it would be tiring at least to hold your hands up against the thing. In Han’s demonstration, he had a screen tilted at an angle starting at waist-high while he stood–or he stood in front of a wall screen. Neither of these, however, is suitable for a desktop configuration with a user sitting at a desk.

The video below, I think, answers half the problem: the screen would not be multi-touch–instead, you’d have a multi-touch pad under your hands, probably a large pad in front of a keyboard. (I still like the idea of a multi-touch keyboard, despite tactile issues, which might mean that the touch-pad could have a video element, even if a simple one.) This general solution overcomes the major problems of hand/arm positioning and not blocking your view of the screen with your hands.

After that, the presentation, called 10/GUI, suggests a UI design–but that’s where I get off the train. The linear nature of the UI laid out in the video has it’s good points, but I see one major bad point: it is way too restrictive as to how things can be laid out. It’s like forcing someone to organize their desk in a specific fashion. This is a solution, but only for people who like it. It claims to solve the problem of the scattered, messy Desktop–but a lot of people like that scattered, messy Desktop. It’s like having an anally retentive person making you follow their rules all the time. I lived with someone like that, briefly, and it was unbearable. Still, you might find this aesthetically pleasing:

See? It’s kind of like having your entire OS forced into a tabbed browser window. A little bit more flexible than that, but not much. Me, I’m going to wait and see what Apple comes up with.

Categories: Computers and the Internet Tags: by