Feinstein made a nice speech, but you know it’s going to pale to what Obama will say.

Rick Warren: God is great, god is more important than anything and everything, etc. Still, I think it might have been the right choice–his voice speaks to a lot of people who might now be willing to give Obama more of the benefit of the doubt, people who were screaming “Muslim!” and “Traitor!” just a few months ago. But–“Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.” Um, yeah, right. Sorry, but that grates coming from a stolid right-winger.

Aretha Franklin, brilliant as you would expect her to be.

Obama is taking it all in stride, as if he does this every day. Can’t blame him–he’s got to be the most unimpressed person there. Well, aside from Michelle, perhaps.

Biden takes his oath. Boy, does he seem like he means it. Meet the Vice President.

Yo Yo Ma rocks! To the familiar style of John Williams. Shut up, Blitzer. Let the moment be.

Still, a salient point: oath or no, constitutionally, after noon DC time, Barack Obama is now President of the United States of America.

Now comes the moment we’ve been waiting for: the oath. (Who bumbled–Roberts or Obama?)

That’s it–Mister President.

“Our collective failure to make hard choices.” Wow. That’s what you call a precursor.

Know this America: they will be met!

We are here because we have chose hope instead of fear–a slight to Bush and/or McCain?

The speech.

Greatness must be earned … it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things … who have carried us up … For us, for us … our capacity remains undiminished … our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions–that time has surely passed … We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil … All this we can do, all this we will do … restore the vital trust between a people and their government … without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control–and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous … we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals … know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more!

When Obama speaks of humility and restraint, you can sense that he actually means it.

We know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness … we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist. … they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves … it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all … to take a most sacred oath … Let it be told to the future world … that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive … that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet (it).

With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come.

Not just a powerful speech, but meaning that speaks volumes. He made clear that he would be making “unpleasant decisions,” and emphasized “the spirit of service.” He’s not promising a turkey in every pot, he’s asking for sacrifice, something Bush steadfastly refused to do. This is no panderer, this is a leaser, as leaders are the ones who ask their people to do the hard things. Bush asked people to shop; Obama asks them to sacrifice.

Despite his gracious introduction praising Bush, he made it explicitly clear that he feels that Bush was asleep at the wheel. “Our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions–that time has surely passed. … Without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control … We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.” Not very subtle, that.

Wow… Obama with a flag pin, hand over his heart, and singing the national anthem: a host of wingnuts’ heads must be exploding right now.

And now, a bit later, the magical moment: Obama leads Bush to the helicopter. “Former President Bush,” that has a definite ring to it. And there it goes, there he goes. Sorry to be ungracious, but good-bye and good riddance. Don’t let the door hit you on the ass on the way out. Not a moment too soon.

The Onion, eight years ago, led with the headline, “Bush: ‘Our Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity Is Finally Over’” Incredible prescience there. More on that later, but the point: Our Long National Nightmare of War and Depression Is Finally Over.

Is it just me, or does Bush have the worst fake smile on, constantly? Looks like he is clearly not enjoying this, and is doing a bad job of not looking like it. The word “grimace” comes to mind. Ungracious to the end.

There’s no lack of coverage of the inauguration here, but not because Japanese TV is doing a great job–only NHK is paying attention right now it, aside from the obligatory CNN coverage. But streaming Internet coverage (the old Internet pipes must be at full pressure right now) is just fine. Oddly, CNN is blocking Internet video streaming outside the U.S. But other networks make up for it. AP is streaming over lesser web sites, but the major news networks have their own broadcasts on. I’m watching MSNBC; I can’t resist Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow ushering in Barack Obama, I must admit. And the picture, at full-size on my 24-inch screen, is actually pretty darn good.

Strange: NHK’s video is slightly ahead of MSNBC’s Internet stream, but CNN’s TV video is a full second or two behind MSNBC’s. Go figure.

Quick thought: whatever satellite is over the East Coast right now should be taking high-res images of DC. Are you listening, Google? Get those snapshots and let’s browse them later.

Amazing. No, stunning. As many as two million people have swarmed over the capitol, a sea of people, most of whom brave the cold and the crowds knowing that all they will see is an image on one of the large screens erected, but coming and staying nonetheless simply because they know that this is history in the making, and they want to say that they were there.

As Obama enjoys record pre-inauguration approval ratings, and has the support of the people in that they do not expects miracles nor do they expect everything to get better soon, these massive crowds can only act to cement Obama’s influence in Washington D.C. right now. In a city where numbers speak to greatest effect, this cannot fail to give a deep sense of pause and caution to the members of Congress in attendance: this president has the support of the people.

As much as the people are willing to be patient for solutions, I have a very strong feeling that they will not be supportive of obstructionism. They know that the problems we face will not be swept aside easily, and they are willing to bear down and suffer through tough times–but that does not mean that they will be OK if bill after bill is filibustered yet again by a Republican minority, as has happened for the past two years. If you recall, Trent Lott famously said, “The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail. So far it’s working for us.”

Well, after the 2008 elections, with Obama winning and Democrats making huge gains–again–in Congress, I don’t think obstructionism worked very well for them after all, did it?

With Republicans in Congress having the lowest ratings of anyone in Washington and Democrats enjoying much better numbers, with one more cycle of past Republican Senate wins ready to be swept clean and replaced with Democrats in 2010, with Obama being so astronomically popular–the Republicans may now obstruct at their substantial peril. Minimum wage hike, making a hard life barely livable for millions of hard-working Americans, blocked by Republicans? The ability of government health care agencies to use their buying power to negotiate lower drug costs, saving Americans billions of dollars, blocked by corporate-bought right-wing politicians? Improved health care, work bills, bringing soldiers home, closing Guantanamo, giving the middle class a long-awaited tax cut while the wealthy finally pay their share, shoring up Social Security–the list goes on and on. If the GOP believes that it can filibuster its way to popularity, then it is sadly mistaken.

One has the sense that things are going to get done. Whether they are enough, whether they will work, remains to be seen. But seeing this day as it unrolls, it is hard to imagine that things will not move.

Things will, for lack of a better or more appropriate word, change.

This is a bit too tawdry to have on the front page, frankly. But also, I believe, important to note at this time, especially in terms of the bullet-we-dodged sense. Read on below the fold.

Read more…

Most people seeing what’s going on are noting, quite correctly, I think, that Windows 7 is essentially a “bug fix” for Windows Vista. Perhaps even more accurately, Vista was the beta version, and Windows 7 is currently in the pre-release phase.

Some unpleasant comparisons to Mac OS X have been made, but they are pretty weak. A lot of Windows supporters point out that Mac OS X was pretty weak until 10.2, or maybe even 10.3. True, but there is a vital difference: Mac OS X was a completely new OS, based on a completely new kernel; Vista is simply the next version after XP. For Microsoft to take ten years to get a regular upgrade perfected as opposed to Apple ironing out the kinks in a made-from-scratch OS in three or four years is nothing to crow about.

The writer of the article posted above actually compared Windows 7 to Snow Leopard (OS X 10.6), claiming that Snow Leopard is focused more on “stability,” as if it too were a bug fix. That’s a rather gross mischaracterization; 10.6 is a major revamp of under-the-hood technologies, making OS X faster and more efficient. A “bug fix” corrects an error, something that causes trouble, and makes the software difficult to run. Unlike Vista, however, 10.5 Leopard runs just fine, thank you. Snow Leopard is no more a “bug fix” than souping up your car to be a hot rod is “repairing a broken engine.” 10.6 doesn’t focus on stability, it focuses on optimization, speed, and efficiency. It completes the move to 64-bit, takes full advantage of multicore processors (and allows any program to use GPUs for any purpose as well), and drastically reduces the footprint of the OS to increase speed and available disk space. 10.6 also is geared towards making it possible to add many more new features in the future than were previously possible.

But Windows 7 does present a threat to OS X, not because it’s better in any way, but rather because it doesn’t suck nearly as much as Vista does. Reports are that “7” is essentially a stable, working version of Vista–and without a disaster of an OS driving people away from Windows, Apple may find it harder to make people switch.

Of course, we have to remember that it took Microsoft ten years to make the move from the introduction of XP to the release of their next stable OS. Apple does the same thing–usually with more and better features each time–every few years. You can see where that is going. It’ll be interesting to see where Apple’s numbers go after Windows 7 hits mainstream release–will Apple continue its current climb, will it be stopped, or will Windows regain any ground?

Eighty-four percent–with about six out of ten Republicans showing approval–is pretty incredible. The thought that came to my mind immediately was the something I then saw that a CNN analyst said when Obama was at 79%:

“An Obama job approval rating of 79 percent — that’s the sort of rating you see when the public rallies around a leader after a national disaster,” said Bill Schneider, CNN’s senior political analyst. “To many Americans, the Bush administration was a national disaster.”

Spot-on. After 9/11, Bush’s popularity shot up from about 50% to 90%. Obama won the election by 53%, and now his ratings are up to 84% and climbing. After the partisan campaign finished and the political smear ads have dropped away, is it simply that bleary-eyed Americans saw clarity through the fog and realized that they had just suffered an 8-year disaster that makes 9/11 pale in comparison?

Just sayin’.

Update: The 84% may represent only the transition rather than overall approval ratings. Nevertheless, some general “approval” polls have Obama as high as 79%, with Pollster giving him an average of 71.4% (Zogby and CBS, the most “liberal” sources, have him at 60%, dragging down the average). Nevertheless, 71.4% is still historical, or almost so–it matches what Kennedy had when he was inaugurated, and his were the highest ratings for any elected president (via Gallup polls):

Gallup, as of 10 days ago, had Obama at 78%. It could very well be that Obama is the most popular elected president of the United States, at inauguration, at least. (Bush 43, as you’ll note, was at about 57%, and save for significant times of crisis, never enjoyed as much after that.) Republican politicians, pundits, and operatives may not be ready to cut Obama a break, but average-American Republicans seem to be doing just that.

I think that it represents a landmark, the kind that often is apparent only in hindsight, but due to contrast is far more visible at the time it occurs. There has been a great deal of talk concerning “Obamaniacs” seeing unicorns and rainbows and believing that Obama cannot fail, and as an enthusiastic Mac user, I recognize the scorn. But the enthusiasm is not because the one I support is infallible and capable of miracles, but because it represents a solid, capable alternative to something which I considered so full of fault that it was driving me mad.

The promise represented in the coming inauguration is that of a president who will not regularly violate the law and rend the Constitution; who will fill positions based on ability, not affiliation; who will support the people over corporations rather than the other way around; who will end wars and not start them; who will respect science and intelligence rather than trying to force them to suit a political agenda; who will act thoughtfully and not foolishly; who will listen and include, and not shut out and belittle; who will uphold our cherished traditions and principles instead of staining them; and so much more, but in short, a president who will do at the very least a competent job based on reason and sound judgment, and not a president who will do almost everything wrong.

The Change that is so often spoken of is not one of miracles, but rather a change simply to undramatic, calm, and reliable competence. After seeing the country taken in the direction it has been taken, it is like being on an airplane piloted by a drunken, suicidal maniac and we’re going to crash into that mountain soon; Obama is the competent pilot coming to shoulder the other one aside. That’s why winning the election was such a relief but not the unrestrained joy I had expected; with the ship of state in such peril, it seems like it’s taking forever for that badly-needed change to take place, and the inauguration, not the election, represents the moment when we start to change direction.

Scott Horton (via PA) reports that at least two US Attorneys (USAs), as part of the loyal Bushies’ “burrowing in” program, are planning not to leave their jobs quietly as all USAs in years past have done. No, they’re going for the grand slam: try to smear Obama, apologize for Bush, push a partisan agenda, and attack and even try to convict Democrats out of partisan political motives.

As you recall, Bush was rightly criticized for firing USAs because they refused to abuse their power to carry out political agendas. When it came out that Bush was committing a highly unethical and possibly illegal act in doing so, a lame but just-plausible-enough defense was crafted: presidents always fire USAs! Of course, this only happens when a new president takes office, and is done in the same manner in which the president appoints a new cabinet and staff. It does not happen in mid-term, or to a limited number of attorneys, or as a way of punishing them for not abusing power. But the defense sounds good enough and takes a lot longer to debunk, so they ran with it.

By refusing to leave quietly, these loyal-Bushie USAs hope to smear Obama–look, he’s firing us! That would both make Obama look bad, and would make it seem like what Bush did was not unusual or wrong. These effects are purely superficial and go contrary to reason and logic, but political smears are not based upon truth. As is the case with most Republican smears, they seem plausible enough for a lot of people to believe in them, while the explanation of why they are completely and utterly bogus takes long enough so that most people will not be interested in hearing it.

More than that, they hope to create the impression that the government is riddled with corrupt Democrats. That’s the reason they’re giving as to why they should be allowed to hold on to their jobs: they need to prosecute all those Democrats who are guilty! This, of course, despite Republicans being the ones who have been breaking the law willy-nilly over the past eight years, but that’s the whole idea of the loyal-Bushie US Attorney scam, that they let Republicans get away with everything and instead try to prosecute as many Democrats as they can. This is the modern mentality of the Republican Party and the right-wing: take no prisoners, grant no mercy, never admit guilt, error, or defeat, and never give an inch of ground.

Then there’s the added bonus of making it look like Obama is firing these USAs in order to protect criminal Democrats from prosecution–ironic, as that’s what these very USAs have been doing for criminal Republicans, and Obama, far from protecting Democrats, seem far too unwilling to prosecute major crimes clearly committed by officials of the Bush administration.

Yep, with these loyal Bushies, it’s nothing but “Country First”! Um, no, wait.

Welcome to the tone-setting for the next four to eight years. It worked so well under Clinton, the Republicans figure it’s worth a try with Obama: do nothing but smear, obstruct, and attack, again and again and again, relentlessly, never giving quarter. And screw the law, the Constitution, and well-being of the country. This is about power.

This one’s pretty big–nine million Windows users affected, maybe more. It can spread via networks or USB flash memory sticks or MP3 players, and cracks your security by trying massive numbers of possible passwords on your computer. While there are reports that the worm is not very harmful or hasn’t caused much damage yet, things might be a bit more scary:

Once a machine is infected, the worm can download and install additional malware from attacker-controlled Web sites, according to the company. Since that could mean anything from a password stealer to remote control software, a Conflicker-infected PC is essentially under the complete control of the attackers.

The nine million number is also sobering when you realize that this threat has been around for a month, and Microsoft has even issued a patch for it. Sadly, Microsoft security has too many holes, many of them in the introduction of anti-virus programs. Many people think that the free 3-month trial anti-virus software they get with their computers is not a trial, and never buy it, leaving their computers unprotected. Others get Vista and get so annoyed by the constant security messages that they turn it off, but don’t replace it with something else.

Not that having anti-virus software is such a great alternative–you have to deal with the cost of buying the software, the drain on system resources, making sure that it is kept up-to-date, and dealing with the constant messages telling you of infections or attempted infections.

It’s enough to drive you to buy a Mac.

This is great. I’m not sure I want to post it on this blog, but I’ll risk a link to the comically risqué.

In a recent survey, the iPhone was voted the best smartphone in Japan. Because this was not a scientific survey, one has to take it less than faithfully; however, the fact that the iPhone won the survey by such a wide margin says quite a bit.

This despite all the naysaying about how and why the iPhone would fail. It was probably not even related to the iPhone getting emoji, or the add-on One-seg TV viewer, or having phone-strap capability by adding a rubber sleeve/cover. The fact is simply that the phone is way cool. I do not mean that flippantly; I have seen people in my school, for example, using a variety of cell phones and they never get mentioned; however, whenever I am using my iPhone, it always draws attention. Everyone knows about the phone and is curious about it. Not to mention that I’m starting to see it more and more (another tenant in my building, passers-by on the street) which is not too common with the plethora of cell phone models out there.

Probably the main reason why the iPhone has not completely dominated the market is because it is linked to SoftBank; had DoCoMo been the carrier, it would likely be far more popular.

Listening to Bush’s farewell address, there is much to dislike. But one thing stands out, something that has been used again and again over the past five years: the self-serving use of the ultimate sacrifice of American soldiers as a tool to further the policies of the administration, and as a means of excusing its horrific blunders, so they can send even more soldiers off to die for this mockery of a crusade. Bush has used these heroes shamelessly many times over the years, and he could not resist using them one more time. This man is reprehensible, and well-deserving of the judgment that he is the worst president of the history of the United States of America.

One boast that comes up again and again from the Bush administration, its supporters, and its apologists, is that they succeeded at one thing: they kept us safe from terrorist attacks over the past seven years. They remind us, again and again, that there has been no foreign terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11. And that is true, in that there has been no major foreign terror attack on American soil. What is not true, not even by a long shot, is that this is an accomplishment of the Bush administration, due to any successful policy.

First of all, terrorists attacked the United States in 1993, with the World Trade Center car bombing. After that, there was no foreign terror attack within the United States for the remainder of the Clinton administration. But try to get a right-winger, especially one touting the Bush administration’s “accomplishment,” to say that this was because Clinton effectively waged a war on terrorism. Easier to wring champagne from a dry rock. If Bush accomplished a great feat, then so did Clinton–at far less cost.

But, they will tell you, Clinton let the terrorists lay the foundation for the 9/11 attack. Not true: it was not even close to recognizable during his administration. And when he left, he gave the Bush administration the strongest message possible: Al Qaeda is your strongest threat. And he gave the Bush administration the method with which to fight them: shake the trees, monitor and coordinate all data coming in from intelligence and law enforcement agencies, then investigate all leads. The Bush administration then received, from the intelligence community Clinton had built, a plethora of warnings, clues, and red flags warning them of 9/11. Bush ignored all of these. This was Bush’s fault, not Clinton’s.

But still, even if you accept that Clinton protected us from terror attacks, then you must admit that Bush did as well, right? The answer is no: Bush cannot take credit for the lack of attacks any more than he can take credit for the lack of meteors flattening major cities. Simply because none came, it does not show an accomplishment on his part. Port security, to this day, remains dangerously lax. Our borders remain porous. Al Qaeda remains strong, in fact emboldened from Bush’s policies. Just because there has been no major attack on U.S. soil does not mean that Bush protected us from one.

All you have to do is ask a simple question: what were the planned attacks we were protected from? If Bush did such a great job, then there must be records of terror attacks that have been foiled. But when you look at the plots Bush claims to have foiled, all you have are scattered plots hatched by bumblers and fools, dim-witted radicals who could barely buy their own boots, let alone stage attacks against the United States. The greatest threat was the plot in Britain to carry explosives on planes in water bottles, and yet even that plot was, at best, what is now euphemistically called “aspirational.” The plotters had no explosives, not even airplane tickets. All they had was an idea, and some links to terror groups. And even in this case, the Bush administration arguably made things worse: the British wanted to let the plot develop to the point where contact was made with real terrorists–but the Bush administration, for political purposes, pressured them to break up the plot prematurely, and so people who could pose a far greater threat were not caught.

The fact is, no terrorist plots of any real threat were broken up by the Bush administration. Domestic anti-terror measures remain anemic. The reputation of America has been severely damaged, while Al Qaeda is swimming in a sea of volunteers generated by the Iraq War and images like those from Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib.

True, there has been no attack on U.S. soil–but Bush has obligingly transported Americans that Al Qaeda and others can kill much more conveniently close to home. 2,974 victims were killed on 9/11. However, 4,226 American soldiers (and a number more non-military Americans) have been killed in Iraq over the past five years–the equivalent to another 9/11 and then some. The monetary cost has also been similar, if not worse, to the cost of 9/11. In many other ways, Bush’s Iraq War has cost even more–9/11 did not break our military, nor did it wreck our international reputation and standing–quite the opposite, in fact.

The truth that is inescapable in the end is that far from protecting us, the Bush administration has made us far more vulnerable, far more weak. Why Al Qaeda has not attacked on U.S. soil, when they clearly are and have been very much able to do so, is known only to them. That reason, whatever it is, is the only reason we have not seen a U.S. attack (though we have seen a large number of very deadly attacks elsewhere all across the globe). And whatever that reason is, it has nothing to do with the anti-terror policies of the Bush administration–unless they have been holding back as a means of supporting the disastrous-to-us, but beneficial-to-terrorists Bush policies.

Bush is little else but a pathetic fraud, claiming a lack of evidence as evidence of a great achievement. But he will soon strike a great accomplishment in fighting terrorism: he will leave office and no longer be a threat to the American people, no longer be a fantastic boon to the terrorists.

Today, Sachi finished the training and study she’s been pursuing for a while now, and received her certificate: she is officially a Master of Gendai Reiki Ho. Congratulations, Sachi!

The Bush Administration, Bush and Cheney especially, strutting off the stage, exchanging high-fives and taking deep, long bows for extraordinary service, either denying things went wrong or else blaming them on others, while the public, facing a 14-digit debt, a shattered economy, war-torn and terror-weary, shakes their heads in disgust, unable to hide their impatience for these unspeakable losers to finally be shown the door. Democracy at work.

What did you expect?

Yes, because we all enjoy the experience of pushing a giant plastic shopping cart around, looking at little else except for rows of shelved merchandise! One thing they seem to have anticipated: no crowds. Have you ever been to an Apple Store? Imagine that store with everyone pushing around giant shopping carts. Isn’t that a nice image? You need lots of empty space to be able to push around those carts, space not filled with customers.

Even better yet, note how the Microsoft logo and Windows labels are applied profusely–they could not even resist making the cushioned seats into a Windows logo.

Now compare with an Apple Store:

Even with a lot of people, it works; lots of open space, sparse and simple designs, merchandise racks mostly relegated to the walls–and most of the store is tables and tables full of demo products so you can get a hands-on experience. The poster space is mostly showing what the products do, as opposed to being filled with slogans, trademarks, and logos. A few Apple logos are prominently displayed at the entrance to the store, but everything else simple–no seats or tables shaped like Apple logos. It’s called “tasteful.”

Not to mention service people everywhere, so it’s not hard at all to find someone to help you even in a crowded store. And, of course, the Genius Bar, always tastefully laid out and organized.

In short, Microsoft did what they always do: took an idea from Apple and executed it poorly, without class or imagination. To give you another example, I leave you with a humorous take-off on how Microsoft would have designed the packaging for the iPod:

And not just the hardware–he specifically notes Apple’s customer service as being a big deal for him. He starts in on Apple at 1:25 in the clip below:

I have to admit to serious qualms about people I am in polar disagreement with on a most political topics having such similar opinions to me on Apple–Limbaugh is another example–but I guess even the worst of the right-wing nutjobs out there can recognize good hardware and service when they see it. Even despite, it would seem, Apple’s public stand against Prop 8 in California.

Bush was asked at his final press conference if he had made any mistakes and if so, what was the biggest. While Bush did not repeat the “I can’t think of any” boner, one could say that he did much worse. One part of his answer:

I’ve thought long and hard about Katrina — you know, could I have done something differently, like land Air Force One either in New Orleans or Baton Rouge. The problem with that and — is that law enforcement would have been pulled away from the mission.

Wow. You really have to stand back and look at that statement carefully to truly understand the breathtaking lack of humanity involved in what he said.

He apparently was told by somebody that he made a mistake somewhere in handling Katrina, but he just can’t seem to grasp–even now, after thinking long and hard–what he did wrong. I mean, really–land Air Force One in New Orleans?? How stupid is that? It is as if the man seriously believes that the only problem with his handling of Katrina was the bad PR. Not that he had hired an incompetent crony to run FEMA. Not that he could have been better prepared based upon the warnings, which showed impending disaster four days in advance. Not that he could have heeded those warnings and put the National Guard on alert, having them move into position so that they could have been on the scene almost instantly after disaster struck. Not that he could have reacted faster. Not that he should have ended his vacation earlier and sped back with the same sense of urgency to act that he did when the Terri Schiavo legislation needed to be signed. Not that he ate cake and strummed his guitar the day after the hurricane hit and hundreds of Americans died. Not that he could have sent in the National Guard after he finally got there instead of sitting on his ass for five days, five days doing nothing, without giving the National Guard the go-ahead, while the city and many of its inhabitants drowned.

No, he was more worried about how his PR actions affected his legacy. Land Air Force One either in New Orleans or Baton Rouge. That would have fixed things.

But note his lament after this nugget of hindsight, that landing Air Force One (had it even been possible) would have taken away from rescue efforts. As if his decision not to land in New Orleans was a stroke of considered genius. As if he had not, in fact, made exactly that error, as if he had not traveled to the region while people were still dying, while people were still in need of rescue. Witness the CNN screen grab at right, note the pretty, shiny Coast Guard helicopters just sitting there unused so they could act as his PR backdrop instead of being out in the field saving people’s lives. Note the shine on the helicopters–showing that time had been taken to make them look good, time which should have been spent pulling people out of the water or bringing in badly needed food and medicine. Bush acts as if he had not killed many Americans with his photo ops, had not slowed down rescue efforts.

No. Instead, after thinking long and hard, he feels that his greatest error, the biggest mistake of his administration is that he didn’t generate enough meaningless publicity to make people believe that he really cared.

What his answer also shows is that Bush is today far more cognizant of what cost him in the polls than he is of what really were errors of serious magnitude. But, hey, the man’s got to think about his legacy, right? Screw the citizens of the United States of America–let’s keep our eyes on what’s important here.

Voter fraud does exist, just not in the massive numbers right-wingers are trying to claim it does. But when it is found, guess who is often found to be the culprit? Right-wingers, and more than once, ones with more than just a party membership card to their wingnut credentials. (Can you say “projection”?) This, of course, is distinct from the massive Republican election fraud that takes in the form of rigged voting machines or attempts to disenfranchise thousands of Democratic voters.

Back in 2005, Ann Coulter fraudulently listed the wrong address on a voter registration form, a federal felony, and was spared the penalty only after a friend in the FBI illicitly got her case thrown out. Just this year, Mark Jacoby, head of a voter registration group hired by the California Republican Party, also committed fraud on his voter registration form.

And just now, we are hearing news of yet another case of a Republican committing voter fraud. The funny part: it’s Ann Coulter again, who appears to have fraudulently claimed to be living in Connecticut when she was actually living in New York.

Better put that FBI friend of yours on speed dial, Ann.