In a victory for the right, two bills suffered serious setbacks this week. Most prominently, the immigration bill failed to pass a vote to vote. That it failed is more a victory for the citizens of the U.S. than just for the right. It appeared that this issue was a class struggle, business versus individual fight more than a left versus right fight. Grassroots momentum really took it's toll on our legislators. The Blogosphere wielded a big stick on this one, it seems. The phones we ringing off the hook in the offices of the Senate.
A second bill, that to impose the fairness doctrine on radio stations, was voted on and defeated in the house by a large margin. This bill was a clear victory for the right and definitely was a conservative versus liberal issue. Liberal talk radio has had trouble finding an audience. Conservative talk radio, on the other hand, enjoys great commercial success. This irks the left and, now that they have the house and senate, they proposed this bill as a way to knock the legs off Rush's chair.
A third, less well known bill to eliminate the secret ballot in Union organizing votes gained support. Today when a shop is considering voting to unionize or not, each employee has the privilege of casting a secret ballot. Originally unions fought for this exact condition so as to prevent violent coercion by employers. A prime example of irony, unions today are fighting to have the ballot made public, with a union organizer right there when the employee makes his or her decision. No chance for coercion there, right? Well, this week, in the Senate, the Employee Free Choice Act (what a crock) received a slim 51-48 margin of support keeping it alive for a while longer (it takes 60 votes to end debate and proceed to an up or down vote.)
So no hat trick this week. Hopefully more rational heads will prevail and the Employee Free Choice act will go down next time around.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Monday, June 18, 2007
June 18 - Palestine is Our Fault?
MJ Rosenberg over at the Huffington Post believes that the U.S. is to blame for the recent collapse in Palestine's governance. Given the source, this is to be expected, but he makes a couple of statements that really hurt someone who believes in U.S. generosity.
To sum up the piece, Rosenberg say that the U.S. did not give any "carrots" to the Palestinians to encourage them to be civil. Setting aside, for a moment, that one should not have to give someone money to not kill people, he is still flat wrong.
A very little fact finding shows that the U.S. is the largest donor country in foreign aid to Palestine, donating approximately $100 million per year. This has been the case for well over ten years and continues. That the money was not provided in liquid currency directly to Hamas (I don't wonder why) makes it no less a carrot.
Why would Mr. Rosenberg make such a statement?
Having raised the topic, this begs another question. Why is it, with some very wealthy Arabic countries nearby, that the largest donor is the distant, heathen U.S.? It seems to me that The King of Saudi Arabia would simply have to forgo a new yacht this year, or Kuwait and Dubai could simply build a few fewer islands in "The World Islands" to exceed the U.S.'s donations. I wonder why this is? And, given this, the U.S. is nevertheless vilified by the very people they are so generous to.
From that, Mr. Rosenberg concludes that the U.S. is not giving enough. What kind of a person concludes that?
Over time, I've come to learn that that betting on the statement, "The U.S. is the single largest provider of foreign aid to (insert country here)," is pretty safe. The U.S. is the single most generous country in the history of, well, history.
To sum up the piece, Rosenberg say that the U.S. did not give any "carrots" to the Palestinians to encourage them to be civil. Setting aside, for a moment, that one should not have to give someone money to not kill people, he is still flat wrong.
A very little fact finding shows that the U.S. is the largest donor country in foreign aid to Palestine, donating approximately $100 million per year. This has been the case for well over ten years and continues. That the money was not provided in liquid currency directly to Hamas (I don't wonder why) makes it no less a carrot.
Why would Mr. Rosenberg make such a statement?
Having raised the topic, this begs another question. Why is it, with some very wealthy Arabic countries nearby, that the largest donor is the distant, heathen U.S.? It seems to me that The King of Saudi Arabia would simply have to forgo a new yacht this year, or Kuwait and Dubai could simply build a few fewer islands in "The World Islands" to exceed the U.S.'s donations. I wonder why this is? And, given this, the U.S. is nevertheless vilified by the very people they are so generous to.
From that, Mr. Rosenberg concludes that the U.S. is not giving enough. What kind of a person concludes that?
Over time, I've come to learn that that betting on the statement, "The U.S. is the single largest provider of foreign aid to (insert country here)," is pretty safe. The U.S. is the single most generous country in the history of, well, history.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
June 12 - Not France, Not Even Texas, Hilton. And Joel Spolsky, too.
You know, getting released from jail only to be tossed right back in has got to hurt even more :-)
Joel Spolsky of Joel on Software is a fellow from whom I have learned a lot. He has generally good opinions about design (form and function relationships in systems) and, I think, excellent opinions on how to run a software shop, it being what he does at his NY, NY company, Fog Creek Software. He is a former Microsoft employee and has a lot to say about MS, both good and bad.
As good as his opinions generally are, he gets it wrong on design from time to time, most notably in his assessment of Apple's IPOD. His basic premise is that the IPOD is a thing so beautiful that people can't help buy it. That you can not change the battery in the device is cast as a good thing because it resulted in a nearly seamless un-flawed finish. No crevices to catch dirt and lint, you see. That it has a little speaker with no other purpose except to make the selector wheel make a clicky noise is art. Hokum. I agree, the IPOD is nice piece of design. I agree it has sold well. I disagree that there is a major causal relationship between these two things.
In fact, the very design of the case may be the iPod's greatest flaw. Sure the thing looks beautiful out of the box, but use it for a while and that pretty high gloss finish soon shows scratches that are that much more noticeable for being in an otherwise pristine, unflawed surface. Changing the battery is a $60 touch and requires returning the unit to Apple. Apple has lost financially on both counts having to satisfy it's customers. And these flaws have gotten around, they are well documented on the web. Nope design of the unit itself is not the big selling factor.
It is the existence of iTunes that really makes the iPod what it is. The integration between the iTunes software and the iPod devices that makes using it so very easy. Yep, sorry, it is not form, but function that sells the iPod. No other player/music combo comes close. I didn't even choose to use an iPod, preferring the greater capacity and capability of an iRiver unit instead, and I use iTunes. Oh and, of course, the iTunes Music Store. Downloading music has never been easier. And since the iPod is the only music device that can play back Apples music encryption format, well, duh, can you say "lock-in"? More function over form.
The iPod did gain fashion value early on, but when everyone owns one it is no longer special. It is no longer pure design. It was smart business and functionality that won the day.
On the other hand, that does not really explain the iPod Nano. A small device that only plays random songs. Sounds like a radio to me, and an expensive one at that. Admittedly it plays random songs from a library I selected, but I can usually find a radio station I like. That one, I just don't get.
Anyway, on the topic of the iPod, Joel is absolutely convinced that appealing design is the reason for it's success as are a lot of other people, all of whom I think have drunk some apple flavored Kool-Aide. He usually is not so unconsidered.
Joel Spolsky of Joel on Software is a fellow from whom I have learned a lot. He has generally good opinions about design (form and function relationships in systems) and, I think, excellent opinions on how to run a software shop, it being what he does at his NY, NY company, Fog Creek Software. He is a former Microsoft employee and has a lot to say about MS, both good and bad.
As good as his opinions generally are, he gets it wrong on design from time to time, most notably in his assessment of Apple's IPOD. His basic premise is that the IPOD is a thing so beautiful that people can't help buy it. That you can not change the battery in the device is cast as a good thing because it resulted in a nearly seamless un-flawed finish. No crevices to catch dirt and lint, you see. That it has a little speaker with no other purpose except to make the selector wheel make a clicky noise is art. Hokum. I agree, the IPOD is nice piece of design. I agree it has sold well. I disagree that there is a major causal relationship between these two things.
In fact, the very design of the case may be the iPod's greatest flaw. Sure the thing looks beautiful out of the box, but use it for a while and that pretty high gloss finish soon shows scratches that are that much more noticeable for being in an otherwise pristine, unflawed surface. Changing the battery is a $60 touch and requires returning the unit to Apple. Apple has lost financially on both counts having to satisfy it's customers. And these flaws have gotten around, they are well documented on the web. Nope design of the unit itself is not the big selling factor.
It is the existence of iTunes that really makes the iPod what it is. The integration between the iTunes software and the iPod devices that makes using it so very easy. Yep, sorry, it is not form, but function that sells the iPod. No other player/music combo comes close. I didn't even choose to use an iPod, preferring the greater capacity and capability of an iRiver unit instead, and I use iTunes. Oh and, of course, the iTunes Music Store. Downloading music has never been easier. And since the iPod is the only music device that can play back Apples music encryption format, well, duh, can you say "lock-in"? More function over form.
The iPod did gain fashion value early on, but when everyone owns one it is no longer special. It is no longer pure design. It was smart business and functionality that won the day.
On the other hand, that does not really explain the iPod Nano. A small device that only plays random songs. Sounds like a radio to me, and an expensive one at that. Admittedly it plays random songs from a library I selected, but I can usually find a radio station I like. That one, I just don't get.
Anyway, on the topic of the iPod, Joel is absolutely convinced that appealing design is the reason for it's success as are a lot of other people, all of whom I think have drunk some apple flavored Kool-Aide. He usually is not so unconsidered.
Sunday, June 3, 2007
June 3 - Hiatus and Statistics
Well, that was a nice hiatus. I expect that posts will be fewer and farther between, now, as other aspects of life have intruded on free time.
Earlier in the series, you may have read some debate on the merits of popular gun ownership. Joey Blades indicated that he did not want to use statistics because they can be used to say anything. I don't entirely agree with him, but I can appreciate his position much more when I read things like this from the Austin American Statesman:
The complaint was triggered, in part, by a series of American-Statesman articles in 2004 revealing that from 1998 to 2003, police were twice as likely to use force against blacks as against whites and 25 percent more likely to use force against Hispanics than against whites.
Those statistics stood there, alone, with no further explanation. One could reasonably infer from those statistics that Austin police are a bunch of racist sadists. But there is no context to make this judgment. If police were twice as likely to interact with Blacks and 25% more likely to interact with Hispanics than Caucasians, then the response to this sentence should be a big, "ho hum" and an investigation as to why police interact with those demographies more is in order. No wonder Joey hates the use of statistics for rational argument.
This is one of the greatest failings of the news services. They do not inform. When I find some time, I'll try to find out if Austin police are, indeed, a bunch of racist sadists.
Earlier in the series, you may have read some debate on the merits of popular gun ownership. Joey Blades indicated that he did not want to use statistics because they can be used to say anything. I don't entirely agree with him, but I can appreciate his position much more when I read things like this from the Austin American Statesman:
The complaint was triggered, in part, by a series of American-Statesman articles in 2004 revealing that from 1998 to 2003, police were twice as likely to use force against blacks as against whites and 25 percent more likely to use force against Hispanics than against whites.
Those statistics stood there, alone, with no further explanation. One could reasonably infer from those statistics that Austin police are a bunch of racist sadists. But there is no context to make this judgment. If police were twice as likely to interact with Blacks and 25% more likely to interact with Hispanics than Caucasians, then the response to this sentence should be a big, "ho hum" and an investigation as to why police interact with those demographies more is in order. No wonder Joey hates the use of statistics for rational argument.
This is one of the greatest failings of the news services. They do not inform. When I find some time, I'll try to find out if Austin police are, indeed, a bunch of racist sadists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)