Steamd

Recently, I read an article on Reuters about how Obama ripped McCain for joking that $5 million is a fit definition for being rich. But it wasn’t the article that caught my eye but rather a comment left by a reader:

If you want 4 more years of George Bush policies, vote for McCain. If you like the price of oil, google the enron loophole, and see how Phil Gram (McCains econimic advisor) gamed the system. Google the Keating 5 and John McCain. Google McCain cheating on his wife. Google McCain graduating at the bottom of his class. This guy is not qualified to be president.

Pretty bold statements. But is he right? Let’s see what Google reveals.

Phil Gramm and the Enron Loophole

Sounds like a title from a serialized mystery novel series, doesn’t it. Given that Phil Gramm is/was John McCain’s top economic advisor, there’s a certain level of scrutinization to be made with this guy. Although McCain claims that Gramm is no longer part of his campaign that still doesn’t mean that Gramm still doesn’t play an influence behind closed doors. The real question is: What role has Phil Gramm played in our political system?

In 1999, then Senator Phil Gramm worked on a bill known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that would effectively gut the Glass-Steagall Act. The end result would be that commercial banks, investment banks, and insurers would be allowed to merge, an act that would have violated antitrust laws under the Glass-Steagall Act. Gramm was the primary sponsor of this bill since he had received over $4.6 million in donations from different finance, insurance, and real estate institutions over the previous decade. After the Act was passed, many banks and other financial institutions merged almost immediately, as if they were just waiting for this legislation to be passed.

To make matters even worse, Gramm, along with four other co-sponsors, helped draft and pass the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. Part of this bill, what has become known as the “Enron Loophole“, exempts energy speculators who make trades electronically from US regulation. The loophole was drafted by Gramm in cooperation with lobbyists for the Enron Corporation. This little loophole is what many claim to be the very thing that allow for the Enron scandal to happen. But the real kicker is that, at the time when the bill was drafted, Gramm’s wife was on Enron’s board of directors.

After his Senate career, Gramm was (or still is) a vice-chairman for UBS, a Swiss-based investment bank. At the time when Gramm was advising McCain, Gramm was being paid by UBS to lobby Congress about the current mortgage crisis. Because of his association, Gramm has been partially blamed for helping to deregulate the banking industry that allowed financial institutions like UBS to practice the sort of predatory lending practices that cause the mortgage crisis to begin with. 

Obama has called for the closing of the “Enron Loophole“. Then again, so has McCain. But the question is: Why would McCain allow someone like Gramm to offer him economic policy advice given Gramm’s record? Doesn’t make any sense.

The Keating Five

During the U.S. Savings and Load crisis in the 80’s and 90’s, a gentleman named Charles Keating was being investigated for the corrupt mismanagement of the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association in Irvine, California. Due to the deregulation of savings and load associations in the early 80’s, Keating was able to make highly risky investments with money from deposits in the form of land, equity in real estate development projects, and high-yield junk bonds. By 1984, Lincoln’s assets had increased from $1.1 billion to $5.5 billion. In the end, Keating served a five year sentence in prison due to his corrupt practices.

So what does this have to do with McCain? As it turns out, McCain knew Keating prior to the scandal breaking out and became personal friends with Keating after meeting in 1981. Since then, McCain received $112,000 in political contributions from Keating and McCain’s wife, Cindy, and her father invested $359,100 in a Keating shopping center a year before McCain met with regulators. 

The story broke and five Senators (Alan Cranston, Dennis DeConcini, John Glenn, Donald W. Riegle, and John McCain) were being accused of improperly aiding Keating. The reason for these accusations was due to a meeting that the five Senators had with regulators in 1987 to discuss the government’s investigation of Lincoln. It wasn’t until this meeting that McCain and others learned that Lincoln was under criminal investigation, at which point McCain severed all ties with Keating. 

McCain was cleared of any wrong doing but even McCain himself admitted that it looked bad. If anything, McCain was guilty of having bad judgement in his affiliation with Keating and allowing himself to be entangled in a very unusual meeting with regulators.

Ditching the First Wife

I wouldn’t go so far as to say that McCain has had a problem with infidelity. Although it’s true that McCain urged his first wife, Carol, to grant him a divorce so that he could marry Cindy, it is not known whether his marriage was already estranged prior to him dating Cindy. As far as anyone knows, him and Carol remain on good terms. Whether he cheated on Carol or not is mere speculation. No know knows the full details except him and his family. Quite frankly, regardless of whether anyone likes McCain or not, this isn’t really anyone’s business anyways. He’s now married to Cindy and has been married to her for quite sometime.

Underachiever?

McCain has joked in the recent past that he graduated in the bottom fifth of his class. Although this isn’t all that critical now, it is ironic that McCain’s academic achievements aren’t great, especially considering that he’s a candidate for the President of the United States. McCain attended the United States Naval Academy where he had conflict with higher-ranking personnel, didn’t always obey the rules, and ended up with a low class rank (894 of 899). Showing little interest in improving, McCain did well in subjects that he was interested in but only did enough to pass the sujects he didn’t like. McCain graduated in 1958 and went on to serve as a naval pilot on the USS Intrepid and USS Enterprise.

So what does all this mean? For starters, no one can question McCain’s military record. There’s no doubt in my mind that McCain has served his country well while in the Navy. And there’s no question that McCain has a wealth of experience due to the 16+ years of time he has spent in Congress. But what I question though is the 16+ years he has spent in Congress. Do we really need someone who has spent that much time as a Senator in the White House? It’s clear that McCain has made a few poor choices in judgement and, granted, no one is perfect. But stack that up against some of the folks McCain has associated himself with recently and in the past and you start to wonder whether he’s fully qualified to serve the highest office in the land. 

By comparison, Barack Obama may not have as much experience nor the military record McCain has, but what Obama does bring is an impressive academic background (with 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor), a sense of integrity and vision, and a determination to work with all members of Congress to solve this countries biggest problems. Given the severity of the problems in the United States, I honestly believe that the “safe choice” isn’t all that safe. Take a chance, have a little faith, and vote for Barack Obama.

InfoWorld has some interesting statistics about how many businesses are using Vista now that Microsoft is no longer selling XP. According to their stats, Vista is dropped in favor of XP for 1 in 3 business PCs. What’s the reason? As John Gruber of Daring Fireball joked, “They just haven’t realized yet how awesome Vista really is.”

The real reason is a loophole in the Vista license that allows for downgrading to Windows XP. Granted, it still qualifies as a Vista license but at least users can downgrade if they wish.

The other reason is the hardware requirements needed to properly run Vista. Realistically, to run Vista right you really need about twice the RAM of what was acceptable with XP and a juicy processor to boot. Unless you’re running with a minimum of two gigs of RAM and at least a fairly current processor from the last few years or so, be prepared to watch Vista run like a dog. For businesses where performance is critical this simply isn’t acceptable.

Take the architectural industry for instance. There is a growing trend towards the use of BIM capable software like Revit and Bentley Architecture. These programs require a lot of juice to run due to large project files and on-the-fly 3D rendering. As such, available physical memory and processing is critical to ensure that these programs run smoothly. Any major hiccups and you run the risk of your workers sitting around twiddling their thumbs. Time is money so the more efficient they are able to work the better.

Current 32-bit operating systems can only handle a maximum of 4 gigs of RAM. Now, when you put that in perspective with the overhead taken up by an idle copy of Vista running compared to XP you can see the problem. My own personal copy of Vista takes up a little over 380 megs of physical memory, and that’s with it running nothing but antivirus software. What about Windows XP running the same antivirus software? A little over 190 megs. That may not seem like much but it is relative because a running program can take up not only the necessary memory needed to run itself but additional memory required by the operating system for additional resources and sub-system overhead (video, audio, etc.). As such, running something like Revit in Vista might be a completely different experience when running it in XP. The resources required in Vista could skyrocket due to the extra footprint of the video subsystems needed for 3D rendering alone.

So what’s the solution? For starters, a faster computer with more memory. Another step up would be 64-bit processing which would allow for up to 16 gigs of RAM and plenty of processing power. But this is an added expense, one that many companies aren’t willing to partake in just yet.  It’s one thing if you’re an architectural firm and already have equated in the expense in your budget. But not every company is like this and thus the need to go to a 64-bit platform simply isn’t in the cards. So what do you do? You downgrade until such a time when it is in the cards. 

For Microsoft, the reality of the situation just hasn’t quite hit them yet. If they had released a version of Windows that was more powerful than XP, more secure, but just as efficient things probably would have been different. More companies would have been more keen to upgrade. But as it stands, companies are taking the safer route and only upgrading on an as-needed basis. As such, it’s no surprise that only 2 out of 3 business PCs are running Vista.

Who knows. Maybe next year we’ll hear that 2 out of 5 business computers are running Leopard.  ;)

In a recent blob post, I talked about an email I received that claimed that Obama had mocked the bible. This was based on Obama’s ‘Call For Renewal‘ keynote address. I recently have been chatting about this with a relative of mine about what Obama said in this address. I’m not going to say which relative because I feel that he/she is rightfully entitled to his/her opinion. I love my relatives no matter what they think. It’s ok to disagree, don’t you think?

What surprised me was that I received a response that said that Obama’s comments were the most arrogant comments ever made by a politician and that he’s so far off base that it’s scary. Furthermore, Obama describing the Sermon on the Mount,  one of the greatest sermons ever given, as being radical apparently is a sign of arrogance as well. But what really struck me more than anything is the notion that our nation is based on Christian principles.

My relative is not alone in this way of thinking. There are many other Christians out there who feel that their heritage is being taken away from them, that we as a nation have lost our identity, and that our world was a better place when it was under the influence of Christianity. Thus they feel we should bring back the Majority Rule, bring back prayer in public schools, and overturn any liberal interpretations of the Constitution that supposedly restrict religious practices. 

So who’s right? The Christian Right? Or Obama? Let’s look at what Obama said again:

While I’ve already laid out some of the work that progressive leaders need to do, I want to talk a little bit about what conservative leaders need to do — some truths they need to acknowledge.

For one, they need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice. Folks tend to forget that during our founding, it wasn’t the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of the First Amendment. It was the persecuted minorities, it was Baptists like John Leland who didn’t want the established churches to impose their views on folks who were getting happy out in the fields and teaching the scripture to slaves. It was the forbearers of the evangelicals who were the most adamant about not mingling government with religious, because they did not want state-sponsored religion hindering their ability to practice their faith as they understood it.

Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America’s population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson’s, or Al Sharpton’s? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let’s read our bibles. Folks haven’t been reading their bibles.

This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Personally, I don’t think these statements arrogant at all. The main underlying point he was making is that he is a man of faith and his Christian beliefs and relationship in God is very important to him. One’s faith does have a role when making decisions in politics. However, the position a politician takes must be more universal in nature. Politicians can’t make decisions that are entirely based on their beliefs. There are other factors involved.

And Obama’s mention of the Sermon on the Mount was referring to the fact that if our government was to run by the Word then Jesus’ words like “rest not evil”, “turn the other cheek” and the “Golden Rule” then we would seize to have a military. Well, maybe no seize but it definitely would be for defense only. It’s “radical” only because so many claim to believe it and yet their actions say otherwise. The Sermon on the Mount has been one of the main sources for Christian pacifism, wouldn’t you say? Given the activities of our Defense Department, the idea of running our government based on the Sermon of the Mount is a radical departure from how things are now. If they did then they would have never invaded Iraq, and action that went against the teachings of Jesus Christ in so many ways. Let’s look a little bit at what the Sermon of the Mount says:

Matthew 5:

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.’
39 “But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
40 “If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.
41 “Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.
42 “Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.’
44 “But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
46 “For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?

Wouldn’t invading a country under the guise of imminent threat go against the principles of love your enemy and turn the other cheek? To me, imminent threat means that our enemy is going to attack our country directly. Was there any evidence at all that would suggest this in the case of Iraq? At all? No, there wasn’t. Then how can anyone who claims to be a Christian not find fault in this? It would seem that the Obama is merely pointing out the fallacy of many Christians: that they don’t read their Bibles and thus are hypocritical in many ways. The irony is that these principles are not shared with Christianity alone. Other religions have very similar pacifist teachings. Both the Quran and Torah have similar messages as well as the teachings of Buddha. To say that these beliefs and philosophies are unique strictly to Christianity would be a very arrogant notion.

Christianity has been split along many lines for years even before the United States won its freedom and drafted the Constitution. Religious persecution existed as well and thus minority Christians like Baptists, Mormons, and others struggled to maintain their religious freedom. John Leland may not have had direct involvement with the writing of the First Amendment but he was among many Baptists who was very vocal and campaigning for that freedom. He is just one example of someone who represented a group people who wished to have religious freedom. The intent wasn’t to create a wall where religion couldn’t enter politics at all. That would be unrealistic. Rather it was a separation by a more permeable barrier where everyone’s beliefs would be honored. The fear was that state sponsored religion would have caused an opposition to some of the more progressive ideas of the time…like folks who wanted to teach the Bible to slaves.

If we are a Christian nation based entirely on Christian principles then we are going down a very slippery and dangerous road. What parts of the Bible are to become the law of the land? The Old Testament? The New Testament? King James version? Or the New American Standard? And who decides how it should be interpreted? The Pope? Billy Graham? Al Sharpton? Jerry Falwell? And what about other religions? What if certain laws go against other people’s religion? Do we just say, “Tough tiddy! We’re a Christian nation! Get used to it!“? This is the sort of thing that our First Amendment is supposed to protect. And if our government is oppressing your right to practice your religion then maybe you should do something about it. Personally, I fight for the freedom to practice all religions and not just Christianity. American Muslims, Buddhist, Jews, Hindus, even agnostics and atheists; they all have a right to practice their religion (or lack of religion) by the rights granted to them as native citizens of the United States and the First Amendment. After all, if there’s one thing that Jesus Christ was about it was tolerance. And love of course.

Finally, the idea that “liberal” automatically means “lack of morals” or “godless” (as Ann Coulter would have you believe) is ridiculous. Not that that’s what all conservatives believe but lately I’ve heard this very thing from many, many others and it’s just a lie. Separate the religion from the politics for a second. The only thing that really separates a liberal from a conservative is the fact that one side favors a more progressive approach than the other. That’s it. Doesn’t mean that one side is less religious than the other or is more socialist over the other. It just means that one side wants to do things in a more traditional manner and the other side is open to more progressive ideas. However, just because someone favor a more liberal stance in politics doesn’t automatically mean that their religious beliefs are liberal in nature as well. There are many issues both politically and religiously that I could have a conservative versus a liberal point of view on.

Case point, the very same relative for which I’m basing the post on actually described John McCain, the Republican candidate for the President of the United States, as being too liberal. Aren’t Republican’s supposed to all be conservative? Does that mean that McCain is any less religious? No, it doesn’t. Just because McCain is being described as too liberal doesn’t automatically mean that his faith comes into question. It just means that McCain isn’t as traditional as maybe he should be in my relative’s eyes.

But that’s politics for you. Everyone has an opinion and just about everything is subject to interpretation. And, let’s face it, the Constitution isn’t the only thing that is subject to so much interpretation. So is the Bible, Quran, Torah, and just about every other religious book or document. Wouldn’t you agree?

Got this in my inbox the other day:

Hot on the heels of his explanation for why he no longer wears a flag pin,
presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama was forced to explain why he
doesn’t follow protocol when the National Anthem is played.

According to the United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171,
During rendition of the national anthem when the flag is displayed, all present
except those in uniform are expected to stand at attention facing the flag
with the right hand over the heart.

‘As I’ve said about the flag pin, I don’t want to be perceived as taking
sides,’ Obama said. ‘There are a lot of people in the world to whom the
American flag is a symbol of oppression. And the anthem itself conveys a
war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all. It should
be swapped for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song
‘I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing.’ If that were our anthem, then I might
salute it.’

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this could possibly be our next president!!
I, for once, am speechless. He has absolutely NO pride in this country!!!!!
This is outrageous!!!! He doesn’t deserve to be dogcatcher!!!

(Oh, sorry dogcatchers, I mean you no disrespect.)

LET’S SEND THIS CLOWN DOWN THE ROAD KICKING ROCKS, AND HOPEFULLY HE WILL HIDE UNDER ONE OF THOSE ROCKS!

Outrageous? Absolutely outrageous because the problem with this is that Barack Obama never said that. The quote is actually from a satire written from a columnist. The only clown here is the guy who originally wrote this email.

Have a Coke and a smile!

Today, my mother forwarded me an email she received from a friend entitled Obama mocking the Bible. Included was a link to a YouTube video and the following words:

DEFFINATALLY SHOWS HE IS NOT A CHRISTIAN !!!!! THIS IS A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY !!! DO NOT LET HIM CHANGE IT!!!!!!!!!!

It’s clear that this person is ignorant, not just because he/she can’t spell but because his/her viewpoints are way out in left-field. And as Obama pointed out it’s as if people like this take pride in their ignorance.

Here’s the video in question:

The problem with this video is that the whole thing is taken completely out of context. In no way did Obama mock the Bible in any shape, fashion, or form. Anyone who has heard or read this speech would know that he was talking about the problems associated with religion and politics, the importance of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, and the importance religion has in many people’s lives including his own.  Below is a excerpt of his speech that includes the part shown in the video:

Excerpt from the ‘Call For Renewal‘ keynote address:

While I’ve already laid out some of the work that progressive leaders need to do, I want to talk a little bit about what conservative leaders need to do — some truths they need to acknowledge. 

For one, they need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice. Folks tend to forget that during our founding, it wasn’t the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of the First Amendment. It was the persecuted minorities, it was Baptists like John Leland who didn’t want the established churches to impose their views on folks who were getting happy out in the fields and teaching the scripture to slaves. It was the forbearers of the evangelicals who were the most adamant about not mingling government with religious, because they did not want state-sponsored religion hindering their ability to practice their faith as they understood it.

Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America’s population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson’s, or Al Sharpton’s? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let’s read our bibles. Folks haven’t been reading their bibles. 

This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Now, ask yourself: Is he correct? How much do you know about the 1st Amendment? What freedoms do you think are protected by the 1st Amendment? Can you name just one?

Last time I had jury duty, the judge who presided over the court gave us a little booklet that included a copy of the Constitution as well as a print out of an article from USA Today entitled “God and the Constitution“. A survey of about 1,000 people was taken in which they asked “What specific rights are guaranteed by the First Amendment?”  Here are the results of that poll:

What shocked me was that 55% believed that the Constitution “establishes a Christian nation”. Even more disturbing is the assumption of special status of just one religion, that the Constitution protects only Christianity. Here’s some other startling results of the poll:

• 98% said the right to speak freely about whatever you want is essential or important. But 39% would muzzle public statements that might be offensive to religious groups, 42% would bar musicians from singing songs others might find offensive, 56% would outlaw public statements that might be offensive to racial groups, and 74% would prohibit public school students from wearing a T-shirt that others might find offensive.
• 97% said the right to practice the religion of your choice is essential or important, but only 56% said freedom of religion applies to all religious groups.
• 93% said the right to be informed by a free press is essential or important. But 37% would not allow newspapers to freely criticize U.S. military strategy or performance; 61% would impose government requirements on balancing conservative and liberal commentary in newspapers.

And exactly what does the First Amendment say?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Freedom of religion, separation of church and state, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of peaceful assembly, and the right to petition. These are rights guaranteed to us by the First Amendment.

And you mean to tell me that we’re strictly a Christian country? Not according to our Constitution.

Here’s something else you probably don’t know: Before Barack Obama became a state Senator in Illinois, he was a constitutional law professor for twelve years and the University of Chicago Law School. Do you think maybe he knows a little something about our Constitution and how our government work? I can guarantee he knows a hell of a lot more than you and I do.

Keep in mind, I’m not just defending Barack Obama. I’ll defend any outright lies and misquoted statements made about John McCain as well. Context is important, folks. I want the facts, not a whole lot of propaganda and lies that don’t amount to anything. Before you allow anyone to simply tell you what to think (like the gentleman in this video), learn the facts and draw a conclusion of your own. Although an opinion does not have to be based on fact, it certainly helps.

In the case of politics, it greatly helps to have an educated opinion. Learn the facts about who the candidates really are. Rather than letting some left-wing or right-wing whackos tell you who they are, learn the facts for yourself. And I’m not just talking about Barack Obama and John McCain.  I’m talking about all candidates. When it comes time to vote, you won’t be voting just for the President. You’ll also be voting for other seats. Who are the candidates for state Senator and the House? What about your state government officials? Find out. That’s what being part of the process is all about.

John Gruber made some interesting points in his recent Memoranda blog post about the contrasting differences in leadership between Steve Jobs and Steve Ballmer. The leaked email memos from each CEO do show quite a few differences (and a few similarities). However, there is one aspect that Guber only touched on. The main difference I see between the two CEO’s is that one of them seems to focus almost exclusively on the bottom-line whereas the other focuses on the product. 

If you look at Ballmer’s email, one thing you’ll notice is that he never really focuses on the product itself nor does he mention what the company has done right with their products. Granted, this is just one email but I’ve read and heard a multitude of other things from Ballmer and he always seems to just glaze over the particulars about a specific product line with just broad brush stroke. He rarely if ever goes into detailed specifics as to why this product was successful and what makes it so great. Rather, Ballmer focuses more on the expansion of the company, it’s profitability, and stomping the competition. It just always seems like he talks more about how Microsoft is going to be doing this and that to get an upper-hand on the competition and much less about how great certain products really are. Maybe that’s just the kind of guy Ballmer is. Maybe he just doesn’t really care as long as Microsoft is profitable and is able to expand into different markets. Maybe he’s just a bottom-line kind of guy. Personally I think that sort of leadership isn’t doing the customer any good.

Jobs’ email about MobileMe, as Gruber mentioned, is very focused. He always focuses his attention on the product itself, what makes it good and what makes it bad. In the case of MobileMe, he focuses on the bad but ends on a note that implies a hopeful future for MobileMe, as if to say that he’s not giving up on it just yet. In the past, Jobs has talked about the bottom-line but usually when he does he attributes it to a specific product line. If Apple has a good third quarter he might say that it was because of the successful launch of the iPhone 3G and that customers were excited about getting their hands on them. Jobs tends to focus more on the user experience than just numbers. In his mind, if the quality of your products and the customer experience is good then the numbers will reflect that. Jobs is very much focusing his attention on the customer to create a unique user experience and I think the success that Apple is having reflects that.

One thing you’ll rarely ever see is a customer who switches from an Apple product to a Microsoft product due to some dissatisfaction. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone use a Mac running OS X Leopard for a good length of time who wanted to switch to a computer running Windows Vista. That’s the user experience for you and it’s something that I don’t think Ballmer will ever get.

I’ve been a frequent visitor of HumanEvents.com for some time now. I visit this site and many others that have viewpoints that differ from my own simply because I want to get an idea of what people are thinking. Many of the articles and blog posts on this site are from a far-right, neo-conservative point of view…and they certainly don’t apologize for it. I pick on many of the writers on this site simply because I feel they represent what is truly wrong with politics today. It always seems like they are so good at preaching about conservatism and yet I always feel like they don’t know what being conservative truly means in politics.

Now, I have never outright proclaimed to be a member of any political party. Truth be told, I really don’t believe in political parties. I think they cause more problems simply because it causes Americans to choose sides. Problem is that you rarely hear of there being more than just two sides. It’s always Republicans vs Democrats, liberals vs conservatives, left vs right, and so on. Rarely do you hear much about the middle and nor do you hear about the third side: the truth. Yes, there are politicians that do speak the truth but many times this truth ends up being masked and muddied up in the form of dirty politics, which is but one of the problems with American politics today. 

Take a post made by D.R. Tucker called Hard To Swallow. D.R. seems to feel that August 17, 1998 was the day conservatism began to die in America. This was the day that President Clinton admitted to having a sexual relationship with intern Monica Lewinsky. D.R. goes on to say that only a third of the American people strongly supported the impeachment and removal of Clinton from office, that somehow so many Americans bought the story that Clinton was a victim of a political witch-hunt by prudish right-wing Republicans. Personally I think it was just because the whole story was embarrassing and the greater American public was tired of hearing about it. Seriously, can you imagine the history books if he was impeached? He damn near was. After all, a vote was called on by Congress. Clinton would go down in history as the only President to ever have been impeached for lying about getting a blow job!

D.R. goes on to quote the writings of Paul Weyrich, a conservative activist, about the reason why politics started to fail after that, the thought being that too many conservatives assumed that most Americans shared their point of view and thus didn’t result in an adoption of their agenda:

The reason, I think, is that politics itself has failed. And politics has failed because of the collapse of the culture. The culture we are living in becomes an ever-wider sewer. In truth, I think we are caught up in a cultural collapse of historic proportions, a collapse so great that it simply overwhelms politics.

D.R.’s quotes continue further with another statement from Weyrich that says the U.S. is becoming too ideological: 

The ideology of Political Correctness, which openly calls for the destruction of our traditional culture, has so gripped the body politic, has so gripped our institutions, that it is even affecting the Church. It has completely taken over the academic community. It is now pervasive in the entertainment industry, and it threatens to control literally every aspect of our lives…Let me be perfectly frank about it. If there really were a moral majority out there, Bill Clinton would have been driven out of office months ago. It is not only the lack of political will on the part of Republicans, although that is part of the problem. More powerful is the fact that what Americans would have found absolutely intolerable only a few years ago, a majority now not only tolerates but celebrates. Americans have adopted, in large measure, the MTV culture that we so valiantly opposed just a few years ago, and it has permeated the thinking of all but those who have separated themselves from the contemporary culture…I believe that we probably have lost the culture war. That doesn’t mean the war is not going to continue, and that it isn’t going to be fought on other fronts. But in terms of society in general, we have lost. This is why, even when we win in politics, our victories fail to translate into the kind of policies we believe are important.

Let me get this straight. You mean to tell me that the reason politics in America is so screwed up is because of a lack of a moral majority? It makes no sense whatsoever to say that conservatism is failing because so many people in the country lack morals and thus do not vote for conservative candidates. It’s a ridiculous notion simply because conservatism does not equal a moral majority. That’s not what conservatism in politics is about. It’s not about religion. It’s not about family values. Conservatism in politics can not and should not be compared to the moral fiber of our nation. Anyone who does that simply doesn’t know what it truly means to be conservative.

Where Mr. Tucker gets it truly wrong is when he starts talking about Barack Obama and tries to compare him to Clinton:

If Barack Obama wins with a majority of the vote, it will complete the political and cultural alteration that began ten years ago. In 1998, Americans didn’t care about Clinton’s lies and licentiousness because the economy was doing well; in 2008, Americans seemingly don’t care about Obama’s dishonesty and double-dealing because he promises to restore the economy to the (perceived) health of the Clinton years. 1998 was the first indication that Americans valued certain things above “traditional morality”; 2008 could be the most significant indication of the same.

Ridiculous. The idea that just because Obama is a Democrat that somehow he’ll end up just like Clinton is just that: ridiculous. How is it exactly that Obama is dishonest and double-dealing the American public? Personally, I don’t see it. And as much as I would like to say the same about McCain, I’m afraid I can’t. I gave McCain a fair shot but, unfortunately, all he did was prove to me that he can’t be honest and can’t seem to talk about things without bullshitting the American public. That’s something I have not seen or heard from Obama.

And this whole notion that Obama will continue to lead people down a road of immorality is equally ridiculous. Obama has shown that he truly cares about family values. Isn’t that what neo-conservatives are always preaching about? Has anyone even looked at how Obama is with his wife and kids? He’s a damn good father if you ask me. And he appears to be teaching his kids some good values. If that isn’t a sign of someone who is moral then I don’t know what to tell you.

If we were a truly conservative country, a candidate like Obama would have been regarded as a fringe, Dennis Kucinich-style nutcase instead of a serious candidate for the Presidency. It can be argued that Obama figured out something that the right was too shortsighted to recognize: that America is not in any tangible way a conservative or center-right nation, that no one ideology truly dominates the country, and that due to America’s lack of commitment to any one ideology, someone who can market himself effectively has a chance to become President regardless of his ideology. Obama’s speeches may be content-free, but they are always well-delivered and he always looks good delivering them—which may be all he needs in a country that values image above ideology.

If anything, Obama has proven that trying to stick to a single ideology doesn’t work. This is a country that was founded on opposing viewpoint, multiple cultures, multiple religions, and diversification all over the place. To assume that you can stick to just one ideology, that of a far right-wing conservative point of view, and assume that everyone will follow is crazy. Our government must be more than that. It must remain flexible to accommodate the views and beliefs of all Americans; not just a select group. 

Weyrich was right: America doesn’t really place a premium on conservative, traditionalist values. Sadly, America places a premium on glamour, beauty, articulate voices, clean-cut images. Like Clinton, Obama understands this shallow, soulless aspect of America, and he knows how to play to those who worship empty images. Like Clinton, this new master of illusion will exploit America’s love of the superficial to make his next overseas “Presidential” trip official.

Obama is more than just someone who looks good and gives a good speech. He’s a man of the utmost integrity and, above all, he’s highly intelligent. I’m amazed at how many people can so easily dismiss him as being someone who merely is playing the American people like a violin. Intelligence it seems is a trait only shown by those who are arrogant, even more so when its from someone like Obama. Personally, I find it gratifying to know that there is at least one Presidential candidate who is extremely intelligent and, above all, really knows what the Constitution says. 

Conservatism didn’t die because of Clinton. In fact, conservatism isn’t really dead yet. What happened was that so-called conservatives within the Republican party morphed the party into the exact opposite of what the Republican party was supposed to be about. Yes, there is such a thing as having traditional conservative values in politics…but it’s just not about ones religious and/or moral beliefs. There’s a reason why our forefathers asked for a separations of church and state in the Constitution. It’s so that the individual rights of all people of all religions have representation within our government. For the people, by the people. What part of that do neo-conservatives not understand?

I don’t really have much this week. However, I did watch a video called The Commander In Chief Test. Granted, it’s humorous and in good fun, but it does illustrate one point: McCain doesn’t stand a chance of winning this election.

Anyone who has seen Zoolander will get the joke about the title of this post. Moving on…

The boys over at A List Apart are doing a little survey about web developers and designers. The results from their survey last year are pretty interesting. I’ll be curious to see how many more people are focused on information design and information architecture compared to last year. 

If you’re in a web developer/design related field, take a few moments out and complete the survey. It doesn’t take long. I promise.  Just click on the banner below to start:

The Free Software Foundation seems to be at it again with their attacks on Apple and the iPhone. DefectiveByDesign.org, a campaign of the FSF, has posted what they call the iPhone Challenge. In a nutshell, they want people to print out a handy questionnaire (mirror), walk into an Apple store, and attempt to get someone at the Genius bar to answer all their questions. Apparently it’s some sort of IQ test for the geek impaired.

So, am I up to the iPhone Challenge? You bet! I’ve already addressed most of these questions in a previous post that covered the FSF’s 5 Reasons to Avoid the iPhone. I’ll go ahead and answer them again and further clarify my answer if necessary. So, at that, let’s begin:

Why do all developers have to submit their applications to Apple before they can be loaded onto an iPhone?

Because Apple want to ensure that applications being installed on the iPhone meet certain standards and avoid having malicious applications in the wild. There’s an advantage to having one place where applications and updates get deployed. Rather than having to run around and check for updates from a variety of sources, you can simply check for updates in one place. That to me is a huge timesaver and ensures that when developers update their applications I’m going to know about it. Granted, the launch of the App Store didn’t go as smoothly as folks have liked. The timeframe it takes to get applications approved and posted by Apple is ridiculous right now.

Keep this in mind too: this is just the beginning and we have no idea what the plans are for the iPhone’s future. When the iPhone first launched, no one had any idea whether they would allow for native apps or not. Less that one year later and Apple is allowing native applications, even ones based on open-source software. However, Apple clearly wants this to be within a controlled environment for the time being in an effort to keep the flood gates from spilling over. Personally I think this is a wise move. I used a Treo before I moved to an iPhone and I can tell you from experience that the majority of applications for it were total crap, and that’s on a so-called open platform that allows people to install any application from any source. I’ll gladly take a smaller choice of quality applications over hundreds to thousands of crap ones any day.

As to the reason for your question, although it’s required to submit an application to the App Store, open-source applications are freely accepted. The only thing that isn’t free for developers is the iPhone Developer Program, which for most people is $99 a year for access to the SDK, support, and the ability to submit any number of applications to the App Store. That may sound like a lot but considering the fact that Linux distributors like Novell and Redhat charge for support this really isn’t any different.

Now, back to the point about the freedom to offer open-source software, consider WordPress for the iPhone. WordPress itself is distributed under a GPL license and I would imagine that the iPhone app will follow the same tradition since the source-code itself is available. You say that iPhone users are not permitted by Apple to share or load modified versions of programs distributed through the App Store but what’s to stop a developer from downloading a copy of the WordPress app, modifying it, and submitting it to the App Store as a different WordPress app? I’m sure we’ll starting seeing variations of different open-source apps sooner or later. Apple isn’t holding any developers at gunpoint; it’s just the fact that no one has done this yet. Too early to bitch just yet.

Why does iTunes still contain so much DRM-laden music?

Yes, companies like Amazon, eMusic, Napster, Rhapsody, Play.com, CDBaby, 7digital, and more are selling music without DRM, but so does Apple in the form of iTunes Plus non-DRM ACC encoded files. Now, you could argue that because Jobs has a lot of pull that he could get them to release all of Disney’s films without DRM, but get real. Regardless of what anyone might think, Steve Jobs does not rule all at Disney or Apple. He is a CEO. He is beholden to the stock holder and the customer. He has to make both happy. The choice on what to do with Disney’s films does not lie entirely with Jobs. And who is to say that he hasn’t already suggested eliminating DRM from films? We have no idea what has transpired behind closed doors at Disney. And besides, Jobs and Disney are in the business of making money. That’s what business is…making money! What gives you the right to tell them what they can and can’t do with their property? If they end up removing DRM they’ll do it to satisfy the customer’s desire to convert and view the media as they see fit.

As far as music is concerned, Apple has no say so as to what they can and can’t do with the music they sell. Plus, it’s not the job of the RIAA to tell Apple or any other music seller what they can and can’t do. They are entirely beholden to the music labels and publishers. Even though Amazon and others are selling DRM free music, if Sony, Warner, or any other big music label tells Apple, “You can’t sell our music without DRM”, then they must obey. It used to be that the RIAA was there to protect the artist. Now they are nothing more than an organization that protects the big music labels. Many people point fingers at the RIAA but they’re only doing what the big labels tell them to do.

If Apple could convert their entire catalog to iTunes Plus and sell everything DRM free they would…but the big labels refuse to allow them to do it. And why would they do that? Simple. They want a bigger piece of the pie. They would rather get exclusive contracts through other vendors that are willing to pay them more for their content than allow Apple to continue to have such a big piece of the market. So this has much less to do with DRM and more to do with corporate greed. The music industry is changing and the big music labels don’t like it because it means that their cash cow is shrinking.

The iPhone 3G has GPS support. How can users be sure that the GPS cannot be used to track their position, without their permission?

There are many smart phones on the market that have built in GPS; Nokia, Palm, RIM, Motorola, just to name a few. Do you distrust them too? If you’re gonna beat on Apple you might as well beat on them too. And what about all the stand-alone GPS units out there by companies like Garmin, Magellan, and others? Do we put them on high alert as well? Come to think of it, you could triangulate a person’s general location just by using cell phone towers and wireless networks. So, we should be really paranoid now since none of this stuff is powered by open source free software, right?

The thing about a privacy agreement is that it’s a contract. Contracts are bound by law. If a company was to violate their own contract then they would be sued. I’m sure there are plenty of GPS experts that are able to test different GPS devices, including the iPhone, to see if they are being used in mischievous ways. But, as it stands, Apple hasn’t violated their privacy agreement and the iPhone doesn’t do anything with the GPS without first asking you. That’s good enough for me. Till I hear otherwise I have no reason not to trust Apple right now.

In ‘Thoughts on Music‘, Steve Jobs said, “it is useful to remember that all iPods play music that is free of any DRM and encoded in ‘open’ licensable formats such as MP3 and AAC”.

The main reason why Apple hasn’t started supporting the Ogg formats is simply because the majority of users out there simply don’t have any desire to use the format. Apple and other companies that sell devices capable of playing digital music file are mainly concerned with the majority. Since over 80% of their customers use format like MP3 and ACC that is what sells. Like it or not, MP3 is the format most companies support simply because it was the first. After that came other formats like Windows Media, AAC, and others that, although not entirely open, were pushed heavily by the big tech and media companies. As such, formats like MP3 and AAC continue to rule the roost. Yes, some media players and phone support Ogg, FLAC, and other ‘open’ formats, but until a music store starts selling Ogg encoded music and gains enough popularity, I doubt you’ll see many media players and phones that will support Ogg. 

Will Apple approve applications for the App Store that support these formats? That’s a good question. Personally, I don’t see any reason why they would block applications that allow for this. Heck, if you can write an application like FileMagnet that is capable of syncing files over a wireless connection to an iPhone, I don’t see any reason why you couldn’t do that with an Ogg player.

Why can the iPhone 3G only be activated by Apple and AT&T?

Apple is bound by contract to allow AT&T to be the exclusive provider of the iPhone for a period of two years. The reason why the iPhone isn’t available on other carriers is simply because those carriers didn’t want to play ball with Apple and allow them to retain full control over their phones. The same probably applies to other carriers around the world as well. The way Apple is handling the iPhone is unprecedented. No other cell phone maker has been able to retain as much control as Apple has. So in many ways Apple is helping the industry by breaking down barriers and getting customers to realize that the quality of the phone is just as important, if not more important, than the quality of the phone service.

As far as the right to unlock an iPhone, you can certainly buy one from AT&T without service…but it will cost you about an extra $200+ on top of the retail price. The reason is that, just like every other cell phone carrier, AT&T subsidizes the price of the iPhone with a two-year service agreement. As such AT&T will require you to pay more to offset this loss of revenue. Neat deal, huh! And, guess what…that’s how it is with just about every phone with ever other carrier. Cell phone carriers don’t talk about it much and don’t advertise it simply because it’s not a profitable way of doing business. So, don’t look to Apple to remedy this…look to the cell phone carriers. Bitch at them instead.

I have a few questions for the FSF:

Why just the iPhone? Why not pick on the Blackberry, Treo, or the Instinct?

These phones have just as many issues with proprietary software and hardware as the iPhone. And some of these, like the Instinct, won’t even allow you to install your own software anyways. My guess is that, just like Windows is to the desktop operating system market, the iPhone is the biggest target in the smart phone market. It’s the one getting the most attention and the most hype, thus the reason why the FSF choose to attack the hell out of it.

Rather than bitch, moan, whine, and complain about how the iPhone sucks, why doesn’t the FSF put their money where their mouth is and sponsor an open phone that’s worth buying? Sponsoring the OpenMoko was a mistake because it’s hardly worth any serious attention. [For those who have not seen the OpenMoko, read my blog post about it here] I seriously wouldn’t even bother trying to push that one as a worthy alternative to the iPhone or any other smart phone for that matter. Even when compared to other phones out there, the OpenMoko is crap. I about shit myself when I saw the price: $400! I paid $250 for my first iPhone. Why would I want to pay $400 for something that is severely inferior? And according to the OpenMoko wiki the only major carriers in the U.S. that provides service are AT&T and T-Mobile. Yeah, that’s a big choice there. Buying something like this and sacrificing so much quality and usability just for the sake of adhering to a misguided philosophy is just impractical for me, not to mention nuts.

There’s a reason why the iPhone, the Blackberry, and other smart phones have been so popular. It’s because they are well-designed and fit the needs of many consumers well. In the case of the iPhone, Apple touched on a nerve by creating something that is highly innovative. There is nothing like the iPhone out there, period. No one has created a touch screen interface that works as well as the iPhone. For other cell phone makers to compete, they really need to step up to the plate and create something extraordinary. Apple has raised the bar.

So I challenge the FSF:

Can you design an open phone that is as good or better than the iPhone?  

If so, let’s see it. What I want to see is something extraordinary in terms of both hardware and software. I want to see something that shows that even open source developers can have standards and principles in the design of their products. I want to see something that is so polished, so well-designed, that people won’t believe that it’s an open source phone. If you believe you can do this then put your money where your mouth is and show me. Until such time as you or any organization that supports free and open software can produce a phone that is as good as the iPhone, I’m afraid just about all of your criticism is moot.