How Do You Spell Incompetent? P-S-N-H (that's PSNH)

So, this is my first real post after returning from a long hiatus. I was moved to this posting by the staggering incompetence I've witnessed over the past 5 days from our local electricity provider, Public Service of New Hampshire, better known as PSNH. Actually, I think it stands for:

"Pretty Sure Nothing's Happening"

or

"Purely Stupid No-Good Hacks"

First things first. You may have heard about the devastating ice storm that blew through New England last Friday. In its wake, about 1/2 million people were left without power, some 350,000 of them were PSNH customers. I'm one of them, and 5 days later, I'm still without electricity. Before I launch into the reasons for this post, I want to make perfectly clear that I do not include the countless crews (from all over the region) who are working night and day to restore power. They are the heroes of this catastrophe; many of whom do not have power themselves, yet continue to press on to restore the region to normalcy. They require our thanks, and certainly don't deserve to be tarred with the brush that I'm about to use to paint the management.

FYI - the real reason I'm writing this, is that I read a few weeks back in the WSJ, that certain companies were starting to pay attention to the things that were being written about them online. Some of the more progressive companies were even reaching out to the offended (negatives do generally out-number positives), and while they can't always make things right, they at least try to:

• Understand why the person had a bad experience, and to a certain extent, show some empathy (in some cases, perhaps a coupon is offered)
• Try to take something away from the situation such that processes can be changed to mitigate future problems

Now, I'm under no Pollyanna-ish misconception that PSNH is progressive or enlightened enough to be tracking its online reputation (hell, from what I've seen, I doubt management can read, let alone work a computer) but hope, as they say, springs eternal. Maybe someone up the food chain will Google PSNH, and see my little screed, and take something away from this about how the public would like to be treated when disaster strikes.

I think everyone can agree, that when you have 300K+ people without electricity, you've got a big project ahead of you. I've been managing projects for 15+ years, and one of the first things you try to do is get your arms around the scope of the problem. You try to understand what resources are available, then you lay out a plan (and rough schedule) for how to implement things. This is high-level of course, we haven't talked about risk management, project costing, communications and other important project management concepts, but this is the basic idea.

Now I assume that PSNH was blind-sided by the scope of the damage from this storm. I'm therefore willing to cut them some slack as they went about surveying the areas affected and getting an idea about what they were up against. But hey, this effort should have been completed by Saturday afternoon, Sunday at the latest. From a resourcing perspective, they did what all utilities do in emergencies, called in help from other areas - and a great response too, from as far away as Canada! As of yesterday, they have hundreds of crews out there cutting down trees and repairing lines, and as I've said, the guys on the ground are the real heroes.

So, assuming that the people (managers) who are responsible for restoring power are doing their jobs, they have some sort of plan by which this will be accomplished right? One other thing we should talk about here to bring everyone up to speed is the concept of triage. You're probably most familiar with the term from watching a TV show like MASH. Triage basically means deploying scarce resources where they will do the most good (e.g. get the most bang-for-the-buck). In MASH, that might meant withholding medical care from someone who was too far gone to have a good chance of survival and instead deploying Hawkeye and Trapper John to try and save the limbs of someone who they felt had every opportunity to recover and lead a full life. Sometimes (especially in the medical arena), triage isn't pretty, but choices have to be made - you've got 20 wounded soldiers, and 3 doctors/6 nurses, someone has to go to the back of the line.

We do something similar when we're building software. In the weeks before we ship a version, we meet to triage the bugs that are found in testing. On a system of any size, we might find 100-150 bugs in final test. Don't kid yourself, not all of these are going to be fixed (with no disrespect intended to Joel Spolsky). What happens is some group of people meets regularly and decides which bugs are severe enough that you wouldn't ship the release if they weren't fixed. A bunch of factors figure into this: the impact on the user, what workarounds are available, reputation damage if it gets out, etc. Bottom line is there's usually a pretty objective criteria for the triage process, and I assume that carries over into any other types of triage that may occur.

Take PSNH and the recent outage. I'm sure that some type of triage was in play, as it should have been. For example, I can imagine a triage scenario in which areas with Hospitals or Primary Care facilities were prioritized for power restoration over residential customers. I could further see Police Stations, Prisons, and major electrical sub-stations being pretty high on the triage list. So, if you're lucky enough to live near a hospital, you probably get your electricity back pretty quickly. After the obvious high-value targets, it gets trickier. You might decide that it's worth sending 2 crews out for 2 hours to restore 40,000 homes rather than 1 crew for 3 hours to get 30,000 back online. As I said, the deeper you go, the more subjective the criteria by which you deploy resources.

So, now that we've talked about triage, let's talk about incompetence. Nobody likes to feel (pardon the pun), powerless. If we assume that PSNH managers are not stupid (a point I'm somewhat willing to concede), we must assume that all of the project management things I've spoken about have occurred, including triage. We also have evidence to suggest that progress is being made as power is being restored daily to more and more households. So, the burning question I have is, if you've done all of these things - Why in the name of good sweet Christ can you not tell me when I might expect to see my electricity restored?

The fact that PSNH refuses to provide information about when I might have my power restored is anathema to me. I can only assume one of two explanations:

1. PSNH has not done any planning, they're approaching the problem by letting the ground crews fix whatever they want, whenever they want, sort of like a pack of feral dogs, or the gangs from A Clockwork Orange. If this is the case, they're not only incompetent, they're also stupid.
2. They have a plan, and they're not sharing it. In this case, not only are they incompetent, they're venal and petty

I'm inclined to assume that we can rule out number 1, so I'm forced to wonder why they're reluctant to share plans for the continuing, remaining restoration efforts. My theory is probably not going to be a popular one. Basically, my guess is that after the high-value triage targets have been addressed, PSNH starts to be influenced by political arguments. The mayor or city council of Derry, NH might have some pull with the Governor's staff, and while PSNH should answer only to the Public Utility Commission, I'm not naive enough to think that a well-placed call from the Governor's office might not cause them to favor one town/area over another. Now, you may think I'm a conspiracy-theory loving nutcase (and you may be right). If so, there's a really easy way to prove me wrong - simply publish a timeline by which the remaining afflicted will have their power restored. I'm not asking to jump the line. I'm not even asking for a date-certain that I'll have my power back. But I can't imagine it's too damned difficult to let me know something along the lines of: We expect to have power restored in your area by Thursday afternoon. I mean, if you've got a plan, this should be simple enough.

A little transparency into the process will go a long way. Until then, I can only assume that PSNH is managed by a team of incompetent morons who don't understand the impacts their decisions have on their customers. Scratch that, in this case we feel less like customers than captives - not like I have a choice when it comes to electricity providers.

I'm back...

For the 1's of you who were following me, I apologize for the long hiatus. I had started a new job back in February, and I got caught up in that (working multiple hours per week), and then I kinda got fed up with the election (don't get me started, 'specially on McCain/Palin) and next thing you know, I wasn't writing any more.

So, other than the new job, we also adopted another puppy. Her name is Tasha, and here's her picture:

So, I wanted to let you know that I've started up again. Check back, or subscribe and I'll try to keep adding posts regularly. It might be short, and it might be inane, but it'll be (hopefully) entertaining.

Couldn't happen to a nicer guy...

I've held off writing about this, cause I've hated this sonuvabitch for so long that I couldn't objectively contain my glee enough to blog intelligently. I think the reason I hated Spitzer so much, was that for all the endless prattle about standing up for the little guy, at the end of the day, he proved to be nothing more than a bully. I was so glad when Dick Grasso, the embattled former head of the New York Stock Exchange decided to "fight it out" with Spitzer over his huge pay package rather than capitulate as so many of his contemporaries had in the face of the Sptizer PR machine.

See, Spitzer liked to fight these things out in public. He'd leak things to the media, sometimes things that shouldn't have come out in order to keep pressure on the alleged perpetrators and force them to settle. Go back and read some of the stories about his depositions - he'd get personal, and you know it was his intent to let the current subject of his scrutiny that this information might get out.

All of this was preening and grandstanding was to aid his blossoming political career, and it overshadowed some of the genuinely (admittedly few) good things his DA's office was able to accomplish, not the least of which was to bring large mutual fund companies to heel in the market-timing scandal of the early oughts. For anyone living under a rock for the last few years, Spitzer went on to win the New York governor's race in the 2006 Democratic tidal wave by 60+ percent of the vote.

He ran as (surprise) a reformer. He was gonna bring his combative, corruption-fighting (read bullying) style to Albany and clean up state government while enacting a sweeping Democratic agenda that was a New Dealer's wet dream. Didn't happen. Sptizer found that playing little tin god (that's a small "g" there) as DA of NYC didn't prepare him so well for politics on the larger stage in Albany. The administration was plagued by scandal almost from day one. His number one assistant was accused of having the state police follow around the equally combative head of the Republican opposition. There were other examples of this sort of activity - he was famously accused of attempting to bully Bloomberg as well - but at the end of the day, he got nowhere with his agenda, and was forced to defend his flanks on multiple occasions.

This past couple of weeks we found out that our boy Eliot has an appetite for the ladies, especially ladies of the evening. It seems he'd spent about $80,000 over the past few years on hookers from some high-class escort service. The hypocrisy, nay hubris, was staggering. I mean, this is the guy who nattered on endlessly about integrity and honesty, only to prove that he really knew nothing about the concepts at all. The same guy who made his name prosecuting white-collar financiers in the city would be laid low by the basest of charges, and hopefully face some sort of prosecution himself. It was a fall of Shakespearean scope - and I couldn't be happier.

Look at the picture above. Even in defeat, Spitzer looks smug. This is the guy who admitted on (I believe the "Daily Show") that he was his little league soccer team's enforcer - I mean who remembers shit like that, AND takes pride in it to the extent that he brings it up in an interview 25 years later? What a putz! If there was ever anyone who deserved this, it was Spitzer, and I couldn't be happier. One last thing before I sign off. Why do these guys who get caught with their hands in the cookie jar (or honey pot in this case), bring their wives to the "I apologize" press conference? And why do the wives continue to "stand by" these assholes? I mean, if my wife found out that I'd blown $4,000 on a night with a hooker you can bet your sweet ass she wouldn't be standing quietly behind me quietly while I apologized to my family, friends, and constituents - unless she was given a device to deliver electric shocks to by genitalia whenever she pressed a button.

I can only assume that couples like this treat the marriage a business arrangement. I believe they were both from wealthy families, and when you don't need money, you keep score by playing politics. Maybe the meteoric rise of Spitzer in Democratic political circles was the only fuel the marriage needed. One wonders how it will stay alive now that Spitzer has been forced to leave the public stage.

clipped from online.wsj.com Spitzer Steps Down, Has No Deal to Avoid Prosecution Eliot Spitzer resigned as governor of New York, but his departure left unanswered whether a man who made his name as one of America's leading crime fighters will himself face prosecution. Mr. Spitzer's decision to step down under pressure, two days after word that he was a customer of a high-priced prostitution ring, could work to his benefit, in that prosecutors may have less interest in aggressively pursuing what may be a relatively weak case against him once he is out of office. Michael Garcia, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, issued a statement saying "there is no agreement between this Office and Governor Eliot Spitzer, relating to his resignation or any other matter." Mr. Spitzer's greatest vulnerability may be to charges of violating federal banking laws, people familiar with the matter said yesterday.

Personally, I'm afraid of Obama...

clipped from campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com Why I’m Afraid of the Clintons So throughout the Democratic primaries, I’ve been rooting for Barack Obama. The nobler side of me admires him, even across party lines, for the tremendous interest and enthusiasm he has engendered among younger Americans. But the larger, less decent part of me believes that Hillary Clinton would be a more formidable general election opponent for the Republican nominee. She’s certainly on the ropes right now: her campaign has been flailing through the last few rounds of primaries in a way that Clintons are usually able to avoid. But we’ve been losing to Clintons for a long time now: I’d still just as soon avoid her in a general election campaign.

Clipped this from the New York Times campaign trail series of articles. This one was by Dan Schnur. Pretty well-written, and it lacks the usual vitriol you see from Clinton-haters. Note that I'm making a distinction here; Schnur is clearly not a Clinton-hater; it's obvious that he respects Hillary. His argument is quite logical; basically he feels that Hillary Clinton is the stronger Democratic candidate in a general election owing to her ability to govern from the center and the Clinton political machine. He further asserts that once the Republicans start hammering Obama and start yapping about his voting record (most liberal of any senator) during his tenure, that John McCain will steamroll him on the way to the White House.

I see things a bit differently. Now, nobody wants to see the Republicans retain the White House more than I do. If we assume that the Democrats will continue to make gains in the House and Senate, which seems like a safe bet given the current political climate, we're already approaching the 60 votes needed to end debate on any legislation the Democratic leadership wants to move to the floor. The only thing that will stand in the way of crippling legislation and entitlements the likes of which we haven't seen since the New Deal will be a Republican in the White House, and even then we'll be approaching a veto-proof majority in congress.

The only good thing that would come out of a Democratic presidency would be the almost certain end of troops from Iraq, and the reduced spending that will accompany that. And God knows we're gonna need that money cause...

Everything else that's on the table is gonna break the bank, especially the disastrous health-care plans, will saddle us with an entitlement legacy that will be borne on the backs of generations to come. You wanna know the definition of eternity? It's a government entitlement.

Look at Europe. Reformers have been handcuffed there for decades. Just try weaning people from the public teat. In France they riot. We don't even try it here anymore - look what happened to Bush when he suggested private Social Security accounts. The demagoguery of the left was amazing; especially as organizations like the AARP came down against it and started their fear-mongering amongst the senior population. A quick aside - when did old people get to be so dumb? Just curious. Most of these proposals wouldn't impact people who are already over 55 anyway cause it'd be political suicide... But we digress...

This post is about who stacks up better in a general against John McCain. It seems to me that the very points that Schnur makes about Obama are the reasons Republicans should fear him. Here's the thing - by all objective measures, Hillary Clinton is a far better Democratic candidate. I mean, let's take stock quickly of Hillary:

• Want government run healthcare? Check! Mandatory coverage for everyone
• Want the military out of Iraq? Check! Start drawing down troops in the first year
  
• Want to slam the door on free trade? Check! NAFTA is evil; let's revisit it (never mind Bill - it'll be OK)
  
• Want to redistribute income (raise taxes)? Check! Let's roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy
  
• Want experience? Check! Great senatorial career, diligently spent learning the ropes and building coalitions
  
• Want someone strong on foreign affairs? OK - you got me there, but same can be said for Obama

She's been preparing for this her whole life! It's hard to imagine a better qualified candidate. In many ways Obama has very few original thoughts about the issues - from a policy perspective he's a complete naif and remarkably similar to Hillary. And this is what's scary about Obama...

There's really no way he should be winning - but he is. Now a lot of this is about what a horrible campaign Hillary has run. I mean, I watched some of the clips from the Texas debate, and the whole "SNL - see if Barack needs a pillow" thing came across as puerile and just plain mean. She's been almost completely atonal for 6 months now. I think the unforgivable act has been allowing Obama to set the agenda and to allow yourself to get off message. Now, it may be that no matter how good a job Hillary could have done, that Obama truly has captured lightning in a bottle and is destined to win. But I don't believe it; I think that Hillary just let the wheels come off the wagon and never figured out a way to get back on track.

Go read those last two sentences again. That's what's scary about Obama. See, he might actually be destined to win. And, if that's the case, and he can win against someone as well-loved as the wife of one of the Party's true legends - a smart, politically savvy woman with true liberal roots who has paid her dues in the senate, well, then it won't really matter what the Republicans throw at him, cause he can certainly win that contest as well.

Now, you might infer from this little epistle that I really don't like Obama, and you'd be completely wrong. What's seductive about Obama is that even diehard libertarian, fiscal conservatives like myself are quite taken with him. I think he's amazing; a truly likable, visionary, and galvanizing figure. If my supposition is correct, people like Obama only come along once or twice in a lifetime, much like JFK.

And, I'm ashamed to say that, irrationally, I truly dislike Hillary Clinton. Further, there's nothing about her campaign behavior that changes my thinking, which originates deep in my lizard-brain - basically I don't like Hillary the same way I don't like spiders. Paradoxically though, for true moderates, Hillary is quite logically the better candidate. She knows better than to try to do too much too fast. Even she knows that without a radical reconfiguration of congress, she has no hope of enacting any of her grandiose plans once elected. But what she can do is build relationships and advance some truly liberal causes.

Conversely Obama, if elected, will rise to office on the wings of a generational mandate. It's entirely possible that he'll be able to railroad through a truly massive liberal agenda. And this guy is a true zealot - I mean, he's drunk the liberal Kool-aid by the gallon. And yet...

I still like him. And if he can make someone like me feel that way, then you can bet your life that he can beat McCain; it's tough to beat destiny, and that's why I'm more afraid of Barack Obama than Hillary Clinton.

And I say - well done...

It's somewhat passive aggressive, but the results are the same. By allowing the current wiretapping bill to expire, we've effectively guaranteed that court orders will be required going forward according to this rather aggrieved WSJ Op-Ed.

I would have preferred a more active victory for civil liberties, but I'll take anything I can get if it keeps Bush from listening to American citizen phone calls without a warrant.

So, while I'm absolutely no fan of Nancy Pelosi (and the Democratic party in general), at least they've gotten this one right. Funny, but didn't the Republican party used to stand for individual rights? It's a damn shame we've come to having only National Security and fear-mongering to run on...

clipped from online.wsj.com We've long held that a President doesn't need a court order under the Constitution to order such wiretaps. But the reality is that, because of these lawsuits, the telephone companies now won't cooperate without the legal protection of a court order. That's how pernicious these lawsuits are. We asked one phone company executive what he'd do, after Friday's expiration, in response to a government request for cooperation. His answer was blunt: "I'm not doing it. If I don't have compulsion, I can't get out of court [and those lawsuits]. . . . I'm not going to do something voluntarily." Having talked to telecom executives, we can tell you this view is well-nigh universal. Mr. Reyes claims that existing wiretap orders can stay in place for a year. But that doesn't account for new targets, which may require new kinds of telecom cooperation and thus a new court order. Mr. Reyes can make all the assertions he wants about immunity, but they are no defense against a lawsuit.

A Quick Spin with Adapative Blue...

Quickly, an apology to those of you who are expecting a substantive post. Right now, I'm investigating the new Adaptive Blue "Smart Linking" technology. Here's a link to my favorite movie, The Quiet Man. You should see a small icon just to the right of the link. The link itself will take you to Amazon's page for the move, and clicking the little icon will provide you with additional information on the movie from Adaptive Blue.

Now, most of you won't care diddly-squat about this, but for those of you who are routinely referencing books, movies, and even stocks, this represents some pretty cool technology for bloggers. This also allows you to put in your Amazon/EBay affiliate IDs so that you can grab some coin from referrals. So, for the rest of this, I'm gonna put this through it's paces...

Here's a link to EMC's stock quote on Google finance. Hopefully we'll still see the little icon...

Here's a link to one of my favorite actors, Vince Vaughn; I still think Wedding Crashers is one of the funniest movies ever...

So, check out the information at Adaptive Blue; it's really easy to add this capability to your Blog, and it's very helpful to your readers.

War Powers?

Again I find myself at odds with the neocons and foreign policy hawks at the WSJ's editorial staff. I was not aware that we (by that I mean the Congress) had declared war. If so, could someone please tell against what foreign power we're at war? I know we f*cked up big time with the vote to grant Bush considerable powers in the wake of 9/11, but still, the assault on civil liberties this administration is perpetrating is staggering.

Contrary to what the WSJ editors may think, I believe the congress occupies the political high ground here, and I further believe their skepticism is fully warranted. I doubt that they'll be able to organize enough support to override a probably veto, but the Journal is right about one thing; let's make it a front and center argument of the '08 presidential campaigns!

clipped from online.wsj.com Mr. Bush would do better by future Presidents if he opposed the Wyden amendment, and any further concessions would amount to an abdication as Commander in Chief. He has the political high ground on this issue. If Congress does more harm, he should declare that to protect the country he'll use his Constitutional war powers to wiretap al Qaeda anyway and toss the issue squarely in the middle of the Presidential campaign. Congress's overriding goal here is to further hamstring our intelligence war-fighters with legal rigidity and complexity, but to do so in a way that dodges its own oversight duties by passing the buck to FISA judges. White House lawyers know this is unconstitutional, but intelligence officials say it's more important to have Congress's blessing for these wiretaps. And because the telecom companies won't cooperate without immunity, Mr. Bush is being bullied into trading away some of his own power to get that immunity.

It has to stop...

Generally speaking, I'm in agreement with most positions of the Wall Street Journal - fiscal/economic policy, immigration reform, and others. But on matters of national security, I have to wonder where the usual common sense and well thought-out policy voices have gone. They appear to have been evicted by a (hopefully) minority of neo-conservative hawks who feel that keeping America safe is worth any price. I respectfully disagree, and this is probably the chief reason I'm supporting John McCain for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008.

We are at war. With religious extremists who hate our way of life, possibly due to ignorance, possibly to a deep-seated cultural bias that has sapped any ability to harken back to the message of peaceful tolerance that is Islam. It doesn't really matter why, but we need to accept that fact that there are Muslim terrorists who wish to do us harm.

The culture of fear that was spawned by 9/11 allowed a few neocons to seize control of foreign policy, start 2 wars (one popular and righteous, the other a cluster-fu*k of the highest order), and began an assault on individual rights that continues to this day, witness:

• The snippet attached from the WSJ justifying torture (yes, waterboarding is torture) because we only used it on 3 terrorists - as if there's some magic number below which this atrocity is accepted
• Other WSJ articles that demand that a) we renew the wiretapping/surveillance powers which allow eavesdropping on our own citizens, and b) hold those companies who complied with earlier domestic surveillance requests blameless with respect to their participation

Because we are at war, we need to understand that we will suffer casualties. Some of those will occur abroad, and some will occur at home on native U.S. soil. We need to focus on protecting ports and facilities (nuclear power plants, etc.) that will cause massive deaths and economic destruction if attacked. We need to understand that there is no perfect protection against skilled adversaries who are willing to die to advance their cause. We need to adopt a mindset of sacrifice that is similar to that of our parents' generation during WWII. What we do not need to do is to allow our government to continue the assault on our civil liberties in the name of keeping us safer. We do not need to abandon a half-century of conventional wartime ethics guided by the Geneva convention by condoning the torture of our enemies, however loathsome those enemies may be.

I might be wrong, but you'll have damned difficult time convincing me otherwise. I always that that the saying "I love my country, but I fear my government" was a crackpot slogan of survivalists and white supremacists, sadly, they may be right.

clipped from online.wsj.com Tall Torture Tales February 6, 2008; Page A18 Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri planned the October 2000 bombing of the USS Cole. Abu Zubaydah was the mastermind of the foiled millennium terrorist attacks, which had Los Angeles airport as one of its targets. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed directed the September 11 attacks, and has claimed to have personally beheaded Wall Street Journal reporter Danny Pearl. All three men were captured by the CIA in 2002 and waterboarded in the course of their interrogations. They are also the only U.S. detainees to have been waterboarded. That fact, publicly confirmed yesterday by CIA Director Michael Hayden, shreds whatever is left to the so-called torture narrative, according to which the Bush Administration has engaged in widespread, needless and systematic torture of detainees. Instead, we have sworn public testimony that the waterboarding was conducted against the three individuals best positioned to know about impending terrorist atrocities.

Tonight, I dine in hell...

The reason I say this (actually misquote it from the movie 300), is that for the past 2 weeks I've repeatedly said that I'd sell my soul to see the Patriots lose the Super Bowl. Guess someone took me up on my offer. And, if hell is all the evangelicals would have you believe, I'll be surrounded by Patriot fans led by Bill Bellichick when I get there! In any case, whatever the cost, it was definitely worth it!

I have listened quietly for 2 weeks as everyone (my health club locker room, local news outlets, national news outlets, the Sports Guy) wrote/bragged about the inevitability of a Patriots 19-0 season. To them it was a fait-'accompli. I never said a word, I just seethed inside knowing that they were probably right and fighting the urge to take out a Nancy Kerrigan contract on Brady as he smugly laughed about the Burress 17-point "guarantee". I've also learned that it's somewhat foolish to argue with a Patriots fan; they tend to rationalize wins and losses equally well. I'm sure we'll see some of that in the local media as well:

1. The no-call against Amani Toomer for offensive pass interference against Gay (hand in the face-mask) - no big deal as the giants immediately turned it over inside the red-zone
2. Not calling Eli Manning as "In the Grasp" during his 4th-quarter Houdini-like escape and throw downfield to Tyree - I say hats off to the zebras for letting 'em play.

I'm sure the New England conspiracy machine will be out in full force. Here's the bottom line: the Patriots got their asses whipped physically last night, and Tom Brady looked decidedly average under constant pressure from an inspired Giants defense. New York outplayed 'em, and anyone who thinks otherwise is dreaming. Similarly, those who really know football will be forced to agree that the Patriots defense was exposed - really starting to show its age.

I'm gonna keep this post short, and I'm not gloating (much), but God this is gratifying. Let's also give a shout-out to my man Eli Manning for showing grace and grit on the biggest stage in sports. I think it's great that he received the super-bowl MVP award, but anyone who watched the game knows that it should be shared collectively by the Giants defensive line and coordinator.

So, here I sit on Monday morning after the Super Bowl, soulless, but happier for it nonetheless - Dad, save me a seat by the fire. Before I sign off, I'll leave the Patriots fans with two great ESPN links that have nothing to do with the game, but that I found fascinating this weekend:

• A great article by Gregg Easterbrook about lingering and continuing questions on spygate; really great insights.
• Really thought-provoking article (for men) from Jemele Hill about how Tom Brady gets away with behavior that other men would be vilified for

Go Giants! Well done!

Update: here's a link to the Sports Guy's article, and surprisingly, it's not entirely graceless (which is a surprise), but rather poignant (which is why he's the best sportswriter in the game)...

Raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens...

Since I'm sort of exhausted from the whole political scene as we approach super Tuesday, I thought I'd take a break and have some fun. So, with many apologies to Rogers and Hammerstein - these are a few of my favorite things...

1. Facebook - I've spoken about this before, but it bears repeating here. For my money, pretty much epitomizes Web 2.0 applications. The decision to open it up to developers to extend in the form of quirky/fun/functional applications has been an amazing one. This is spawning an entire ecosystem of startup organizations that build Facebook apps supported by advertising. The applications are viral, in that they encourage your friends to get you add the applications as well, which sort of leads to a geometric propagation. I will have to say, however, that lately the quality/silliness of the applications seems to be a bit annoying. For every iLike, there's a Hug Me application that's pure fluff, and your Facebook inbox can get cluttered pretty quickly with invitations from your friends to join/install the apps as well. Things start to get cluttered/messy quickly, but I haven't yet figured out the etiquette with respect to declining to install some of these. This is a minor criticism; it's still the best social network site for my money.
2. Netvibes - It's kinda hard to describe netvibes. I guess I think of it as a portal, but it's really more than that. Think of it like Google's personal home page. You create different "tabs", each of which can host widgets that perform various functions. What I use it for mostly, is to collect and organize my favorite RSS feeds. As an example, I have a Sports tab that hosts Bill Simmons' Sports Guy feed from ESPN, a Cleveland Browns newsfeed, and other ESPN feeds. You can make Netvibes your default location for adding newsfeeds. But there are other types of widgets as well (weather, bookmarks, tons of others). I like it so much that I've made it my homepage. Check it out - but be prepared to invest some time in it to make it truly useful.
3. ESPN Page 2 - Where the Sports Guy (Bill Simmons) publishes his blog and other stuff (like his articles for ESPN the magazine). He's probably my favorite sports writer, although he's unabashedly pro-Boston. I hate the Patriots, so this can be frustrating, and the guy has forgotten more than I'll ever know about sports, so some of the salary-cap/trade columns are over my head, but his pop-culture references are amazingly funny. He's a really great writer, and, if you like sports, he's an absolute must-read every week. Page 2 has other columnists as well, and they're all pretty great - highly recommended.
4. My Volkswagen GTI - I think this is the most fun (and most car) you can get for $27K. It's the latest incarnation of the venerable 2.0 turbo-charged 4-cylinder engine. Tons of standard features, great handling, acceleration that rivals a bimmer. Just a great little car. Downsides are the annoying little rattles that seem to pop up after about 12K miles, and the way it handles in the snow, but other than that, it's just great.
5. Swaptree - This is a site with a great idea - basically, it's a giant online swap-meet for books, DVDs, video games and othter things. You register the item you're willing to trade and a bunch of things you'd like to have (you can import your Amazon wish-list to make it easy). Swaptree will then show you items that are available for the items you have, or it will arrange trades on your behalf, which can be 2 or 3-way trades. You can use Swaptree to print shipping labels for the items you're trading. It's a pretty great idea, but two downsides. Swaptree rarely seems to hit on items I want, but does so with enough frequency to keep me happy. Also, it doesn't seem to preserve your preference for hardback books over paperback - it seems to treat the two types the same. So, if you registered a hardback as an "I want" item, and someone else offers the paperback version in trade, Swaptree will sometimes treat the two the same and arrange a trade. You need to be careful if you really want/favor hardbacks.
6. Audible audiobooks - The best site I know of for audiobooks. It works on a subscription model (sorta like Netflix), but with audiobooks. For a given level of subscription, you're allowed to purchase x number of books per month for free (you can always buy others at a membership discount). Now, I love this idea, and they have quite a selection, plus, if you've ever priced an audiobook on CD at your friendly neighborhood Barnes and Noble, the prices are really reasonable. You download the books to your computer (PC or Mac), and then you can load them onto your iPod, Smart-phone, or other MP3 player. You can register up to (I believe) 5 devices (including the PCs to which you download), and you can burn the books to CD as well. All-in-all, it's a great way to get at audiobook content. Now, here are the downsides. First, it's a massive DRM play; you can't just play these puppies anywhere - only on the devices you've registered. This is OK, except for the fact that not every car has an interface for your MP3 player or iPod, so to listen to books in the car (which is where I do 80% of my listening), you need to burn the books to CD. This is OK, but for a long fantasy novel, you could be talking about 40+ CDs. If you've got a slow burner, life gets bad pretty quickly. This could be ameliorated somewhat if they would allow you to burn MP3 CDs, but of course you can't. Last bitch (I really do like the site remember), the site itself isn't that great - in fact it hasn't changed much in the last 5 years. Contrast it with something like Netflix, which has one of the top use-experiences going, and it gets tiring pretty quickly. I have accumulated 100+ books in my library, but I can't see them all at once - same with my 300+ book wish-list. Broadband is pretty universal; give me the option of seeing everything in one screen - it's a simple database query - make it happen. Allow me the Netflix-like ability to drill down to a book's details by hovering over it - get your Ajax on!
7. Apple computers - I've been using an Apple PowerBook at home for the past 3 years. My lovely wife uses an iBook that I bought her 5 years ago. The bundled software, the OSX operating system, combined with the new Intel platform's ability to co-host Windows, makes the Mac computing series the best machines out there. And, if you really look at the whole package, you'll see that they're competing quite nicely on price with the commodity Windows boxes you see out there. I think you're probably still paying a small premium, but it's not as bad as it used to be, and it really is a phenomenal user experience. iLife alone is worth $200-300, and you get it for free! Give one a spin and stick with it for a couple of weeks, I'm betting you won't go back.
8. LibraryThing - Really great idea - catalog all of your books online. I think I've registered 700+ so far, with a bunch that I still haven't gotten to. You pay for the privilege, but it's nominal, and it supports a fantastic bibliophile community. By the way, the link takes you to my public library, check it out.
9. Amazon - my favorite e-commerce site. It's grown a ton over the last decade, and now you can find just about anything there that you want, if not from Amazon itself, from one of its numerous 3rd-party vendors. Amazon is my first stop if I need something, and I rarely go anywhere else. The used-goods dealers alone are worth joining the site, especially if you're looking for technical books, which can be notoriously expensive. You can find them here at discounts up to 75%, even though they're only slightly used. The Amazon Prime membership is amazingly cool if you're a frequent purchaser; for about $80, you get free 2-day shipping on every Amazon purchase. Sadly it does not extend to 3rd-party vendors.
10. Petfinder - I have three incredibly silly adopted dogs - I love them all like they're my kids. The last two I found through canine rescue organizations that are hosted on Petfinder. Nothing cheers you up (and breaks your heart) like going up and browsing through the list of puppies available for adoption in your area. I implore you to please, please look at adoption should you be in the market for a new pet (dog or cat). These dogs are amazing, and while not pedigreed, certainly have all of the smarts, intelligence (not borne out by mine of course), and affection that any ponce of a purebred might offer. The adoption fees are generally $250-300, and, when compared to the $1500-2000 that you're gonna pay to a reputable dealer, it's a bargain. If you must have a purebred dog, please, for God's sake, go to a local breeder - don't patronize the chain pet-stores at the mall. These are horrible places - stay away.

I think this is enough for now. Obviously, I have more than 10 favorite things. I'm gonna come back from time-to-time and update/add new items. Please check in and add your own favorites so I can check 'em out! Thanks for indulging me in this somewhat whimsical exercise. Go Giants!!!!

How the Republicans can win the White House

OK, it's time for me to do what I've been threatening for some time now, and that's to write a post about the issues (as I see 'em) in the upcoming 2008 presidential election. Before I get there, just a quick digression...

I've been following the democratic race as avidly (perhaps more so) as I have the Republicans. Now, I'll never be able to vote for a Democratic candidate because they're completely at odds with my own beliefs in small government, but I just love the passion and personality embodied by Barack Obama. I've never cared for either Hillary or John Edwards, but I've always had a soft spot in my heart for Hillary's hubby, Slick Willy. That's why I have been so surprised at the totally uncharacteristic behaviors I've seen him exhibit on behalf of Hillary in the last few weeks. Bill has turned out to be just another piece of sh*t political hatchet-man, and I think we're somewhat lessened for it. I know that he has been diminished by this role, and, if Hillary can't win on her own, does she really deserve the nomination? I won't detail all of the Democratic leaders who were calling for restraint, but suffice to say that Teddy (the Chairman of the Board) Kennedy's uncharacteristic endorsement yesterday of Obama should send a strong message to the Clinton campaign.

Also, at the time I'm writing this, it appears as though John McCain has won the Florida Republican primary, effectively ending the Giuliani campaign. At this time, it appears to be a 2-horse race between Johnny Mac and Mitt Romney, although Huckabee, like herpes, refuses to fade. Full disclosure, I'm supporting John McCain.

At this time, it feels as though the Democrats do have all the momentum. It also feels as though the Republicans will have a Sysiphean effort to overcome the damage that President Bush and the last Republican congress have done to the party. Still, for the right candidate, there's an opportunity; Republican candidates do possess some innate strengths that they need to capitalize on if they are to retain the White House. First and foremost though, before we get to the issues, here are the nuts-n-bolts things that the nominee has to do in order to win:

1. (Re)-Introduce himself to the electorate - coming out of the primary, the focus has been in many ways on playing (some might say pandering) to the party base. The candidate needs to allow the American public to get to know him on a personal level
2. Clearly enunciate his stand on the issues. No ambiguity, no pandering, no bullsh*t, what you believe in, and why. Hire good staff to help explain it and message it appropriately. Study the opposition arguments and for God's sake, understand them. Be prepared to explain in a simple, folksy way, why his position is superior. Don't fall into the trap that Bush did with personal Social Security accounts (just an example); be prepared to go blow-for-blow with the Dems as far as explaining your position, and please, please be prepared to modify your message as required - nobody wants to hear a robot. Note that this is largely the reason Huckabee is so popular and likable.
3. Don't be evasive - or coy, or act like you have something to hide. If you're John McCain, get your act together on economics and be able to speak intelligently about it. If you don't know something, hey, admit it - people respect honesty, but make damn sure that the next time you're asked, you have an intelligent response. While we're at it, let's agree to let Ronald Reagan rest in peace. The 80's were a different time, and while I love Reagan, the challenges we face today aren't necessarily going to be addressed by the prescriptions of the Reagan administration
4. Be very careful about going negative - I know it works, but a lot of people frown on it. There are good ways to contrast your positions with your opponents that don't involve mudslinging; try like hell to stay away from it. Demonstrate a willingness to depart from business as usual in Washington. Showcase the ability to build bipartisan support - and in a related note that all Democrats are not evil (with perhaps the exception of John Edwards, Harry Reid, and Charlie Rangel).

The Economy

This is going to be a tougher issue for the Republican nominee. There's a rising tide of populism throughout the nation that makes the message of tax cuts and smaller government a difficult one to get out. Bottom line is that the candidate needs to buckle down and come up with an economic package that embraces tax cutting and then be able to explain why it's important. You probably don't want to go after estate tax repeal, but a few years back there was some bi-partisan support for raising the estate size exclusion; revisit that. If you meet resistance, get family farmers/small-business owners up on the pulpit with you and put a face on the issue. Tax reform is too difficult to campaign on; any reform you propose (Fair Tax, Flat Tax, etc.) will have you fighting the left with little gain. You may however have to go there to show you have original ideas and to further distinguish yourself from the status quo. The other potential reason to espouse tax reform is that there's a growing segment of the population that pays no taxes at all - guess how they vote. It becomes increasingly less difficult for the representatives of the non-taxpaying class to raise taxes on the remainder of the populace who do. I mean, talk about class warfare - there should be a way to frame an argument for everyone paying their fair share, but it's gonna be hard.

More importantly than taxes, the Republican candidate needs to wage ware on spending. He needs to put Congress on notice that earmarks are done. He should make a passionate argument for returning the line-item veto. If the candidate is Romney or Giuliani, there were already some good ideas; especially Rudy's idea about not hiring back 50% of the federal workforce that's slated to retire over the next few years. This isn't an overt cut, it's just not re-hiring; what a great idea. Assuming Romney has gotten over his urge to experiment with government-sponsored healthcare, we assume as a former Bain official that he has some decent economic ideas. Romney would potentially be a great Treasury secretary. McCain will have the toughest problem on economic issues; and he's going to have to do a lot of damage control to repair the incredibly stupid admission that he "Doesn't know that much - but has Greenspan's book...". At least he's a hawk on spending. He'll need to get some old-time religion on tax policy to beef up his bona fides.

Trade

Republicans have always been the party of free trade; even Mr. Clinton embraced NAFTA. I think it's appropriate at this time though, to be prepared to broaden the discussion a bit. The days of "fast-track" authority on trade agreements for the executive branch are gone and won't be returning any time soon. Any agreements that are made in the future are going to require bipartisan support, and I'm not sure this is a bad thing. Now, I'm a long way from my ECON classes in college/grad school, but I read recently that the theory of comparative advantage may need to be tweaked somewhat. I think that the last 15-20 years have also shown us that there are winners and losers from free trade, and that U.S. workers are not necessarily on the winning end in most cases (compared to U.S. consumers who most assuredly are). Republicans need to understand this, and work to help shrink the skills gap that emerges as unskilled labor flees offshore. While this most certainly means increased spending, the longer term increases in revenues from an increased salary base (resulting from a more skilled labor pool) should provide an appropriate return - look what happened after WWII with the G.I. Bill.

Also falling into the Trade category, is the concept of federal subsidies. This, as with many other topics is inextricably tied to spending. The subsidies for farmers that we've passed over the last 2 decades are shameful. Something like 80% of farm subsidy dollars go to corporate mega-farming operations (think ADM, Tyson, etc.) and to "family" farm operations with annual incomes in the millions of dollars. We're also in constant trouble with world trade organizations because of these subsidies, and for Democrats who consider themselves the protectors of the poor, these subsidies directly harm poor farmers in other nations who do not share our economic and technological advantages. In a similar vein, the Republican candidate has to work to kill Ethanol subsidies. If it can compete with oil, then let it sink or swim on its own merit. Same for sugar (one of the more egregious subsidies out there).

Energy

Here's an area where we really need to depart from "politics as usual". We cannot ignore what has happened with fossil fuels in the last 4 years. Global demand is surging, as a burgeoning middle-class in India and China have moved from an agrarian subsistence to an urban one. We need original ideas, that focus on both the supply and demand sides of the equation. On the supply side, we need to look at common-sense approaches to opening new areas (ANWR, offshore) to exploration. We need to look at ways to helping expand refinery capacity. We need a plan to counter Chinese influence in Africa to help lock up trade agreements with these newly found centers of oil wealth. Ethanol may play a role in our energy policy. If so, let's drop tariffs on Ethanol imports; let the domestic players compete as they can, but drop the damn subsidies. We need to embrace nuclear power - this needs to be centerpiece of the policy. Europe has been deploying nuclear safely for over 40 years; we need to get by the fear and understand that it's an effective way to generate power.

I'm not a huge fan of targeting a single industry (automobile), but a minor increase in CAFE standards seems appropriate. The Republican nominee needs to take a stand against California's "rogue" plan for legislating automobile efficiency - state rights don't trump the EPA. It might be appropriate to increase the gas tax; it has held steady at (I believe) 18.4 cents/gallon for 25 years. God knows we need the infrastructure investment. And yes, I realize the inconsistency with my normal anti-tax message - but here's an issue that cries out for bipartisan solutions, and increasing the gas tax isn't wholly regressive (unlike say, increasing the cigarette tax).

Finally, tax policies need to favor investment in alternative energy sources (wind, geothermal, battery technology, etc.). We need to harness the entrepreneurial engine of our economy and challenge them to come up with new ideas. Proper incentives will help spur this investment.

National Security

A Republican candidate needs a plan for Iraq. It doesn't necessarily have to involve an exit, but it certainly needs to address the inability of the Iraqi government to hit certain milestones. Again, in the interest of full-disclosure, I'm against the war, but for a different reason than most. I'm not morally opposed to it, although I think in general that the American public has lost it's stomach for war. I'm opposed to war because of the cost, and the fact that there doesn't seem to be an end in sight. A Republican candidate must understand that while the surge is working, it's not a long-term strategy, and eventually we'll start cycling home those additional soldiers. I think we need to define an acceptable security presence and start radically reducing the U.S. footprint.

We need to categorically disavow torture. The Bush administration has diminished us greatly by refusing to do so, and this needs to be addressed. We must regain the moral high-ground in this argument. It's OK to give everyone from the previous administration a "get out of jail free card" on the past, but from this point forward it stops. On a similar note, we need to close Guantanamo. Give the detainees access to lawyers, and let's get the process rolling. It needs to be closed down in the first 2 years of the next president's term.

Finally, we need to start rolling back some of the powers accrued to the executive branch over the past 8 years. We need to repeal major versions of the Patriot act, an assault on civil liberties that would make Stalin happy. I don't care if Osama Bin Laden himself is calling me at home, you better by God have a FISA warrant before you wiretap my phone. We need to move beyond a culture of secrecy, and embrace transparency. We need to quit using signing statements to reinterpret the laws that our representatives pass on our behalf.

We need to communicate to the American people the balance that must be struck between civil liberties and convenience, and protecting our citizenry. Nothing is free, but we are perhaps, paying too high a price for safety now. In any case, we need to broaden the debate and make it public. I know that I'd be willing to give up some protection to make flying bearable again - there are others who'd disagree with me, but we should have the debate!

Immigration

Personal disclosure time - I'm all about fairness. When I was a kid, my younger brother was diagnosed as being allergic to, well basically everything. What this meant was that he got an allergy shot every week and a free pass when it came to yard work as he couldn't be around cut grass. I never got over the fact that I still had to do my share of the work, while he sat inside watching TV. I've carried this fairness doctrine around my whole life, so, naturally when I see any immigration plan that doesn't deport anyone who's here illegally, or punish employers who hired these illegals, I get righteous about it.

However... Trying to address immigration by departing approximately 13 million people is about as practical as a fish on a bicycle. It ain't gonna happen, and Republicans on the far right (Tom Tancredo) need to get over it. McCain endorsed a bipartisan plan that called for illegals to:

• Return home
• Pay a substantial fine

Only then would they receive a shot at citizenship. This seems reasonable - it ain't perfect, but it's reasonable. Look, the Republican candidate cannot afford to alienate the hispanic vote. They're a natural constituency - conservative and religious, and they represent an increasing percentage of the electorate in more states than you'd imagine. The proper immigration policy can go a long way to locking these voters up for a generation, especially if a Republican president leads the way.

Immigration needs to be controlled. A national ID card is probably worth pursuing, as is English as a national language. The ID card plays well with the Security crowd, and I can't understand those opposed to the English language argument, so push it.

Immigration is important for our country. Our birth rates have fallen for the last quarter century. We need immigrants to replenish the workforce as the baby boomers retire. Immigrants also will increasingly take service sector jobs in healthcare that assist in caring for our aging population. We need a guest worker program that accepts the imbalances that exist in certain wage sectors. We need to work with our neighbors (Mexico) to help them address the corruption and economic problems that force their citizens to flee to opportunities in the U.S. And yes, we do need to secure the border, but let's do it as part of a comprehensive reform package, not as some prerequisite for reform.

That's the illegal side. Now, let's chat briefly about the legal side, specifically H1visas that allow high-tech workers to come into the country to work. Every year, these are exhausted quickly, and papers like the Wall Street Journal consistently align with companies like Microsoft, etc to increase the number of these visas due to perceived shortages in these high-skilled positions. Gotta tell you, having been in high-tech for almost 25 years, this is pure bullshit. The reason we love the H1 visas is that we can pay those workers less money than our own citizens. Most of these people are not employed directly by U.S. companies, rather they are hired by foreign consultancies with a U.S. presence who then provide them as contract personnel to U.S. firms at a fraction of the hourly cost charged by their native counterparts.

I realize this is somewhat of an anti-business argument, but I lived through the dot-com implosion of 2001, and I know that hiring never really recovered in high-tech, and I've always felt that we could do a better job protecting our own high-tech workers. Let's have a plan for providing tax relief/credits/incentives for retraining and rehiring U.S. high-tech workers. I feel very strongly about this.

Healthcare

Something has to give here. I fear the rising populist cry for government-sponsored care. As of this writing, a $14 billion plan for universal care was shot down in California. The reason? It costs too damn much. States are (mostly) required to balance their budgets. Most of them cannot come up with ways to reconcile the cost of these universal plans without debilitating tax increases to pay for them. Even (state) Democrats realize that the magnitude of the required tax burden would kill growth as surely as the red-shirted guy in a Star Trek landing party.

The feds have no such balanced budget requirement (see the deficit of the last 8 years), and will show no restraint whatsoever in order to pass Universal healthcare, the Holy Grail of liberals - call it the New, New Deal. The Republican candidate will really have his work cut out for him here. He will need a great set of advisors to come up with a free-market approach to help counter the Democratic plan. Personally, I loved the plan that Bush touted last year about giving $15K deductions for healthcare to families to account for the benefit received by workers. Fundamentally, I feel healthcare needs to:

• Be personal - not free, and not necessarily employee-sponsored. I'd much prefer an additional $10-15K in income and be responsible for purchasing my own insurance than having my company do it on my behalf. You can bet that under such a system people will become more price-conscious pretty quickly
• Be portable - although if it's personal, it's portable by definition
• Be competitive - we need to get rid of the restrictions that don't allow selling of policies across state lines. This allows states to dictate benefit terms which drive up prices. If I don't need chiropractic care, I shouldn't be forced to buy a policy that includes it. New Jersey has some of the highest mandated coverage requirements in the country; I guess an average policy is around $7500/year. Why shouldn't an individual in NJ be able to buy a policy from, say, Wyoming if it provides the appropriate coverage for his/her situation
• Provide a catastrophic backstop. Some small payroll tax could be levied to provide catastrophic (last resort) illness/injury insurance, which would help keep prices down for certain user-populations
• Provide coverage for children. With limits. SCHIP is a good program, and I believe that the income limits set by the federal government are good ones, but we may need to be flexible here.

Whew!

Well, 3200 words later, I'm all talked out. I don't expect everyone to agree with what I've advised here, but remember, I'm trying to frame the issues for someone like a John McCain to take on someone like a Hillary Clinton. Personally, I feel that if Obama gets the Democratic nomination, the Republicans could run Jesus Christ and lose. At least Hillary is beatable; a polarizing figure with huge negatives. If nothing else, it sure as hell won't be boring!

The joy of flying...

So, I'm writing this post from the lovely Manchester, NH airport. The reason I'm writing the post is because I find myself with time to write a post. In fact, I've got enough frickin' time to start War and Peace if I want; probably finish the damn thing too. Now, I'm not what you'd call a road warrior. I travel very infrequently, in fact, I try to pick jobs that require me to travel less than 5% or none at all. What this means is that I don't really understand the ins and outs of flying the way that people who do this stuff for a living do. Here's what I do know:

Flying sucks.

I know, most of you are saying, "Duh - just figure that out didya"? Well, you're right of course. Every time I've flown in the last 5 years, though, something has pretty much gone wrong. I guess the real problem I have is that it doesn't have to be this way. See, we've all heard the horror stories about people stranded on a jet on the runway for hours with no water, no clean bathrooms, etc. Ultimately, these sorts of delays are inevitable, and are in large part due to anachronistic rules that penalize common-sense behaviors and an even greater anachronism embodied by our Air-Traffic Control (ATC) infrastructure. I've read lots of articles in the past year as airline service and delays have worsened, and basically they all say that we're now paying the price for the antiquated ATC with rationing by delay. Quick aside, this is one sort of outcome we'll migrate to if we institute some form of nationalized healthcare - ask a Canadian how long s/he has to wait for a (routine in the U.S.) hip-replacement operation - but we digress.

See, the paralysis of our government to actually do something about the ATC is cause nobody wants to be the one to spend the money modernizing it. It'll run well into the billions, and with a democratic Congress, you can bet there will be snowball fights in hell before we privatize things; so we're pretty much stuck with the current system until:

1. Service becomes so shitty that somebody loses/wins an election based on the state of air travel
2. Some catastrophic accident is laid at the feet of government - nothing mobilizes spending like disaster (see Katrina)

So, we're pretty much stuck with the structural problems that exist because we'd rather spend money financing pork-barrel projects in Congressional districts and other worthless tripe. And hey, I'm strangely OK with it (numb is probably a better term), cause air travel pretty much sucks for everyone - I don't think anybody is making out on this. Here's my problem. Whenever something does go wrong, there's just a complete breakdown of anything resembling efficient and genuine communications from the airline employees. I'm sitting here now, cause, as near as I can figure based on information from the gate attendant:

"There's some sort of mechanical problem, and the dipshit pilot won't let anybody but a United Airlines (UA) mechanic address the problem. And, the only UA mechanics are in Boston. And Boston is approximately 90 minutes away. Oh, and it's snowing. Good luck, and thanks for choosing United."

Really not very satisfactory is it? An the whole "I need a UA mechanic" just drips with stupidity doesn't it? Either the pilot is a dumbass (and believe me, I don't have a huge amount of respect for these guys anymore), or there is some sort of equally dumbass rule in place that requires a UA mechanic. The subtle subtext to this is that the maintenance that seems to be needed is apparently pretty routine; I'm mean we're not talking about replacing a tail assembly.

Now, to their credit, the Gate guys are doing a pretty good job. They're helping to rebook connecting flights, but right now, none of us has any real idea about the outcome of this first leg of our journey (nobody flies UA out of Manchester to their ultimate destination). I mean, somebody has to know whether or not this flight is going to be canceled, or at least the probability of a cancelation. It's this assault on common-sense that's so frustrating, and usually (not, thankfully in this case), it's accompanied by a startling lack of civility on the part of the airline employees.

So, I'll probably sit here for 2-3 more hours, having rebooked by Chicago-Seattle connection at least one more time. I may even have to return home if the flight is ultimately canceled, but obviously nobody will tell us that for hours. Guess it could be worse, I could be stuck on the plane on the runway with no water, two screaming kids, and overflowing toilets...

Blogging Fun...

So, I was looking for a blogging client application for the Mac. As you're aware, my blogs are hosted on Google's Blogger application site. I had been spoiled by the Windows Live Writer application (for PC's only) by Microsoft. Now, as a general rule, other than their developer tools and MS-SQL server, I don't really think about Microsoft as writing particularly compelling software, but I gotta give 'em some props here. The Live Writer application is quite simply the best blogging client I've worked with, and believe me, I've seen a ton over the last week.

I'm not going to critique every application I've tried, but I will say that there's nothing on the Mac that even approaches the Microsoft offering. It's intuitive, provides a great editing (WYSIWYG) environment, and is extremely compatible with various blogging platforms. Setup is a dream, and publishing is a snap. I'll never abandon the Mac for personal use, but I'm definitely looking forward to an Intel-based system that will allow me to run Windows so that I can get back to using Live Writer!

I finally settled on Ecto for the Mac. It's pretty nice, and provides a reasonable blogging implementation. In particular, what really swayed me was its ability to embed pictures for Blogger. Apparently this is hard (God only knows why) and other blogging clients just "punt" on this feature, or you have to jump through so many hoops that it would be easier to just do the damn blog on the web to begin with. In any case, if you're looking for a Mac blogging client, I'm gonna have to say that Ecto leads the pack at this point. Briefly, it offers:

• A good Rich Text editor
• The ability to edit HTML directly if needed
• The ability to embed images (import from disk, iPhoto, or Flickr) for Blogger
• Nice posting management interface - delete posts locally and on the server
• At about $18.00, a compelling price

All-in-all, a pretty nifty package that's growing on me the more I use it. Quickly, here are some of the other Mac clients that I investigated - any one of them may be better for you.

Journler - primarily a journaling application, this also provides Blogging support, but if it works (and it doesn't often), it's not very robust, and, they're dropping blogging support in the next release. Really nice journaling application though.

Mars Edit - probably a blogging client for real power-users. Mostly wants you to use HTML editing to author your posts. Has some nice features, but just not easy enough for me to use. I have basic needs for blogging and this felt like hunting rabbits with an elephant gun. More than I could handle.

Mac Journal - another journaling tool, and pretty damn decent blogging support. I would have chosen this one due to the combination of an excellent journaling application and a blogging client, but for one reason: I couldn't for the life of me figure out how to embed pictures in the blog posts, and the support forum didn't seem to want to tell me how either, even though a lotta people seemed to have the same problems.

So, thought I'd dump this out there for anyone who's looking for a Mac blogging client. On the Windows side, you can't go wrong with Live Writer - highest recommendation from me.

People I really dislike...

Today I thought I'd take a break from political discussion and have a little fun. Frankly I'm too tired to start into a post about the "Issues as I See 'Em", and what I'm about to do I've been thinking about for some time. See, I've decided to do a column about people I'd like to hit. I'll follow it up with a "people I respect" column, but first, let's get the bad guys outta the way. Please note that I'm pretty much bipartisan in my loathing of the individuals you're about to meet. There are basically assholes on the right and left, and I'm not someone to let 'em off the hook just cause I skew a bit conservative. If I had to generalize about the unlikability (I made that word up) of either end of the political spectrum, I'd have to say that liberals are annoying geeks (think "Revenge of the Nerds" without the comedy), and conservatives are bullies (think Biff in "Back to the Future"). So, without any further ado, my list of least likable people...

______________________________________________

Paul Krugman - New York Times opinion page columnist. This uber-liberal economist really makes me wanna scream. His prescription for every problem facing America today is more government, more taxes, more spending. One of the leading proponents of nationalized healthcare, he praises Europe for extensive "social safety net". A trained economist, has had some legendary showdowns with Bill O'Reilly which are quite comical. Writes a blog, The Conscience of a Liberal which is sort of a long-running screed for increased government intervention/regulation. To his credit, he's a really smart guy, with some genuinely interesting views - I just can't tolerate his smug, I'm smarter than you are, attitude. I'm betting he got his lunch money stolen a lot as a kid - hell, I want to beat him up and take his lunch money now. As much as I disagree with his policies however, he is one of the guys I read just about every day. As a general rule I can't tolerate him on TV, but he does a nice job of arguing the liberal agenda, and he's certainly not as strident as the MoveOn.org crowd.

Bill O'Reilly - Fox news anchor. This guy is fascinating, it's like watching Jerry Springer on crystal meth. His show is surreal, but like a car wreck, strangely fascinating. O'Reilly pretty much has one decibel level (loud) and it's generally being used to harangue some poor "guest" who's hopelessly trying to make a counterpoint. I often find myself wondering whether or not this guy really believes the tripe he's serving - I mean, nobody can be this gonzo, this far out there, right? My hope is that this is just a ploy to keep the idiots tuning in every week. He has made gobs of money with his books and merchandise (No Spin - right), and It saddens me to think that he's still (I believe) the highest rated "news" show on cable. Doesn't say much for the heartland. But, it's like something I heard once - "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public"

Rush Limbaugh - Right-wing talk-radio political pundit and gas-bag. Another guy who's helping make conservatism a dirty word. I mean it's no wonder that north of 40% of people self-identify as Democrats when asked when Limbaugh's out there spouting his vitriolic bullshit. During the 2006 interim elections, he indicated that Michael J. Fox might have been faking his condition to garner sympathy for stem-cell research. What an ass. It was demeaning to anyone affected by Parkinson's (full disclosure, my grandfather suffered from it as well). Anyway, there's a point in the movie WarGames, when Dr. John McKittrick (Dabney Coleman) calls General Beringer (Barry Corbin), a "pig-eyed sack of shit". I've always felt that this was prescient and written with Limbaugh in mind

George Soros - another extreme liberal. A chief player (contributor ~$5 million) behind MoveOn.org. Of all the guys mentioned in this blog, this guy's the one I want to hit the most. He reminds me most of Mel Brooks' Governor Lepetomane character in Blazing Saddles. I'm pretty sure that at some point a young George Bush stole a young George Soros' lunch money (and his prom date) (and yes, I know they're not contemporaries, but the visual is nice). There's little I can say about this guy. With a liberal like Krugman (see above), at least there's a modicum of respect there, you know. With Soros, it's just a visceral dislike.

Bill Belichick - a mishapen little toad of a man with no tact or tolerance; an arrogant prick. Responsible for destroying the Cleveland Browns franchise, then proclaimed a genius after achieving (not inconsiderable) success with the New England Patriots. In the process, screwed over the New York Jets. This guy, I really hate, and I mean that in the Biblical sense. I'd like to see him get herpes and the crabs. There's nothing worse than being a Browns fan and watching this guy get the results he's had AND have to live in New England; it's like I'm stuck in some special circle of hell that Dante didn't write about because it was too painful. Oh, and he cheats.

OK - so these guys are at the top of the "I don't like 'em" list. Honorable mention goes to:

1. Sean Hannity
2. Tom Brady
3. Arianna Huffington
4. Hillary Clinton
5. Tom Tancredo
6. Al Sharpton
7. Jesse Jackson