Monday, May 08, 2006

The Ultimate Gadgets then...


If you remember what the first mobile phone looked like (11.5 pounds with a carrying case) or the first mass-market floppy-disk (the 360 KB 5.25" diskette stored within a paper sleeve), you'll get a kick out of a gallery of Gadgets now and then over at Fosfor.

Hey, does anyone know where I can download Windows drivers for my Verbatim 8" 2S/2D disks? I've still got some good stuff stored on those from the early eighties.

And an Ultimate Gadget now


The invaluable Engadget site describes the device that combines the functionality of keyboard and mouse into a single entity. Sounds silly, right? In fact, it's not. The keyboard splits into left-hand and right-hand section. The right-hand section can be rolled, just like a mouse, to save time and energy:

Their concept is quite simple: reduce the repetitive and arduous task of moving your hand from keyboard to mouse and back again a few thousand times a day. They accomplish that by splitting the keyboard and making the right half into a full fledged mouse...

Engadget: Combi-mouse

Sunday, May 07, 2006

Using virtualization as anti-virus


The latest tale from the Red Shed describes the use of virtualization software -- VirtualPC in this case, though it could have been VMware -- as an anti-virus platform. One wise commenter notes:

The security mechanism you describe in your article is a form of Mandatory Access Control (MAC). You are effectively defining domains within which your applications must run, and they only have access to the resources in those domains. Even a root user in a Unix VM can’t get access to the application you run in a separate VM. This mechanism strongly contains any accidental or malign activity within the domain of operation in a mandatory way (as opposed to a discretionary way, e.g. Unix file permissions). As such—and as you imply but don’t quite say explicitly in your article—virtualization kicks the ever-loving pants off of traditional antivirus software, vis-a-vis protecting your computer from viruses...

The virus software, in contrast, is doomed to painful and repeated failure because it can only catch what it already knows.


Rentzsch: Using Virtualization as Antivirus

Eyewitnesses to Hiroshima and Nagasaki


The remarkable Damn Interesting site has some fascinating eyewitness accounts of the bombs that ended the brutal war in the Pacific:

The sound of the American planes drew the attention of the city's residents, many of whom were outdoors participating in work programs. A few saw a large parachute unfurl beneath the B-29 before it flew away, but most saw only the flash that soon followed. The events that unfolded that morning on the streets of Hiroshima were recorded by those who survived. These survivors would come to be known as hibakusha– "people exposed to the bomb."

Kids Programming Language to go Open Source


The KPL (Kids Programming Language) will go open-source this summer, according to NewForge. KPL is a freeware development environment, which currently requires Windows. KPL is designed to be a fun way to get kids engaged in software development and concentrates specifically on game construction. Jon Schwartz, creator of KPL, asks the following questions related to the OSS version:

  • What platforms or technologies would you like to see KPL run on?
  • Are you using KPL v1.1 now, on Windows?
  • Are there communities where you could help spread the word about KPL as an open source project?
  • Are you a software developer who would work on KPL if it were open source? What language or technologies would you work with if you are?
  • What open source community or platform would you recommend for KPL v 1.1 as an open source project?

KPL

Friday, May 05, 2006

Bonfire of the Monopolists


In most places around the country, consumers are limited to zero, one or two choices for broadband connections to the Internet. I, for example, live in a metro area and have two choices: DSL from the phone company and cable from -- er -- my cable provider. My neighbors to the north have exactly one choice for broadband: DSL.

And with the mergers among the carriers, we're down to two telephone companies and a handful of cable operators. Which doesn't leave anyone interested in competition with a warm and fuzzy feeling.

The Carriers: Dedicated to Reducing Choice


The market for last-mile services might have been more competitive had the carriers not spent significant time and capital fighting municipal wi-fi or, for that matter, spending more on lobbyists than on application R&D.

In point of fact, the telcos have spent most of their energy attempting to reduce choice for last-mile services, even down to battling the city of New Orleans over its deployment of WiFi during the Katrina reconstruction.

We must also ask ourselves why the carriers spend so much on lobbyists and lawyers rather than value-creating applications like Skype, YouTube, and Vonage? The answer is that the carriers believe they can magically legislate value-creation by exterminating net neutrality and erecting tollbooths all over the Internet. And, of course, they are wrong.

Meanwhile, Cisco and other networking vendors are hawking hardware to the carriers that is utterly ominous in nature. It appears designed to analyze, block, filter, meter, and otherwise meddle with Internet traffic to financially benefit the carriers. In fact, they almost come right out and giggle over the capability of degrading applications that are competitive to the carriers' offerings.

Democracy versus Communism


And, yet, somehow the "let the free market decide" crew over at Townhall believes that this is a Democrat vs. Republican issue. Someone has convinced a few of these folks that letting the carriers destroy the current state of neutrality is a good thing.

Despite the attempts to portray it as such, this is not a Democrat vs. GOP issue. It is a Democracy versus Communism issue. Do we want the continued invention of thousands of new, diverse applications like Skype, Google, and Vonage? Or do we want a centralized planning committee at the carriers' headquarters to decide which startups live or die?

Plenty of conservatives -- from the Gun Owners of America, to Right Wing News, Instapundit, etc. -- support net neutrality. And more are joining the cause every day.

It's easy to see why. When net neutrality was violated in Canada recently, the results weren’t pretty. In that case, a telco blocked access to a political website whose views ran counter to its opinions. Consider that for just a moment.

Furthermore, such an environment destroys innovation. Even today, with a political landscape that seems to favor the carriers' stance, innovation has stalled. Stifel Nicolaus, an analyst quoted in Business Week, stated, "Right now, I would never invest in a business model that depended on protection from Net neutrality."

So who will fund the next great Internet idea? The answer is: no one. The result of killing off neutrality will be more censorship, less innovation, and will place America's Internet leadership position at risk.

The fathers of the Internet say...


The current state of the Internet -- the one that has resulted in such immense value creation -- is network neutrality. What the telcos are supporting is the extermination of neutrality and neutering the FCC's ability to enforce it.

Bob Kahn (co-inventor of TCP/IP), Vint Cerf (Godfather of the Internet), and Tim Berners-Lee (inventor of the web) all favor network neutrality. But I suppose the telco lobbyists know more about the network then they do.

America's leadership in Internet innovation (and, by extension, its national security) hangs in the balance. Go to SaveTheInternet.com today and take action.

Thursday, May 04, 2006

50-Year Mortgage Debuts in California


Have your eye on a nice new pad in Brentwood? It may yet be affordable, if you qualify for a new mortgage product: a 50-year note. Make the first payment and then think to yourself:

"Only 599 more payments - and this baby is all mine!"

Six dollars a gallon


Gas PumpHappy with gas prices now? Perhaps you should be:

...Imagine another terrorist attack — especially one on Saudi Arabian oil refineries, former CIA Director R. James Woolsey said Monday during a visit to Pittsburgh.

If terrorists took out the sulfur-cleaning towers in northeastern Saudi Arabia, as described in the beginning of Robert Baer’s book, “Sleeping With the Devil,” crude oil prices could easily top $150 a barrel and stay there for more than a year, Woolsey said.

A barrel of oil sold for about $73 yesterday, with gas prices in the United States hovering around $3 a gallon.

Most Americans don’t want to think about paying double that.

And exactly how did we get in this situation?

Both parties have contributed to excessive fuel usage by failing to raise minimum fuel-efficiency standards and promoting gas-guzzling SUVs.

But it is the Democrats who have blocked the construction of new refineries for decades. As recently as yesterday, they decried legislation to speed refinery construction as "weakening environmental protections and [creating] new layers of bureaucracy."

It is the Democrats who have blocked offshore drilling for oil and natural gas in the Gulf of Mexico and in the outer continental shelf.

It is the Democrats who have blocked ANWR for over a decade (if Bill Clinton had permitted it then, oil would be flowing today). If all of ANWR were a football field, the drilling area represents less than the size of a postage stamp.

It is the Democrats who have blocked development of peaceful nuclear energy, despite new and safe ways to build reactors and treat waste.

It is the Democrats who have blocked even the construction of windmills!

No refineries? No offshore drilling? No ANWR? No nuclear energy? No windmills?

It is the Democrats' history of obstructionism that is responsible for our current energy prices.

Remember that the next time the Mediacrats howl about high gas prices, oil company profits, and the administration. Their obstructionism is the real cause, as clear as day.

Wednesday, May 03, 2006

Financial sector awakens to net neutrality issues


CableWhen the Harvard Business School writes its next case-study of public relations campaigns gone awry, they would do well to use the lesson of the carriers and network neutrality. For never has so much capital -- in this case, many tens of millions of dollars -- been utterly wasted through a series of outrageous PR gaffes.
  • Ed Whitacre, erstwhile Godfather CEO of SBC/AT&T, excretes a series of threats at value-creating application providers like Google and Vonage

  • Williams Smith, CTO of Bellsouth/AT&T, blathers about similar brain-damaged schemes: charging Yahoo to load faster than Google, for example. And never mind about an innovative startup with a radical new search scheme - they'll now never even get kick-started with venture money.

  • The leadership at Internet2 -- the high-speed, next-generation network backbone -- publicly worries about content-providers dealing with varying standards
Now the financial services industry -- a sleeping giant with lobbying power to spare -- has been aroused:

The U.S. financial sector, a powerful force in Washington, may be gearing up to jump into a Capitol Hill fight over the future of the Internet and stop an effort it says could add billions in costs just to maintain current offerings...

...they may wait for legislation to get to conference, where House and Senate negotiators work out differences between their bills.

In that environment of closed-door bargaining, banks and credit unions may be able to secure the Net neutrality language they seek, industry lobbyists say.

The National Association of Federal Credit Unions, America's Community Bankers, American Bankers Association and Independent Community Bankers of America, among other financial lobbyists, say they are monitoring the issue.

Bottom line: every business is at risk.

If you care about the future of the Internet, surf over to SaveTheInternet.com and take action. Today.

Tuesday, May 02, 2006

Net neutrality missing from Senate's telecom bill


The egregious Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) -- architect of the $200+ million bridge to nowhere -- released the long-awaited update to current telecomm law with a paean to the telcos. Missing, as expected, was any mention of network neutrality. Many in Congress -- GOP as well as certain key Democrats -- are as addicted to telco money as the typical teen is to MTV.

What the telcos and cable companies have spent tens of millions of dollars on (the best Congress money can buy?) is to change from the current state of FCC-enforced neutrality to no neutrality. In the proposed law, the FCC has no right to discipline the carriers for favoring content-providers.

Many commentators speculate that this omission will result in an Internet with three tiers of service:

1) Those content-providers (e.g., Google) that won't pay extra tarriffs and will run slow or, perhaps, not at all.
2) Content-providers (e.g., Yahoo) who decide to pay the packet-protection money and run with some quality-of-service (QoS) guaranteed.
3) New applications created by the carriers ("AT&T's SuperSearch!") that compete with content providers, with will run even faster.

In fact, Cisco's marketing lit for their new carrier hardware almost comes right out and guffaws over metering, filtering, degrading and/or blocking competitive network traffic.

Ever wonder why the telcos seem to spend more on lobbyists than inventing cool applications like Vonage and Skype? Now you know.

BusinessWeek said it perfectly last week: “…Blair Levin, analyst with Stifel Nicolaus: “Right now, I would never invest in a business model that depended on protection from Net neutrality…”

So the effect of the carriers’ activities is clear: it is already stifling Internet investment.

Get over to Save The Internet now... and do your part.

Monday, May 01, 2006

Judiciary Committee begins work on network neutrality


The House Judiciary Committee has opened a new front on the battle for network neutrality:

Two House Democrats are drafting a bill designed to impose antitrust penalties on broadband-access providers that attempt to demand fees from Web-content providers in exchange for priority treatment of their search, shopping and information-retrieval services. The legislation, still in draft form, is being developed by Reps. Rick Boucher (D-Va.) and Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), members of the Judiciary Committee.

And Russell Shaw, blogging at ZDnet, describes the cost of decimating network neutrality in human terms. Immerse yourself in the hot-tub of wisdom - and read the whole thing.

Google introduces Arabic to English translation tool


It's in beta, of course. I can't help but think of the ramifications for those responsible for our national security. Google Translate - Arabic-to-English Beta.

Sunday, April 30, 2006

We wouldn't want to stifle innovation, would we?


Here's telco lobbyist Walter McCormick, Jr. -- head of the U.S. Telecom Association -- speaking to lawmakers recently on the topic of network neutrality :

Our industry has stated that it will not block, impair or degrade consumer access to the Internet, and the FCC has made it clear that it has the authority to enforce its broadband principles... Therefore, we believe that legislation in the area is premature. Any grants of new regulatory authority or statutory ambiguities could chill innovation and investment.

We wouldn't want to chill innovation and investment, would we? Unfortunately, McCormick's logic has all the intellectual rigor of an Art Schlicter ethics class.

Instead, there's pretty clear evidence emerging that the telcos' plans to eradicate neutrality are already stifling Internet innovation:

...Blair Levin, analyst with Stifel Nicolaus: "Right now, I would never invest in a business model that depended on protection from Net neutrality,"

The only innovation-destroying aspect to this whole debacle is the telcos' unwillingness to invest more in R&D than on lobbyists.

Let's remember Mr. McCormick's promises -- along with his sudden inability to articulate his bold statements as proposed law.

Hollywood Reporter: Walter McCormick's Promise

Book Review: Shadow Divers

Amateur wreck-divers risk it all to solve a WWII mystery

Shadow DiversHaving received a tip from some local fishermen, deep-wreck diving operator Bill Nagle leads a rag-tag, amateur crew to a location off the coast of New Jersey. They expect the typical salvage operation - perhaps a boat that went down a few hundred years ago carrying something of value: collectibles or, better yet, treasure.

Instead, this bunch of would-be explorers is utterly stunned when they discover what's located just beyond the limit of their diving ability: it's a Nazi U-Boat from World War II. Because all U-Boats were accounted for after the war, the nature of the sub is utterly mysterious. Which U-Boat was it? And what could have been its mission, operating this close to the US coast?

Amateur deep-sea divers John Chatterton and one-time rival Rich Kohler partner to solve a mystery of extraordinary proportions. Experts tell them the sub doesn't exist. And without any identifying material, no one will believe the discovery is legitimate. Because of the age of the wreck, virtually all identifying marks have been wiped clean. Complicating matters further is the sub's depth. At 230 feet, it is at the absolute limit of even the most experienced diver.

As Chatterton and Kohler pursue the true nature of the wreck, danger colors every aspect of their work. Multiple team members will die over the years they spend seeking the sub's origin. And only the most hair-raising operation imaginable will allow the key questions to be answered. Circumnavigating the globe to discover the truth, Chatterton and Kohler's quest resonates with deep respect for the wreck and the sailors who served on the sub.

Simply put, adventure stories don't get any better than this. Better yet, this tale is true... and breath-taking in its intensity.

Saturday, April 29, 2006

Book Review: Devil in the White City

True story of matchless beauty and unspeakable evil

The World's Fair of 1893 was inarguably an inflection point in the United States' ascent from backwater territory to leader among nations. After all, the prior World's Fair, hosted by Paris in 1889, had unveiled France's gift to the world: the Eiffel Tower. Public sentiment widely anticipated that no country could match the smashing success of Paris. Public sentiment was wrong.

While many U.S. cities vied for the honor of the World's Fair, Chicago won out - beating New York, Philadelphia and Washington. Within months, Daniel Burnham and partner Charles Root, the leading Chicago architects of the day, transformed the lakeshore at Jackson Park into a spectacular and sparkling white city of the future. Clean water, electric lights, with a dedicated police-force and fire-squad. Rising from the lake were some of the largest and most ambitious buildings ever created, garnished with landscaping provided by the foremost designers of the day. And the park was capped by a singular, centerpiece attraction that would shock the world.

While Burnham was bringing his vision to life, another man -- Dr. H. H. Holmes -- was orchestrating a much darker plan. His large hotel, located near the fair, was a veritable house of horrors. Taking advantage of his prime location, Holmes advertised specifically to young, unescorted female visitors to the fair. After the event, hundreds of girls were reported missing. How many Holmes was responsible for is still unknown.

The fair attracted tens of millions of other visitors in its few short months of operation. Among them were Thomas Edison, Woodrow Wilson, Helen Keller, Houdini, Tesla, Clarence Darrow, Paderewski, Susan B. Anthony, Teddy Roosevelt and Lillian Russell. Its inventions were numerous: the first-ever electric kitchen (including dishwasher), instant pancakes, Juicy Fruit gum, Cracker Jack, Shredded Wheat, Pabst Blue Ribbon Beer and the vertical filing system. And the fair also had longer-term ramifications: Elias Disney, Walt's father, helped build the "White City" and was a primary inspiration for DisneyWorld. Frank Baum's city of Oz was undoubtedly influenced by the Fair as well.

Weaving the twin storylines together, Larson has masterfully retold a story most Americans never learned: the transformation of the United States through a singular event, glimpsed through a prism tinted with both remarkable creativity and unspeakable destruction.

Friday, April 28, 2006

It's an election year... and the entire U.S. wants net neutrality*


BellWest Network Neutrality
Click the picture for a cool video explaining net neutrality

Hmmm... two thousand four... plus two... carry the one.... yes, by golly, it is an election year. Perhaps these GOP jackasses (c'mon, you know I love you) can get off the telcos' dole for a day and side with the rest of entire U.S. population:

With midterm elections looming, GOP leaders will come under increasing pressure to make a choice. Will they continue to back their few phone and cable industry supporters and keep the open Internet safeguards off the table? Or will they recognize that a genuine digital-age protest movement is emerging that could further harm their party's chances in November? The next few weeks will reveal whether the "smart mobs" can win over a tiny handful of communications monopolists.

Here's another great snippet. TechSearch asks the question, "Is AT&T $1 Million Contribution An Illegal Payoff?" I've heard of shady-sounding deals before, but this may be #2 after only Mollohan:

AT&T certainly knows how to spend its money wisely. It's donated $1 million to fund the pet project of a Congressman who has vowed to back a law letting AT&T and other telcos hijack the Internet. Is the contribution an illegal payoff?

The Chicago Sun Times reports that AT&T has donated $1 million to a community center founded by Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.). Rush is a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, which is writing telecom law that would give AT&T everything telcos want, from killing net neutrality, to letting telcos establish municipal video franchises without government oversight.

Gosh, that smells funny.

Ever wonder why the telcos spend so much on lobbyists rather than, oh I don't know, value-creating new applications like Skype and Vonage? For the love of...

And don't think for a second that killing net neutrality isn't a huge issue. It has already happened in Canada and the results weren't pretty:

In July 2005, Canada’s second largest telephone company, Telus, blocked their customers from visiting a website sympathetic to the Telecommunications Workers Union as management was in the midst of a contentious labor dispute.

Without network neutrality, the network owners like Verizon and Comcast will have a powerful incentive to manipulate the network to enhance their own search engines, video streaming archives, online shopping portals, blogging engines, and voice-over-Internet services. To get the same quality of service, a company like Google, Yahoo, Vonage or Amazon will be forced to pay a premimum. The barriers to entry for the next generation of Internet innovators will rise. Those who refuse or cannot afford to pay will be left in the slow lane.

So what we have here is the entire left and right sides of the blogosphere teaming up against one foe: telco management and their lobbyists.

Go to Save the Internet now. And get involved.

Or, you can ignore the situation, and leave the future of the Internet in the hands of the two remaining telephone companies, a couple of cable operators, and their lobbyists. And what could possibly go wrong with that?

* The entire U.S., except for the telcos' management and lobbyists

Finally - someone talks some sense about Oil


The crew at Powerline quotes Congressman Mike Conaway (R-TX), the one sensible voice I've heard thus far:

There is a great hypocrisy in America's national energy policy. As long as politicians continue to demagogue energy companies and oppose legislation that addresses the long-term problem of rising energy costs, we will continue to fail the American people.

Yes, oil companies are making large sums of money in real dollars; however it is disingenuous to simply look at the raw dollar amounts without looking at these numbers in the proper economic context. We need to look at the percent of return these companies are making. In reality the oil and gas industry's earnings are easily comparable to other industries and in many cases lower.

According to Business Week and Oil Daily magazines, the oil and natural gas industry earned 5.7 cents for every dollar of sales compared to an average of 5.5 cents for all U.S. industry over the past five years. By contrast in the third quarter of 2005 the pharmaceuticals industry made a profit of 18.6% per dollar of sales versus 7.6% for the oil and gas industry. The average profit per dollar for all US industries is 7.9%. ***

It is time for Congress to look at the facts. It is the global market place and the law of supply and demand, not greedy oil companies that are responsible for higher prices. The price of a barrel of oil is set by the global market not by multinational energy companies... We must enact legislation that would open ANWR, expand refinery capacity, reduce costly fuel regulation and allow for deep sea exploration. These are long-term issues that could have made a difference today had we avoided political posturing and addressed them years ago. It isn't too late for us to do the right thing now and begin enacting common sense legislation like increasing supply and increasing research and development regarding alternative sources of energy.

We must stop allowing the issue of rising energy costs to be clouded with misinformation and politically motivated emotion.


Can I get an "indeed"?

Update: Make it two voices of reason. Krauthammer gets it right with, "Say it with me, 'Supply and Demand'".

Thursday, April 27, 2006

"The Tony Soprano Model of Networking"


In a vote of 34 to 22, the House Committee on Energy & Commerce rejected a network neutrality amendment to the Communication, Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006. This despite the fact that a bi-partisan groundswell of support for net neutrality has erupted literally overnight.

The SavetheInternet.com coalition includes: Gun Owners of America, MoveOn Civic Action, Craig Newmark of Craigslist, Glenn Reynolds (aka ...Instapundit), Parents Television Council, United Church of Christ, the American Library Association, the Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, Common Cause, Public Knowledge, and other major public interest groups. The coalition is spearheaded by Free Press, a national, nonpartisan group focused on media reform and Internet policy issues...

"The diversity of this coalition underscores the importance of this issue," said Vint Cerf, one of the fathers of the Internet and Google's Chief Internet Evangelist. "When the Internet started, you didn't have to get permission to start companies. You just got on the Net and started your idea."

"It's shocking that the House continues to deny the will of the people on an issue that affects everyone so directly - protecting the free and open Internet," said Eli Pariser, Executive Director of MoveOn.org Civic Action. "Our bipartisan coalition will rally the online community like it's never been rallied before, and together the public will overturn today's enormous blow to the freedom principle that's made the Internet great."

We need your help - so keep reading. Columbia University Professor Tim Wu weighed in with some devastating quotes yesterday:

"...Ninety-four percent of Americans have either zero, one or two choices for broadband access..."

Given the concentration of market power between the telcos and the cable companies, Wu said it was clear AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and other power players could make more money by distorting competition between Internet firms.

"It AT&T can, through implicit threats of degradation, extract a kind of protection money for those with the resources to pay up," Wu said. "It's basically the Tony Soprano model of networking, and while it makes sense for whoever is in a position to make threats, it isn't particularly good for the nation's economy, innovation or consumer welfare."

Wu also explained a little history -- why it's clear the carriers will, if permitted, distort, block and hamper any website that doesn't pay into their little protection racket:

The history... goes as far back as the 1860s, when Western Union, the telegraph monopolist, signed an exclusive deal with the Associated Press. Other wire services were priced-off the network - not blocked, but discriminated against. The result was to build Associated Press into a news monopoly that was not just dangerous for business, but dangerous for American democracy.

...“Western Union had exclusive contracts with the railroads; AP had exclusive contracts with Western Union; and individual newspapers had exclusive contracts with AP. These linkages made it difficult for rival news services to break in." The AP monopoly had an agenda: it didn’t just favor Google or Yahoo - it went as far as to chose politicians it liked and those it didn’t... AP used its Western Union-backed monopoly to influence politics in the late 19th century, even going so far as to exercise censorship on behalf of the State. The method was simple: when faced with messages from disfavored politicians, the wires simply didn’t carry them...

Think a world without network neutrality won't stifle Internet innovation? Think it doesn't endanger America's technology leadership position? It sounds like it's already starting to do so:

Pushing such regulation through will be difficult for the Internet companies, says Blair Levin, analyst with Stifel Nicolaus... "Right now, I would never invest in a business model that depended on protection from Net neutrality," says Levin.

Translation: I won't invest in an Internet startup. Only the big boys can afford the tarriffs.

The telcos don't want brilliant ideas like Skype, or Vonage, or Jajah to survive... they further endanger the telcos' dying, circa-1962 business models. That's why the carriers spend more on lobbyists than on innovative applications.

Go to Save the Internet now. Do your part to preserve Internet neutrality.

Schumer plans to learn Law of Supply and Demand... someday


Egg-cellent snippet from Hugh Hewitt regarding the attack on big oil by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-Moonbatia). That's right, Chuck: ignore the incredible growth in oil demand exemplified by China and India. And ignore the fact that the Democrats' rhetoric has kept U.S. supplies tight by locking up ANWR for a generation (if all of Alaska were a football field, ANWR would be the size of a postage stamp). And let's also ignore the fact that oil prices get the jitter when, oh I don't know, Iran goes nuclear. Lastly, let's set aside the fact that multiple investigations have led to exactly zero assertions of collusion or price fixing. Supply. Demand. It's not real complicated. Unless you're named Chuck Schumer.

"I don't forecast prices of either gasoline or oil," Secretary of Energy Bodman told me at the start of today's show, but he did agree that events in Iran, Venezuala and Nigeria could send oil to prices which would result in $4 a gallon gas.

The key to our conversation was that pricing is out of the hands of the oil companies, and has been for some time. Senator Schumer's grandstanding is an extended display of either economics illiteracy or shameless opportunism, or both, but no matter the source of Schumer's absurd statements, they are another vivid example of the proposition that, no matter what the problem is, the answer can't be more Democrats.

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

Why doesn't President Bush use Powerpoint?


We live in the era of iPod, Xbox, and Web 2.0. And yet, our leaders and politicians act as though they are little removed from the Lincoln-Douglass debates of 1858 in their use of technology. They wear make-up and gesture with rehearsed motions. They utter carefully couched sound-bites. And, in general, they seldom get their messages across.

Hey! This is the age of Powerpoint! Why couldn't they do presentations when they make their case? Here's an imagined speech regarding the need to invade Iraq... accompanied by a presentation:

Saddam Hussein


Many well-meaning -- but otherwise uninformed -- folks have questioned the need to take out Saddam Hussein. At left is Salman Pak in Baghdad. It's a terrorist training camp. On the left side is a Boeing 707, which was used exclusively to train hijackers. Yes, I said hijackers. We don't know how many thousands of terrorists trained here.


Saddam Hussein’s vice president, Taha Yassin Ramadan, is the man responsible for funneling money from Baghdad into the hands of the families of homicide bombers. The check at left was used to pay the family of Fuad Isma’il Ahmad al-Hurani... who blew himself up in a Jerusalem restaurant called the Moment Café. 11 people were killed in that bombing and 52 wounded.


Another Hussein-funded bomber blew up this bus. The little girl pictured at left was one of the victims -- Abigail Litle -- the American daughter of a Baptist Minister killed on March 5, 2003.


So once again... why doesn't President Bush use Powerpoint?

p.s., you can read more about Hussein and terrorism here.