October 31, 2005
Commentary – Libby Indictment
:Two years ago, at the beginning of the investigation into the leaking of a covert CIA operatives name to the press, the President of the United States vowed that he would look into the matter personally and that anyone that was involved in the leak would no longer work at the White House. He later weakened that threat to simply those that committed a crime. Libby’s resignation made the second claim truthful. The President, however, should keep his word and fire two of his leading partners in the administration – adviser Karl Rove and Vice President Dick Cheney.
This investigation has highlighted and undressed the tactics of this administration. Bush’s team rarely has wanted to debate policy. They would rather go for the throat. During the 2000 primaries, after two surprising McCain victories, Rove associates ran a survey in South Carolina that suggested McCain had black children out of wedlock (the truth is that he had adopted the children). In 2004, those same associates created the “Swiftboat Veterans for Truthâ€? ads that were severely lacking in truth. And during the runup to war in Iraq, Wilson’s claim that Bush had lied during the State of the Union address, led this White House to attack Wilson’s wife.
It has become clear that this is the normal operation of this White House. They do not debate. They go for where you are weak and destroy you there. That this time, the White House was dealing with national security did not matter to them. That might serve you well on the campaign trail, it is no way to govern. Libby, unfortunately for him, will be the fall guy. The man that obstructed the investigation enough to keep Fitzgerald from having enough evidence to show that the administration intended to release classified information. But that does not mean the public has to buy it or this President. He knows the same truth that we all do, Rove and Cheney both intended to have this information leaked. Bush should hold to his first promise and send these men packing.
(Filed under: Bush Administration, Commentary, America)
Commentary – A New Supreme Court Choice
:Miers’ withdraw and today’s nomination of Alito was a perfect strategy to change the debate in Washington and bring the Republican base back together. It was clearly orchestrated to happen last week during the indictment scandal so that the White House could air all of its laundry at once. But that does not mean it should not have happened. As this report pointed out on the day of Miers’ nomination, she was not qualified. Clearly, in a legal sense, Alito is. That alone gives me reason to look forward to his time before the Senate. His political views will obviously cause one camp excitement and another concern but that should not matter. He should be confirmed if he is qualified. However, Senators should not forget that the most important qualification of any justice is impartiality and fairness to all. Alito’s past decisions and statements leave many questions to whether he has this. The confirmation hearings will be important for all Americans to learn if he possesses these essential attributes.
(Filed under: Supreme Court, Commentary, Miers Nomination, Alito Nomination)
Review – Dreamer
:(1hr 38min – Rated PG ) Dreamer is the completely predictable tale of a girl who believes in her misfit crew of a horse that had broken a leg, a trainer that has bad luck, and an overweight jockey that attempt to race again at the most prestigious horse race there is. And with that statement you probably can guess the start, the ending, and everything in between. It is just that predictable and just that sappy. About the only thing that saved this film as entertaining is Dakota Fanning’s role as the little girl. Reports are that it was originally cast for a boy but they wanted Dakota. After an hour and a half, I can understand why. But I do not understand why a girl of her talent chose to play such a shallow role. For more information or to purchase tickets: Dreamer: Inspired by a True Story
(Filed under: Reviews, Movies)
October 24, 2005
Commentary - The Boston Software Party
:Massachusetts has always been a national innovator when it comes to causing revolutions in the name of economic freedoms. Most famously, on December 16,1773, approximately 60 native Bostonians raided three ships that carried tea to protest British taxation of the American colonies in what is now known as the Boston Tea Party. Last month, the government of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts passed a law mandating that all government digital documents use a format known as the OpenDocument Format (short for Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards (OASIS) Open Document Format for Office Applications) instead of the more widely used Microsoft formats, which could touch off a new revolution when it comes to technology.
Massachusetts decided that it was in the best interest of the state to use a file format that is open for all vendors, software companies, and users to implement as they desire. Their hope is that by using the OpenDocument Format that they will be able to switch to any software they desire without fear of vendor lock-in. Microsoft had protested Massachusetts’ decision. For years, Microsoft has been accused of using formats that only their software worked with to make sure that no one could use any software other than Microsoft Office. At the very least, the Open Document Format is not currently in Office products and is not slated in the next Microsoft Office release.
The decision is more obviously a threat in light of this past week’s release of OpenOffice.org 2, an open source alternative to Microsoft Office that does a decent job of opening Office files. This is the program that Massachusetts will use and that many developing nations (Brazil and India) are looking at implementing. (By the way, I have been using beta versions of this software since December. I highly recommend you take a look at this free alternative to MS Office.)
This end of the lock-down has led commentators to speculate that Microsoft Office’s dominance is over. If governments begin to demand OpenDocument Format, it could become the standard file accepted everywhere, just as Microsoft Office documents have become. The lock will be broken. And therefore Microsoft Office’s use will decline.
It does not have to be this way. There is nothing stopping Microsoft from implementing the OpenDocument Format in Microsoft Office. The format is documented and open. Anyone can use it. If Microsoft were to include OpenDocument Format by default, all users would be able to edit the same documents, even if they were using different programs. The consumer would win. And the companies that produce the software would only win if they had the best product. Here Microsoft would do well. They have a huge research and development team. For their next version of Office next year, they are proposing a radical new interface that could mean huge time savings for those that purchase it. They often make the best product for the basic computer user (but by no means always) in markets with strong competition. There is no reason, given an equal playing field of one file format, that the best product would not win. And that is even better news for consumers.
But no matter what Microsoft decides and what competition is spurred by the OpenDocument format and OpenOffice.org, by moving to a format that is open, you will not be forced along a company’s upgrade path if you do not want to be. Instead, the information is yours. It makes a ton of sense to end vendor lock-in and chose a format that you can control. Follow Massachusetts’ path and be a part of another important revolution.
(Filed under: Commentary, Science / Technology, Computers, Software, Microsoft)
Commentary - Revising the Tax Code
:This past week, President Bush’s advisory committee on tax reform agreed on two proposals that, if adopted, would represent significant improvements in ease and fairness. The two proposals are very similar in changing the tax code for individuals with the main differences in dealing with business taxes. The changes to the tax code would virtually eliminate tax deductions claimed on an individual’s return and instead distribute the difference to the entire tax base. Proponents believe that such a change will result in a lower tax rate and a more progressive tax level, as most deductions go to the wealthiest Americans. Opponents will point to the popular mortgage deductions in their attempt to keep the changes from passing, which is proposed to only come about for mortgages above $300,000. While, this report will wait for the November 1st report to the President to make a final decision on the proposed changes, they appear to be welcome changes that will make the tax code fairer to all Americans. Unfortunately, political pressure makes it unlikely that these proposals will pass or even be seriously considered.
(Filed under: Bush Administration, Commentary, Politics, America)
Commentary - Counting the Dead
:In the past, this report has strongly advised the Bush Administration to count the number of Iraqis that have died during the War in Iraq and use an independent body to clarify responsibility for their deaths. The Washington Post reports this morning that the military has put more emphasis lately on body counts of dead Iraqi insurgents in an effort to show that the war is working. While this is a good step towards accounting for dead Iraqis, it does not go far enough.
As military officials suggest, it is impossible to determine the number of enemies to show that deaths are making a dent in the insurgency. In addition, it is difficult to determine the difference between insurgents and civilians – which Arab media quickly points out about such numbers. Instead, the military is using dead insurgents as a propaganda tool, similar to its purpose in Vietnam. And, while, it sounds great to have numbers as evidence of success, like in Vietnam, counting the killing fields does not justify the war. It simply accounts for our sins since the count began.
(Filed under: Iraq, America at War, Middle East, Commentary, Politics, America)
Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything
:(Published by William Morrow, 256 pages) If it is possible for a book to leave the reader underwhelmed and unfulfilled, yet also allowed the reader to enjoy the text he/she just finished, Freakonomics is that book. Freakonomics is a short read that focuses on a series of conclusions that Economist Steven Levitt has made in his studies of empirical data that defies the common accepted wisdom. Some of the most interesting and controversial include tying the decrease in crime of the 1990s to the Roe v. Wade decision and in highlighting the educational gap between blacks and whites in schools as a bi-product of wealth, not the schools themselves. While one finds these conclusions fascinating, one is also left wondering where the evidence is. It is scantly provided in the text. Instead, one would need to dive into his actual published papers, where the evidence is shown. This leaves a lively, enjoyable text about a subject most find boring. But at the end of the day, without the boring bits, one also finds very little substance to fulfill their curiosity and provide satisfaction in the text.For more information or to purchase, check out Freakonomics : A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything
(Filed under: Commentary, Reviews, Books)
October 17, 2005
Commentary – The Iraqi Constitution
:Much could be stated about the past missteps of the American experiment in Iraq or the fears of a constitution that was still being negotiated four days before the charter’s vote or fears of disenchanted Sunnis that voted no and were overruled. But if those fears are realized there will be plenty of time for second-guessing. Today, one marvels at the courage and convictions of Iraqi voters. Whether Sunni, Shiite, or Kurd, millions faced the potential of insurgent violence and voted on the nation’s future. And whether they voted yes or no, they showed up. For critics of the war, including me, it was a sight many of us again did not expect to see go so well. Again it showed that there is still hope. That the hope is still surrounded by so many difficult challenges and potential pitfalls is a cause for concern but a month ago it did not look like we would have that hope as a compromise appeared difficult. And so for now, the hope is significant and should be celebrated.
(Filed under: Iraq, Iraq Constitution, America at War, Bush Administration, Middle East, Commentary, Politics, America)
Commentary – Support the Troops
:Criticize the war in Iraq and you are sure to hear that you are not a patriot and not being supportive of the troops. Meanwhile, those supportive members of the White House and Congress that sent the troops to Iraq are receiving a free pass of their support. But it is disingenuous.
The Army has identified 331 injured soldiers that have returned from the war saddled with military debt after being injured at war. While some Congressman, including Rep. Thomas Davis (R-VA), have criticized the system not fully funding those returning from war and the Army is in the process of forgiving debts of 99 of the 331 injured solders, it is not enough.
There should not be a single returning soldier in this situation. We should be providing for the soldiers that have sacrificed so much for their country. We must support the troops with our financial and moral support as they return from war not just with ribbons on our car and statements meant to demean war opponents.
(Filed under: America at War, War Protests, Bush Administration, Commentary, Politics, America)
Commentary – Third World Policies
:Third World nations lag behind the First world in almost every measure leading to much European and American guilt and aid. But two measures that were proposed this week in the United States that could lead to actual improvement and the Third World helping itself seems to have little chance of passing.
First, the United States proposed reducing farm subsidies in this nation by sixty-percent to jump-start the so-called Doha Round of World Trade Negotiations. The Doha Round was started because Third World nations have criticized subsidies of industrial nations’ farm products that reduce the prices that Third World countries can receive on the only products they can sell on the international market. While the European Union responded with a proposal of their own that appears to be less generous than the American proposal, Japan completely balked at the proposal.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Congress appears very unlikely to agree to a Bush proposal that would allow food aid for African nations to be purchased in other African nations, instead of shipping American crops. By purchasing African crops for food aid, the U.S. would join Europe in using aid to accomplish two goals: 1) feed the hungry and 2) fund market development in other African nations. But this proposal means that farmers that are supportive of aid because the food is purchased from American farmers would not be less supportive of aid in the future.
While both proposals have significant political opposition, they actually make sense for both international development and in saving money for American tax payers. By cutting subsidies, America would save billions of tax dollars while also lowering food prices for consumers, while leveling the playing field for poor farmers around the globe. By purchasing crops in Africa for food aid, American tax payers would be charged less for aid, while allowing African nations to build their own economy. In both cases, politicians should accept some political cost and accept proposals that will actually do the majority of the world population some good.
(Filed under: Bush Administration, Commentary, Politics, Economy, UN, Europe, America, Global Issues, Health, European Union)
Earlier Reports / Older Reports