iFawn

So, I got an iPhone. I offset the $300 cost of the 4GB version, now discontinued, by selling my Motorola PEBL and Palm Zire for $180 (not counting eBay's and PayPal's growing 'take'). Plenty of music fits into 4 GB so I could also sell my old 20 GB iPod but it probably isn't worth much.

Honestly, the PEBL is smaller and feels better in the hand and the Palm has a better camera and is fully programable. But it's the connections between all the functions that makes the iPhone the clear winner. After owning it for 3 weeks, I still occasionally say “ah!” in genuine pleasant surprise. Here are a few examples:
* The phone book has full contact information, including notes for info that doesn't fit into a standard category, and you can even easily link a Google map.
* Someone calls and you want to add the number to a contact, or make a new contact? That's one-button easy instead of trying to remember the manual.
* Someone calls while you are talking to someone else and you want to connect the calls? That's one-button easy.
* Connected to Bluetooth headset but want to disconnect and use the phone handset? That's one-button easy.
* Traveling? ATT Edge is not as bad as some say so you don't need to find an open wifi for email or web access. Find your hotel on the web and you can click to call the telephone number or click on the address to link to Google maps. Too cool.
* Listening to music when a call arrives? The click on the headphone button and the music quiets and you answer the phone.
* Best of all: the caller ID text is big enough for a 50 year old to see without glasses!

Sure, my old phone could do some of these things but I could never remember how to do any of them. Many additional applications were written for the iPhone but the latest software bug fix/upgrade killed them, generating much negative press. Now Apple plans to support development of non-Apple applications, so "All is well...and all will be well...in the garden".

Living in the Greenhouse

Dramatic and scary effects of global warming will occur long before nations coordinate their efforts to reduce their release of greenhouse gasses. (Even the Bush administration dullards and puppets have abandoned denial and are now willing to “do their part”... so long as no sacrifice is required.) Congress' idea of dramatic action is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 15% by 2020. By that time, it will be far too late for reductions to have much effect on the course of warming over the following 50-100 years. What is to be done?

We will have to think of direct ways to slow and reverse global warming itself. For example, we could compensate for the warming of greenhouse gasses by reflecting more sunlight from earth into space or by shading parts of the planet from space. Such ideas will have to be tested on a huge scale to see an effect.

Every technology is eventually used in war, if not actually invented as a weapon. Weather manipulation could be used as a weapon to cause draught or floods, for example. That will get the attention of the Pentagon. It's unlikely the military meteorologists will be better than the civilian ones – correct about half the time.

Bubba Sputnik

The meaning of Sputnik has changed in the half-century since the Soviet Union launched the first man-made satellite. Most people probably don't know that 'sputnik' literally means 'traveling companion' in Russian. What a nice way to think of a satellite!

To cold-war Americans, Sputnik meant that the commies suddenly held the “high ground” from which to observe and launch attacks. Before, few people had cared much about a space program. Suddenly, politics ensured that Americans responded with a militarized and nationalistic program to beat the Russians, fueling an explosive growth in the Military-Industrial complex.

Befitting a nationalistic and militarized effort, we Americans gave ours bold names like 'Vanguard', 'Atlas', and, curiously, Greek gods (Atlas, Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Saturn). The commercial ventures backed by public resources chose high tech names 'Telstar' (distant star), though a more appropriate named would be 'proxistar' (close star). Unmanned missions escaped the pattern to give names 'Pioneer' and 'Voyager' to brilliantly successful programs. The Russians continued with human-scale names: 'Soyuz' (union), 'Salyut' (salute), 'Mir' (moon)...

Imagine how names like 'little buddy' or 'bubba' or 'partner' might have changed our feeling toward the space race.

The B Team

The Bush team is second-rate and America pays the price. Who but second-raters would agree to mindlessly parroting the talking points written by political zealots in the White House? They are required to reference the President often in testimony and interviews. The top appointments have been disasters. VP Cheney snarls in his bunker. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was convinced of his own ideas and no facts or deaths could alter them. Secretary Gates seems more rational and he is having trouble cheerleading questionable policies. National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice might have been a good history professor but her knowledge of the Soviet Union was no preparation for 9/11 and she has proven a very slow learner. Secretary of State Colin Powell followed orders long enough to convince many people in his now-discredited UN testimony, then he bailed. The Director of the CIA Tenet is either a liar or a fool – and maybe both.

There is a saying in human resources: A types hire A types, B types hire C types. So maybe that should be third-rate.

Give that man (another) medal!

If General Petraeus leans a bit to the right, it could be the influence of the wall of ribbons he wears on chest. Nearly 40 are arrayed on an impressive panel. Compared to General Petraeus, General Eisenhower was an underachiever.


Can Gen Petraeus find room for the Presidential Medal of Freedom? Maybe there is no ribbon for this medal. Maybe there is just the warm glow of fellowship with other Bush lapdogs.

Osama's Dyed (his beard)

Osama bin Laden released his first video message in 4 years. Maybe he dyed his beard gradually and it passed unnoticed, or at least unremarked, within his inner circle. But it is pretty obvious to us outside the cave, who are accustomed to daylight. What is he thinking? Is he merely vain or is he afraid of being usurped by younger terrorists? Even the terrorists fear ageism.

Bush called the message "a reminder about the dangerous world in which we live". In fact, it's a reminder of his abject failure to bring bin Laden to justice.

Bush also "found it interesting that on the tape Iraq was mentioned, which is a reminder that Iraq is a part of this war against extremists. ... If al-Qaeda bothers to mention Iraq, it is because they want to achieve their objectives in Iraq, which is to drive us out and to develop a safe haven." Thus, by Bush's own measure, al-Qaeda had nothing to do with Iraq before the US attacked and in invaded in 2002.

It's a toss-up who is more dangerous and delusional – Bush or bin Laden.

War Corps

PBS is airing a program “Inside America's Empire” in the "America at a Crossroads" series. This program promotes a role for the US military in providing humanitarian aid in third-world countries. The absurdity of this approach is demonstrated within the program itself but overlooked by the enthusiastic host. For example, an American soldier in Mali claims that handing out cheap eyeglasses or other trinkets will produce long-term gains in America's reputation. More likely, the gratitude and transient “respect” will transfer to next person who provides slightly dearer trinkets. In the succinct words of the philosophers, “can't buy me love” and “what have you done for me, lately?”. Near the end of that piece, an American soldier says with obvious uncertainty that "someone" would provide the clean water the people need. Surely this would have been a better use of the thousands of dollars it cost the American taxpayer to deliver the cheap eyeglasses through the military channels.

Only one comment in the program addressed alternatives, for example aid delivered by civilians such as the Peace Corps. Peaceful alternatives were dismissed by the claim that these places needed "security" first. In fact, one would have to conclude from the show's examples that any place hoping for aid needed “insecurity” first. The best advice to a poor region would be to foster an anti-western, preferably islamic, insurgency. That would be the most certain way to attract America's attention and help.