| Hypocritical Much? |
|
|
| Aug. 26th, 2005 |
03:22 pm | |
| |
Current Mood:
![[mood icon]](http://piktures.deadjournal.com/mood/kim_mcfarland/2_Blue_Bobs/b1-thou.gif) thoughtful
|
The Iraqi constitution drafting process is getting bogged down by fighting between 2 of the 3 major ethnic groups in the country, the newly powerful Shiites and the not-so-powerful-anymore Sunnis. From today's New York Times:
"We will call on people to say no to this constitution," said Kamal Hamdoun, a Sunni leader who is head of the Iraqi Bar Association. "This constitution was written by the powerful people, not by the people." "This constitution achieved the ambitions of the people who are in power," he added. Hmm, hmm, seems to me there's a reason they're not in power, oh wait. That's right:
As poll workers tally the ballots from Sunday's election, Iraqi and Western officials say, it is increasingly clear that the country's once powerful Sunni minority largely boycotted the voting, confirming the group's political isolation.
While Shiites and Kurds, who make up more than 80 percent of the population, turned out to vote in great numbers, a Western diplomat said Monday, the turnout in Sunni areas appeared to be ''quite low.''
The thin turnout means the Sunnis, many of whom already feel deeply alienated from the American-backed enterprise here, could be vastly underrepresented in the national assembly. The 275-member parliament will oversee the drafting of a constitution, which is to be put before Iraqi voters later this year. A lack of significant Sunni representation in drafting the constitution, Iraqi and American officials say, is likely to further embitter the group. And it could even lead to the failure of the constitution; under the rules drafted last year to guide the establishment of a new Iraqi state, a two-thirds ''no'' vote in three provinces would send the constitution down to defeat. The Sunnis are a majority in three provinces. That was from the February 3, 2005 New York Times: 4 days after the Iraqi election. You know, Americans don't vote as much as they should, but we've already got a Constitution in place that ensures, or at least lists plainly, our rights. These people were encouraged by their leaders not to vote, and now their leaders are complaining that they have no real say in the government that's drafting their constitution, the document that will guide their country for the foreseeable future and hopefully beyond. So, they discouraged voting to give themselves power in a constitution-drafting provisional government, and now they're telling them to vote against the constitution that government drafted. What hypocrites! I'd be worried about the final version being rejected in the national referendum, but that means the Sunnis would have to actually go out and vote.
|
|
| |
|
Leave a comment |
| |
| Goodbye, My Sweet European Handbag (and your contents) |
|
|
| Aug. 24th, 2005 |
04:25 pm | |
| |
Current Mood:
![[mood icon]](http://piktures.deadjournal.com/mood/kim_mcfarland/2_Blue_Bobs/b2-morti.gif) irritated
|
There's not much more I could say about the last 16 hours that Michelle hasn't already said here. It's a pretty big hit to the system. I mean, my week hasn't been all that great, but it was a lot better before I lost the bag with a whole bunch of my stuff in it. I am, however, thankful that I still have in my possession my bank card, Drexel ID, and Duane Morris ID, plus my cellphone and keys. Had I lost those, I'd probably still be fuming like I was last night. As it stands now, I've already got replacements for the major cards on the way or under control. As for the material goods (the MP3 CD player, the headphones, the cool CDs), I've already made my peace with that. It's out of my hands so why get more upset than I already have. That's where I am right now. I'd also like to thank Michelle for being so cool throughout this. I don't usually fly off the handle, but when I do something stupid it just really gets to me. She's been really sweet and helpful, and she's the best. Anyway, the amount of ridiculousness involved with getting my stuff back has been (and still will be, I expect) pretty annoying. I ask you, fair reader, how can I give the 16 digit account number of a credit card I no longer have? Same thing with my state ID. I know, it's on the credit card statement but what if I didn't have the statement on me and I wanted to get it resolved. In any case, the customer service people I've talked to have been very helpful and nice and that's been a relief. One thing that made me laugh though, and I think this just shows me that I can find humor everywhere if given the opportunity, even in the darkest times. On the Social Security Administration's website (yes, the Social Security card was in it. That's no good but I'm sure they have ways of dealing with it.), they talk about the requirements for getting a replacement card. You have to have some documents proving your identity. They explain it as such:
Identity: We must see a document in the name you want shown on the card. The identity document must be of recent issuance so that we can determine your continued existence.
"So that we can determine your continued existence." How philosophical, especially for a federal agency. What if I didn't have any documents on me, does that mean I don't exist. I have a phone bill, therefore I am.
|
|
| |
|
2 comments - Leave a comment |
| |
| Judge John Roberts to Michael Jackson: You suck. |
|
|
| Aug. 23rd, 2005 |
10:28 am | |
| |
Current Mood:
![[mood icon]](http://piktures.deadjournal.com/mood/kim_mcfarland/2_Blue_Bobs/b2-glit.gif) busy
|
I may not agree with John Roberts on some issues, but at least we can agree on one thing: Michael Jackson. According to memos written in 1984, Roberts, then a White House lawyer, advised his boss to recommend that President Reagan not give Michael Jackson an award for his efforts to discourage kids from drunk driving. In the memos, he wrote: "If one wants the youth of America and the world sashaying around in garish sequined costumes, hair dripping with pomade, body shot full of female hormones to prevent voice change, mono-gloved, well, then, I suppose 'Michael,' as he is affectionately known in the trade, is in fact a good example." Thank you! I think that's the first public statement of "Michael Jackson is a freakin' weirdo" I've heard in awhile. I mean, the description is pretty harsh, but still. He dislikes him and that's good enough for me.
|
|
| |
|
Leave a comment |
| |
| Good News and Politics All Around! |
|
|
| Aug. 18th, 2005 |
04:20 pm | |
| |
Current Mood:
![[mood icon]](http://piktures.deadjournal.com/mood/kim_mcfarland/2_Blue_Bobs/b1-happ.gif) happy
|
Time for another installment of J.P. Rambles about Politics. But first, some good news. I've accepted a part-time position at Duane Morris for the school year, so that I can go to school and have money too in between co-ops. I'll be on the writing team improving my already mad skiz-illz, which means much less hectic work to do and much more learning how to write well with really talented writers. I'm most excited. This week has been good in general. On Saturday, Erin Jean gets married. Crazyness. The wedding should be very fun though, with a veritable who's who of my life 1996-2002. We shall see. Now, to the political discussion. Because I just can't help myself. ----------------- So, the biggest thing in the political arena right now is Cindy Sheehan, the mother who has held a vigil outside of President Bush's Crawford, Texas ranch for, oh, about 2 weeks now. Her son Casey died in Iraq last year and although she and other military parents briefly met with President Bush after the death, according to CNN, she "says she will camp outside Bush's ranch until his monthlong vacation ends, or he meets with her and other grieving families."
When it began, I figured the president would quell this potential public relations catastrophe quickly by reading up on her son Casey who died last year, sitting down with her and explaining to her rationally why we can't leave Iraq now, that he does have a plan (whether it's true or not), and why he respects her love and grief over the loss of her son. If he had done that, given her a White House coffee mug and kicked her out the door 10 days ago, he could be at his ranch promoting his agenda. Instead, he's dodging questions and yelling at reporters. This is a president with a 45 percent approval rating (and I'm being conservative, other polls have suggested worse.) The midterm primaries are basically around the corner. He's 8 months into his second term and his presidency is losing momentum. Yet, he can't spend 10 minutes with a war protester. You know, I bet she would be very polite to him. She doesn't seem like the disrespectful type. Is he REALLY going to go back to Washington without speaking in person to her? I know it sets a bad precedent: any nutball can just wait outside the president's ranch and he gets 5 minutes with the CIC, but had he let her in 10 days ago, it would be a non-story. Dan Bartlett or whoever makes the public relations decisions in that White House needs to get replaced right now because the administration hasn't truly gone on the offensive during one scandal, one bad press hit, one story since the Second Inauguration. And even then, there was the "9 Inaugural Balls" controversy. Remember that? Here's a bit of free PR advice, President Bush. I'm going to agree with you for once. I know and you know that getting out of Iraq now would leave a power vacuum that would only be filled by Islamic anti-Western rhetoric spouting fundamentalists that would make the entire invasion and war there a complete and utter failure achieving none of its goals and making America far less secure than it is even during the current "occupation", let us call it. Just go and talk to her candidly, and she will come out and sing your praises as a reasonable, thoughtful commander in chief. And then maybe, just maybe, more than half the people in this country will approve of the job your doing again. Of course, you are George W. Bush, so I'm going to guess that's not going to happen.
|
|
| |
|
Leave a comment |
| |
| Humor Quiz |
|
|
| Aug. 12th, 2005 |
12:02 pm | |
| |
Current Mood:
![[mood icon]](http://piktures.deadjournal.com/mood/kim_mcfarland/2_Blue_Bobs/b2-glit.gif) busy
|
Everyone has taken this quiz and gotten the same result as me. I guess I just surround myself with people who have a cerebral sense of humor.
the Wit
(61% dark, 26% spontaneous, 10% vulgar) |
your humor style: CLEAN | COMPLEX | DARK
You like things edgy, subtle, and smart. I guess that means you're probably an intellectual, but don't take that to mean pretentious. You realize 'dumb' can be witty--after all isn't that the Simpsons' philosophy?--but rudeness for its own sake, 'gross-out' humor and most other things found in a fraternity leave you totally flat.
I guess you just have a more cerebral approach than most. You have the perfect mindset for a joke writer or staff writer.
Your sense of humor takes the most thought to appreciate, but it's also the best, in my opinion.
PEOPLE LIKE YOU: Jon Stewart - Woody Allen - Ricky Gervais
AND FINALLY -- after you rate my test with a sweet, sweet '5' -- you must take this test next: The Genghis Khan Genetic Fitness Test. It's not mine, but it rocks.
|
|
My test tracked 3 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender:
|
You scored higher than 81% on dark |
|
You scored higher than 3% on spontaneous |
|
You scored higher than 3% on vulgar |
|
|
|
| |
|
1 comment - Leave a comment |
| |
| It's been a week... |
|
|
| Aug. 11th, 2005 |
09:03 pm | |
| |
Current Mood:
![[mood icon]](http://piktures.deadjournal.com/mood/kim_mcfarland/2_Blue_Bobs/b1-uresh.gif) pleased
Currently Spinning:
The Proclaimers - Over And Done With
|
It's been a long week, but a good one. On Monday, I stayed at work for 2 hours to finish a list of clients for an important meeting in New York on Wednesday. I got mad props from Josh for that. Tuesday went by pretty uneventfully. Yesterday, we had a wine and cheese event at work, and I got to hang out with my work friends. It was fun. I also found out that my grandmother's eye operation actually restored some of her vision, so w00t to that. Also, got some mail from Erin Gleeson. It was a movie she'd made, and it was hella-awesome. Today I stayed late again, so Josh told me I could stay home one day next week and still get paid. Sweet! I love my job. I also redesigned my journal today for the first time since I created it 3 years ago. You likey?
|
|
| |
|
Leave a comment |
| |
| "Two Michael Jackson Jurors Regret Acquittal" |
|
|
| Aug. 8th, 2005 |
06:23 pm | |
| |
Current Mood:
![[mood icon]](http://piktures.deadjournal.com/mood/kim_mcfarland/2_Blue_Bobs/b2-thou.gif) contemplative
Currently Spinning:
The silence of after work-hours Duane Morris
|
According to CNN.com, 2 jurors on the Michael Jackson trial jury regret their decision to acquit him. From the article: "On June 13, the jurors unanimously acquitted Jackson of all charges, which alleged that he molested a then-13-year-old boy in 2003, plied the boy with wine and conspired to hold him and his family captive so they would make a video rebutting a damaging television documentary." This is a portion of the trial of which I was not previously aware. He plied the boy with wine and conspired to hold him captive so the child could go on tape refuting charges that he plies boys with wine and conspires to hold them captive. Wait, stop, don't think about it too hard. This must be how people get brain cancer. Thinking about shit like this.
|
|
| |
|
Leave a comment |
| |
| Phew... |
|
|
| Aug. 1st, 2005 |
12:05 pm | |
| |
Current Mood:
![[mood icon]](http://piktures.deadjournal.com/mood/kim_mcfarland/2_Blue_Bobs/b2-pgrin.gif) relieved
|
I've had two "missing items" scares in the past week. If I have to go through a search of my apartment one more time, I'm going to lose it. Oh well. Had a pretty sweet weekend. Hung out with Wade and Michelle on Friday night, just laid around and played some Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow on Saturday, and went out with the 4NOTA (Marcus' pool, Tiffany Diner, Tower Records, and all the usual hilarity included therein) on Sunday. Even got me "Dead Like Me: Season 2" on DVD. So, the week hasn't been all bad. And work is going pretty fast today, so that's nice. In unrelated news, President Bush just named John Bolton as the nation's UN ambassador in a recess appointment, which places him there until at least January 2007. This is the equivalent of an executive power bodyslam on Senate Democrats. I can almost hear George W. screaming "FEEL Article II, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution, bitches!!" in front of the Capitol. I can't wait for Bolton to go to New York and have to place his foot squarely in his mouth when he makes the slightest misstep. Believe you me, pissed-off Senate Democrats are going to have him under a microscope for (at least) the next 18 months.
|
|
| |
|
Leave a comment |
| |
| On the new energy bill... |
|
|
| Jul. 28th, 2005 |
03:25 pm | |
| |
Current Mood:
![[mood icon]](http://piktures.deadjournal.com/mood/kim_mcfarland/2_Blue_Bobs/b1-thou.gif) thoughtful
|
The House just passed a sweeping energy bill that's big on the tax breaks and subsidies for oil companies and small on environmental-friendly initiatives and energy efficiency.
Said Representative Ed Markey (D-MA) of the bill:
"Right now Adam Smith is spinning in his grave so fast that he would qualify for a subsidy in this bill as an energy source,"
Officially my favorite quote from a Congressman ever. I think it's adorable that he assumes most people know who Adam Smith is. Still, quips like that about Republican wish-list bills like this one could keep the Democrats up and swinging, especially in the Senate where the House bill has to be rectified with what will be the much more environmentally-friendly Senate version.
|
|
| |
|
Leave a comment |
| |
| Karl Rove Plays It Incredibly Stupid |
|
|
| Jul. 18th, 2005 |
01:40 pm | |
| |
I suppose, since I am going to be a political columnist, that I should comment every so often on important issues and such. So here goes. Ah, the Karl Rove thing. To get rid of any questions of bias, let me first say that I have some against Mr. Rove. It's more of a "quiet awe mixed with simmering loathing" kind of thing. He's a clever guy. He'd have to be to get George W. Bush elected 3 times in a row. Especially the latest one. That was half a miracle, I must say. So I respect him, at least, in a jealous sort of way. So, understandably, I'm both a little surprised and somewhat pleased that he is actually a human being and not a political computer that wears Armani. He got caught. He got caught leaking the name of a CIA agent to a reporter (or, I guess, reporters) in an apparent attempt to damage a well-known former ambassador who had made public a dissenting opinion. Let me stop by saying that it seems as though he didn't do anything illegal, which is fine. However, no matter how law-abiding he was, his intentions were almost certainly sinister, and that is the main point that the news networks have not focused on, it seems. OK, he didn't break a very lenient seldom-enforced law, but what about the ethics of what he did? In all likelihood, it was retaliation for dissent. So what, is the federal government now in the business of keeping prominent writers in line with the dominant political views of the time? What does this say about the administration's view on freedom of speech, on the executive branch's role in the media, or on the extent of its own powers? The worst part is, this is just the story we've heard about. There must have been other retaliatory acts, this is just the most visible one. Part of me says this is all just the Democrats' attempt to get Karl Rove out of the Bush inner-sanctum, which would significantly damage the President's second term agenda, as if it needed any more damaging. Perhaps their goal is even to buy time until the midterms. Making the president such a political liability that he can't campaign for Republican lawmakers up for re-election would do at least some harm to the Republican numbers in Congress. Plus, they can hit the Republicans on values, and claim that their stalled agenda is less due to Democratic obstructionism than it is due to the Republicans' inability to avoid constant scandal. I guess the one question I'd like to ask is this: how much did President Bush know? Was Rove acting alone? If he acted without the approval of the president or even without (Chief of Staff) Andy Card's approval, and damaged the president's agenda as much as he probably has, isn't that enough for Bush to justify a speedy dismissal? Then again, if he was acting on the authority of either Card or, say it ain't so, President Bush himself, that says volumes about the administration. If Bush was found to be involved, it certainly wouldn't be grounds for impeachment, but he could effectively go on vacation for at least the next 16 months, because his agenda would be DOA. Either way, he's got to be pretty angry at Rove right now, and for good reason. In the end, if it wasn't a grievous mistake for Rove to offer information on a CIA agent to reporters, then it was even more of a mistake for the Bush administration to remain silent on the investigation. The White House has been on the defensive for the past several weeks regarding this, and it's all because they were silent on it before. If they had been truthful about it in the beginning, this would be a non-story right now. However, the White House has refused to comment and, when it has offered information it's been denials and mostly stonewalling. Not the recipe for media disinterest by any means. One final note: I find it interesting that Rove attempted to end political problems stemming from an NY Times editorial that, had he not attempted to act on, would have been long forgotten now. Now, they have a bigger problem than the original one. The problem President Bush faces now is this: Rove is damaged goods, no longer just his brilliant political "Architect", now a political liability. The longer this stays in the news, the less of an asset Rove is. Does he dismiss him now and save some face, or does he wait it out, keep probably the most nimble political mind of the past 20 years, but risk further damage to his agenda and increasingly his all-important legacy? What think you of my analysis, denizens of the Interweb? Comment away!
|
|
| |
|
1 comment - Leave a comment |
| |
| Sandra Day O'Connor Resigns from Supreme Court |
|
|
| Jul. 1st, 2005 |
11:30 am | |
| |
Current Mood:
![[mood icon]](http://piktures.deadjournal.com/mood/kim_mcfarland/2_Blue_Bobs/b1-pessi.gif) pessimistic
|
Gentlemen, start your engines. The epic Supreme Court Battle of 2005 begins. Better grab a Snickers.
|
|
| |
|
Leave a comment |
| |
| WTF, D.C.? |
|
|
| Jun. 24th, 2005 |
08:03 pm | |
| |
Current Mood:
![[mood icon]](http://piktures.deadjournal.com/mood/kim_mcfarland/2_Blue_Bobs/b2-thou.gif) pensive
Currently Spinning:
"Queer As Folk" playing in the background.
|
From CNN.com:
White House stands behind Rove over comments on liberals and terrorism
Democrats: Rove should apologize or resign
Friday, June 24, 2005; Posted: 12:49 p.m. EDT (16:49 GMT)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A White House official said Friday the administration finds it "somewhat puzzling" that Democrats are demanding presidential adviser Karl Rove's apology or resignation for implying that liberals are soft on terrorism.
"I think Karl was very specific, very accurate, in who he was pointing out," communications director Dan Bartlett said. "It's touched a chord with these Democrats. I'm not sure why."
Congressional Republicans earlier joined the White House in standing solidly behind Rove, saying he shouldn't apologize and that he was outlining a philosophical divide between a president who sought to win the war on terrorism by taking the fight to the enemy and Democrats who questioned that approach.
The controversy, fought out in hearings, floor speeches and news conferences Thursday on Capitol Hill, was the latest of several highly contentious battles that have soured the already highly partisan atmosphere.
Earlier this week Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, apologized after being hit with a chorus of attacks from Republicans about comments in which he compared detainee treatment at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the actions of Nazis and other repressive regimes.
Rove, the architect behind President Bush's election victories, on Wednesday night told a gathering of the New York Conservative Party that "Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." Conservatives, he said, "saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war."
He added that groups linked to the Democratic Party made the mistake of calling for "moderation and restraint" after the terrorist attacks.
Bartlett, appearing on morning news shows Friday, said that Rove was referring in his talk to Moveon.org, a liberal group that has been identified with movie producer Michael Moore.
"It's somewhat puzzling why all these Democrats ... who responded forcefully after 9-11, who voted to support President Bush's pursuit of the war on terror, are now rallying to the defense of Moveon.org, this liberal organization who put out a petition in the days after 9/11 and said that we ought not use military force in responding to 9/11," Bartlett said on NBC's "Today" show. "That is who Karl Rove cited in that speech ... There is no need to apologize."
Appearing on CBS's "The Early Show," Bartlett said that Rove was "just pointing out that MoveOn.org is a liberal organization that didn't defend or accept the way that we prosecuted the war in the days after" the September 11, 2001 terror attacks on New York and Washington.
Bartlett told interviewers that he didn't understand why Democrats "are throwing up such a huff."
Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, in a letter to Rove co-signed by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Democratic senators from Connecticut and New Jersey, called the presidential adviser's speech "a slap in the face to the unity that America achieved after September 11, 2001."
White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Thursday there was no reason for Rove to apologize because he was "simply pointing out the different philosophies when it comes to winning the war on terrorism."
"Of course not," McClellan said when asked by reporters whether Bush would ask Rove to apologize.
Democrats said Rove, and his Republican allies, were now trying to change the subject when Democrats, and many Americans, are becoming increasingly critical of the course of the war in Iraq.
For Rove "to try to exploit 9/11 for political purposes once again just shows you how desperate they are," said House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California, who in recent days has been the target of Republican attacks for saying that the Iraq war was a "grotesque mistake." --------------------------------------------- OK, first of all, wow. You really can't say anything anymore if you're a politician. Nancy Pelosi under fire for calling the Iraq war a "grotesque mistake"? Isn't that the understood Democratic party line? If I was a member of Congress now, I wouldn't state my favorite season, let alone my views on a controversial war, for fear of getting my head bitten off. Second of all, which is it guys? Rove says that Democrats "saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers" but then Dan Bartlett said that they "responded forcefully after 9-11, (and) voted to support President Bush's pursuit of the war on terror". WHICH IS IT!? DID THEY CALL FOR MODERATION OR DID THEY FORCEFULLY SUPPORT YOU?? IT CAN'T BE BOTH, ASSHOLE!! Such hypocrisy. Look, I understand it's really partisan in Washington right now, but that's no reason to equate Democrats with by-the-book mama's boys. Your ideas are not 100% correct, nor are the Democrats'. I think a little moderation after 9/11 would have done us good. I'm not saying we shouldn't have gone into Afghanistan. No one's suggesting that Afghanistan was a "grotesque mistake". But there was, and still is, a far more surgical, logical approach to the war on terror that would not cost nearly as much and could achieve the desired result years faster. Fundamentalist Muslim terrorists proclaim that we're warmongers, interferers, imperialists who enter countries, strip them of their resources, and then leave. And what do we do? We say "You want imperialism? I'll show you imperialism!" and 3 years later we're occupying 2 of the most heavily Muslim countries on the planet. It just seems like the first 4 years could have been done better. Maybe we could have, like, proved them wrong. You know, strip them of their ammunition. Pretty hard to shore up supporters by calling the U.S. names that are obviously untrue. There were ways to protect our interests without pissing off most of the Muslim world. But we chose the path that felt good, therapeutic even. "You dare bomb us? We'll bring it back to you a hundred-fold." Sure, that's what you want to do, get in a "Who can make the bigger explosion?" contest with suicidal fundamentalists. Gah!! Democrats united behind President Bush after 9/11 because he assured Americans that he would go about the "war on terror" with focus and, above all, prudence. We were scared shitless, especially the lawmakers. After all, they were one of the targets. It was important to show the people that their government wasn't fractured, weak, unstable. And it wasn't. But even when they did start disagreeing with President Bush over matters of national security, it was for good reasons. Mr. Rove, Mr. Bartlett, Mr. Bush, you should never, never, confuse dissent with weakness in a democracy. Unfortunately, that is what you have done. You have even gone so far as to promote that idea, and that I cannot stand. I believe in some Republican ideals, but I am a Democrat mostly, and principally, because Republicans continue to play dirty pool in the political realm since 9/11. This is just the latest, and perhaps the dirtiest, example. For the White House to not at least denounce the remarks is a sign that they have no intention of compromise or a decrease in political hostilities. Maybe the Democrats are being "obstructionists", but at least that's their right as a minority party. You guys are just being assholes.
|
|
| |
|
Leave a comment |
| |
| (Sound of Bill Gates pulling his hair out) |
|
|
| Jun. 15th, 2005 |
12:34 pm | |
| |
Current Mood:
![[mood icon]](http://piktures.deadjournal.com/mood/kim_mcfarland/2_Blue_Bobs/b1-happ.gif) nerdy
|
The higher-ups at Microsoft must be having a fit, and for good reason. An EU commission harangues them for bundling their media player with Windows, so they take the media player out, and now no one will buy it. And the best part is, why should they? Why should PC manufacturers pay for a castrated form of Windows? Sure, users could go right to Microsoft.com and get the player, but that's certainly less convenient than already having it when they boot up the PC for the first time. Pure ludicrousness.
PC Makers Snub Windows Sans Media Player Ingrid Marson, Published: June 15, 2005 Four major PC makers have no plans to sell the media-player-free version of Windows, which Microsoft was ordered to offer by Europe's competition commissioner
Microsoft will make an updated version of Window XP N available on Wednesday, but none of the computer manufacturers that ZDNet UK spoke to are considering preinstalling it on desktops or laptops.
Dell, Hewlett-Packard, Lenovo and Fujitsu Siemens all said they have no firm plans to install Windows XP N, citing a lack of customer demand. A Dell representative added Tuesday that customers expect to have a media player included.
"Dell will continue to offer European customers Microsoft's Windows operating systems including the Windows Media Player utility on Dimension desktops and Inspiron notebooks," the representative said.
"Customers purchase computers expecting them to come equipped with the capability of playing back digital media files, and it's our obligation to meet this need. (Windows XP N will) not (be offered) at this time. We'll monitor the market to see if XP N is in high demand."
Lenovo, which last month completed its purchase of IBM's PC division, and HP expressed similar sentiments.
"At this time, HP has no plans to support Windows XP Professional Edition N on commercial notebooks in 2005," said an HP representative.
A Lenovo representative said: "At present we have no plans to preinstall Windows XP N on desktops and laptops. We will continue to monitor customer demand going forward."
The only company that conceded it may preinstall Windows XP N was Fujitsu Siemens, which said it would do so on request. "We will not preinstall as standard," said a Fujitsu Siemens representative. "It will only be on special requests, and we have had no such request from any of our customers to date."
Acer, another PC manufacturer, has been unable to provide a comment on this issue during the past week.
The lack of interest from computer manufacturers for Windows XP N raises questions over the effectiveness of the EU's antitrust ruling, particularly the fact that Microsoft has been allowed to offer Windows XP N for the same price as the standard version of Windows XP.
A European Commission representative was reluctant to comment on the issue. "Given that Windows XP N has not even been shipped yet, it is too early to start drawing conclusions," he said.
Microsoft said it bears no responsibility for making PC manufacturers use Windows XP N.
"Microsoft has made these products available through its standard distribution channels," a company representative said. "Whether or not customers or distributors offer this product in Europe is a decision for individual computer manufacturers, enterprise customers and retailers."
One of Microsoft's rivals in the media player market, RealNetworks, criticized Microsoft earlier this year for failing to provide a fully functional version of Windows that is unbundled from Windows Media Player.
RealNetworks declined to comment on the updated version of Windows XP N.
|
|
| |
|
Leave a comment |
| |
| Answers to Michelle's Livejournal Questions |
|
|
| Jun. 14th, 2005 |
11:51 am | |
| |
Current Mood:
![[mood icon]](http://piktures.deadjournal.com/mood/kim_mcfarland/2_Blue_Bobs/b1-sleep.gif) sleepy
|
Response to Mintsthesmurf's Livejournal questions. I won't make you guys do the little game thing involved with it.
What are the best/worst things about switching your major (now that you've had a few terms to mull it over)?
The worst thing? I guess just feeling like it was a retreat, in a sense. Like, I could have done the really-difficult-but-cool thing but I chose to do the easier-but-just-as-cool thing. The best thing is that it's a lot more attuned to the kind of thing I actually ended up wanting to do, and so I don't regret changing my major at all. Plus, there's a lot more jobs available to me, lower-paying though they may be.
How have you changed the most dramatically since starting college? I'm more independent, definitely. More focused, more confident in my abilities. When you go to a college prep school, they make college seem like this really difficult thing that you actually do have to spend 4 years preparing yourself for. Maybe it was those 4 years of preparing, or maybe it's just easier than they made it out to be, but I know I can do this, and when I get out, I know I can get a job. And that's important.
Most ridiculous moment in the last 3 years.
So many to choose from. I think you (Michelle) falling through the couch in the sky lounge has stood the test of time. Going through Wawa with our Halloween costumes on was pretty ridiculous. Other than that, you fake-hitting me with your shoe with the Post-It Note that said "JP is the best" ranks up there with the most ridiculous of them. Also, from "24" season 3: "Julia, m'ah pills!" What's the best/worst thing about being in a long-term relationship?
Worst thing? I guess hoping that it doesn't become routine and boring. So far it hasn't come close to that, so that's good. The best thing is always knowing that there's someone you can talk to about anything at any time. The constant promise of hugs and kisses is a plus as well. Why should I vote for you for president? I guess the best answer to that is because I'm honest enough to say that I don't have all the answers. A Laub administration would be so unbelievably centrist, you probably wouldn't be able to place it in one party or the other. Each party has its strengths and limiting an administration to just a conservative or liberal view just causes issues. If you take a common sense approach to national problems, you stand a chance of eliminating their source. A Laub administration would have 5 priorities: balance the budget, put the nation on a path to pay off the national debt in a decade, rebuild trust in America overseas, reduce the influence of lobbyists in the federal government, and develop a comprehensive energy strategy to eliminate or severely reduce the nation's need for foreign oil. All of that takes a kind of candor and honesty from the Oval Office I don't think we have now. And that's why you should vote for me for President.
|
|
| |
|
Leave a comment |
| |
| Stolen Journal Game Thingy |
|
|
| Jun. 1st, 2005 |
01:54 pm | |
| |
Current Mood:
![[mood icon]](http://piktures.deadjournal.com/mood/kim_mcfarland/2_Blue_Bobs/b2-glit.gif) productive
|
I stole this wholesale from Wade, but it's all good, because that's what games on blogs are for. Stealing. Post 15 facts about yourself, but five of them have to be made up. Everyone then guesses which are the untrue ones. Then, post this on your journal and see if I can guess which ones you're bluffing about!
1) I have been to every state on the Eastern Seaboard. 2) I used to be a physics major. 3) I am a 3rd Degree of Kevin Bacon 4) Until I was about 10, I wanted to be a mechanic when I grew up. 5) There are 6 living "Joe"s in my family, including me. 6) I skipped kindergarten and went straight to first grade 7) I like my law firm job. 8) My dad's family owned a robot when he was a kid. 9) I once told Ed Rendell that I was a "fellow mayor" because I played SimCity 2000. 10) I have performed in over 30 theatrical productions. 11) My name was originally supposed to be Benjamin. 12) My favorite color is very very dark green. 13) I wore a patch on one of my eyes for a while when I was a small child. 14) I first became interested in politics during the election debacle in 2000. 15) I almost went to Penn State Honors College instead of Drexel.
|
|
| |
|
1 comment - Leave a comment |
| |
| Semper Fi, Kirby |
|
|
| May. 24th, 2005 |
09:33 am | |
| |
Thurl Ravenscroft, the voice of Kirby the Vacuum from "The Brave Little Toaster" (and less importantly, Tony the Tiger) has died. Am I a complete nostalgic nerd if, when I heard about it, I felt incredible sadness? The man was 91 years old. He made more money just by speaking than I sure ever will. And yet...he was Kirby, my favorite character from that movie. Plus, he had a damn cool name. Ravenscroft, isn't that awesome? Funny thought: Phil Hartman, who voiced the air conditioner, also is dead. You're next, Jon Lovitz, voice of the Radio! That is all.
Thurl Ravenscroft (1914-2005) Gone but not forgotten
|
|
| |
|
1 comment - Leave a comment |
| |
| How ARE you!? |
|
|
| May. 16th, 2005 |
03:51 pm | |
| |
Current Mood:
![[mood icon]](http://piktures.deadjournal.com/mood/kim_mcfarland/2_Blue_Bobs/b2-glit.gif) busy
|
Early reports suggest that Fox is renewing "Arrested Development" for a third season. I'm holding my breath until Thursday when Fox presents its fall lineup, but TV Guide isn't often wrong with these things. So, for right now, Yay Fox!! Another network might have given up after this season. Perhaps it's premature, but kudos, Fox, kudos. I bet the network is hoping for another Emmy for Best Comedy. Good luck against "Everybody Loves Raymond"'s last year.
|
|
| |
|
1 comment - Leave a comment |
| |
| Firefly |
|
|
| May. 15th, 2005 |
01:03 am | |
| |
|
Current Mood:
piqued
Currently Spinning:
Kasabian - Club Foot (from the trailer)
|
I saw the "Serenity" trailer online. It looked really cool. Got me thinking. I should buy the "Firefly" DVDs. You know, just take a chance. I've heard good things. There's no reason I shouldn't like the show. And if not, it wouldn't be a bad addition to my Cancelled Fox TV Shows on DVD collection. So, before I do that, does anyone have the Firefly series set they would like to lend me? Even the first disc, so I can see if I like it. Let me know. I'm muchos interested. So, anyway, check out the trailer. It's hot.
|
|
| |
|
Leave a comment |
| |
| Wow |
|
|
| May. 14th, 2005 |
12:54 pm | |
| |
Report: Hundreds Dead in Uzbekistan Revolt. Hundreds of people have been killed by soldiers in the wake of violent anti-government protests in the eastern Uzbek city of Andijan, Russia's Interfax news agency reported human rights monitors as saying today. A U.N. official and news reports said that Uzbeks were fleeing to neighboring Kyrgyzstan.
When you're fleeing to Kyrgyzstan, something's amiss. Just a thought I had.
|
|
| |
|
Leave a comment |
| |
| Nerds...from the Future! |
|
|
| May. 6th, 2005 |
04:02 pm | |
| |
I kinda wish I could go, even though it's thoroughly ridiculous. Guess what amused me most about this article. Go ahead, guess. From today's New York Times:
Time Travellers to Meet in Not-Too-Distant Future By: Pamela Belluck
CAMBRIDGE, Mass., May 5 - Suppose it is the future - maybe a thousand years from now. There is no static cling, diapers change themselves, and everyone who is anyone summers on Mars.
What's more, it is possible to travel back in time, to any place, any era. Where would people go? Would they zoom to a 2005 Saturday night for chips and burgers in a college courtyard, eager to schmooze with computer science majors possessing way too many brain cells?
Why not, say some students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who have organized what they call the first convention for time travelers.
Actually, they contend that theirs is the only time traveler convention the world needs, because people from the future can travel to it anytime they want.
"I would hope they would come with the idea of showing us that time travel is possible," said Amal Dorai, 22, the graduate student who thought up the convention, which is to be this Saturday on the M.I.T. campus. "Maybe they could leave something with us. It is possible they might look slightly different, the shape of the head, the body proportions."
The event is potluck and alcohol-free - present-day humans are bringing things like brownies. But Mr. Dorai's Web site asks that future-folk bring something to prove they are really ahead of our time: "Things like a cure for AIDS or cancer, a solution for global poverty or a cold fusion reactor would be particularly convincing as well as greatly appreciated."
He would also welcome people from only a few days in the future, far enough to, say, give him a few stock market tips.
Mr. Dorai and fellow organizers are the kind of people who transplant a snowblower engine into a sleeper sofa and drive the couch around Cambridge. (If the upholstery were bright red, it could be a midlife crisis convertible for couch potatoes.)
They built a human-size hamster wheel - eight feet in diameter. And they concocted the "pizza button," a plexiglass pizza slice mounted in their hallway; when pressed, it calls up a Web site and arranges for pizza delivery 30 minutes later. (For anyone wanting to try this at home, the contraption uses a Huffman binary code. It takes fewer keystrokes to order the most popular toppings, like pepperoni, more keystrokes for less popular extras, like onions.)
At the convention, they plan to introduce a robot with an "infrared pyro-electric detector," designed to follow anything that emits heat, including humans.
"It's supposed to be our pet," said Adam Kraft, 22, a senior.
"It needs fur," added David Nelson, 23, a graduate student.
While Mr. Dorai has precisely calculated that "the odds of a time traveler showing up are between one in a million and one in a trillion," organizers have tried to make things inviting.
In case their august university does not exist forever, they have posted the latitude and longitude of the East Campus Courtyard (42:21:36.025 degrees north, 71:05:16.332 degrees west).
A roped-off area, including part of an improvised volleyball court, will create a landing pad so materializing time-travel machines will not crash into trees or dormitories.
To set the mood, organizers plan to display a DeLorean - the sleek but short-lived 1980's car that was the time-traveling vehicle in the "Back to the Future" movies.
At first, Mr. Dorai urged people to publicize the event with methods likely to last. "Write the details down on a piece of acid-free paper," he directed, "and slip them into obscure books in academic libraries!"
But Mr. Dorai said the response was so overwhelming that the police, concerned about security, had asked that anyone who had not replied by Wednesday not be allowed to attend.
No future-guests are confirmed as of yet, although one responder purports to be from 2026. But among the 100 likely attendees, there are those from another time zone - Chicago - and from New York, which at least likes to think of itself as light-years ahead.
"I'm keeping my fingers crossed," said Erik D. Demaine, an M.I.T. mathematician who will be one of the professors speaking.
There will also be two bands, the Hong Kong Regulars and Off-White Noise, performing new, time-travel-apropos tunes.
"If you subscribe to alternative-world theory, then time travel makes sense at some level," said Professor Demaine, who would like future-guests to bring answers to mathematical mysteries. "The universe is inherently uncertain, and at various times it's essentially flipping coins to make a decision. At any point, there's the heads version of the world and the tails version of the world. We think that we actually live in one of them, and you could imagine that there's actually many versions of the universe, including one where suddenly you appear from 10 years in the future."
If you can not imagine that, consider Erin Rhode's view of time travel.
"I kind of think if it's going to happen, it'll be the wormhole theory," said Ms. Rhode, 23, a recent graduate, adding, "If you create a stable wormhole," a hole in space, "people can go back to visit it."
William McGehee, 19, a freshman who helped build a "Saturday Night Fever"-like dance floor in his dorm, said, "It's pretty obvious if time travel does occur, then it doesn't cause the universe to explode."
And Sam McVeety, 18, a freshman, wondered if wearing a tinfoil hat would be comforting or insulting to future-people.
Mr. Dorai has had quirky brainstorms before: proposing the imprisonment of Bill Watterson, the retired cartoonist, to force him to continue his "Calvin and Hobbes" comic strip; and donning the costume of M.I.T.'s mascot, the beaver, while climbing the statue of John Harvard, namesake of that other Cambridge college. That incident went awry when some Harvard men swiped a paw.
But Mr. Dorai's time travel idea seems to have legs.
"If you can just give up a Saturday night, there's a very small chance at it being the biggest event in human history," he said.
And if it is a flop, futuristically speaking?
Well, Mr. Dorai reasoned, "Certainly, if no one from the future shows up, that won't prove that it's impossible."
|
|
| |
|
Leave a comment |
| |
|
|