Elf Sternberg

So I whipped out one of my many tools and put this together for her:
Pass. The. Damn. Bill. by ~elfsternberg on deviantART

Yesterday, I went to my scheduled eyeglass fitting and discovered that glass, which I strongly prefer to plastic, is a "specialty" item that, while not costing anything extra, does require that they outsource the production to a third-party laboratory and instead of taking four days, will take "at least two weeks." I mean, come on, is glass really that rare? I like glass; I have kids, and they can't scratch glass they way they do the plastic lenses.

I didn't go back to work after the fitting. The cold was still kicking my ass and I went home and lay down for a half-hour nap or so. When I woke up, I remembered to take this photo of the last bottle of the Food of the Gods, Nyquil, which has long been my friend when a headcold comes on strong. But now, Nyquil has no psuedephedrine, it's worthless, it's dead to me. I mourn the end of Nyquil as we knew it. Damn you, methheads. (I tried to write a filk of my sadness, to the tune of Red Barchetta: "My cabinet has a hiding place / that no Fed knows about..." but it wouldn't come together.)

lisakit and her roommate came over for dinner. I didn't have much in the house, but what we did have was enough for me to throw together fajitas and rice, which made for a filling meal for everyone. The fajita marinade was tasty but thin; I should let it go for longer than an hour next time. We chatted while listening to the election results pour in, and then it was time for guests to go home to bed, kids to be sent to the showers, and a cat to get watered. (That's something I should photograph someday; the watering of the cat.)

Okay, I'm sad to see that Hillary is pulling ahead of Obama. I would much have preferred Obama. I think he makes a stronger candidate, and I'll still put my vote behind him in the coming caucus here in Seattle, if I can. Romney, the Platonic Ideal of Inautheniticy, is a hard-nosed businessman and and realist who's apparently too blinded by the promise of the Imperial Throne presidency to know when it's time to give up. I was listening to Glen Beck this morning, and he claimed that 95% of Republicans who claim that can't vote for McCain will vote for him anyway. He had a hissy fit (and what is it with that faux "gay" accent whenever he's pretending to voice a liberal) over liberals who hate Hillary; c'mon, the Right Wing Punditocracy is violently opposed to a McCain nomination, Beck, don't be stupid. (Then again, Beck has consistently won Olbermann's Worst Person in the World, so maybe Beck's just... Beck. O'Delay!)

It is without surprise that, as Giuliani drops out of the race and into obscurity, he leaves behind his blessing with John McCain. As he exited the race, Giuliani said that he was giving his blessing to McCain because "He, like I do, has a clear vision about the challenges facing our nation."

If you go look at the challenge that faces our nation, it is an economic challenge. It is an intellectual challenge. China and Europe are the rising superpowers, and both of them are mature states of the age. While we play in our sandbox named Iraq, they're striding the world, making deal, cementing relationships, establishing markets, and ensuring their dominance for the next decade.

If we are unwilling as a nation to encourage our poorest to emulate the poor of those nations and work 16 hour days doing piecemeal crappy jobs, then we have to create a nation that is the hub of intellectual and scientific research. PNG uncharitably characterized this as "tricking them"; I don't think we have to trick them; I think we have to make this country the most attractive place, both in terms of personal liberty and academic acumen, to the brilliant minds of the world. Guiliani (and according to him, McCain) don't understand this. They think the real threat is bombs and stuff. Bombs and stuff kill people. A few here, a few there. In one dramatic case, three thousand people.

Xenophobia, on the other hand, kills nations.

A couple of months ago, I wrote (but did not post) a blog entry in which I metaphorically wrung my hands and quoted Jim Hightower to the wilderness, "If the Gods had meant for us to vote, they would have given us candidates!" I went through the list of candidates and decided ah, to Hell with 'em all.

Omaha and I have often joked that we should have a weekly weblog, "The Bad Republican and the Bad Democrat," because that's pretty much what we are. I can't toe the party line anymore, not when it's so bloody fucking insane, and she's damnably unhappy with the Democratic kowtowing to unions and the Democratic Party of Washington's latest internal convulsions about opposing the blantantly false House Resolution 888 (which contains a metric arseload of Christian Nationalist deceits) because doing so would give the Christian Nationalists yet another data point in the idea that the Democrats are not a "pro-Christian" party.

But I really can't vote for a Republican this year for the President. The brand is so badly damaged, too tragically so, for me to take any of them seriously. Romney's a power-hungry empty suit, Huckabee's just scary, Paul's got more issues than The Stranger, Guiliani's a thug and goin' down for it, and judging McCain on his principles rather than his service leads me to conclude that he, like the rest of his field, lacks the moral stature and intellectual maturity needed to lead this country.

Of all the candidates on the other side, Hillary Clinton has all the chops needed to be president. She's truly a wonk; she does have all the facts at her disposal. She knows what she would do with each and every department as it came to her. She knows what she would do with the military, but she also knows what she'd do with the Department of Labor (seriously, when was the last time you even heard the Department of Labor mentioned in a news article?), the Department of Energy, Housing and Urban Development, and Transportation. (Have you looked at the President's Cabinet recently? Michael Chertoff looks like he got into Jeff Goldblum's teleportation device and threw the switch just as a hawk flew into the room.)

On the other hand, Barack Obama isn't a wonk. He's more in the mold of Ronald Reagan: an ideas man, a guy who has things to do and understands that as president he needs to point people at them and have them done. And he's right: under Reagan, the Republicans had all the ideas and the Democrats were exhausted. They may not have been all good ideas, but they at least had the force of presence and the top of mind to propel the country forward.

Now, I like wonkery. I admire it. Which is why I'm going to go ahead and vote for Obama, if my country will let me.

Not because I think he'll make a better executive. Clinton is by far and away more competent to be the executive. Obama will do okay in that regard, just as Reagan did okay.

But Reagan was something more than the executive. Because the presidency is more than "The Executive." He's more than just "the decider guy for the country." The President of the United States is also the Head of State of the Nation.

Andrew Sullivan voiced my conviction for me a couple of weeks ago. I want a child in Africa, or India, or Pakistan, to be able to look at the President of the United States and understand, for the first time, that America is not under the thumb of the same ol' regime. That anyone in America really can grow up to be President, and that we really believe in the premise that "all men are created equal"

Would a woman have the same impact? I don't think so. There have been women leaders of countries far less forgiving of women than the United States: Pakistan, India, Indonesia, the Philippines. People understand that a woman of the dominant regime can rise to power. A Black man is definitenly not of the "dominant regime" in the United States.

So, my endorsement is for Barack Obama. It's not an unreserved endorsement. As an executive, he's "good enough"; as a head of state, he's without peer. As an executive, Hillary's unreservedly competent, but as a head of state, she'd be unremarkable. We've learned that a "good enough" executive will support and maintain the agencies tasked with maintaining the national infrastructure and restoring order in times of crisis (by this measure, George Bush was not "good enough") but he can do no more than that.

It is as Head of State that a president truly stands out on his own, and Barack Obama would do that with greater stature than anyone else currently running, on either side of the aisle.

From the Washington Post, Jan 28, 2008:

For years, President Bush and his advisers expressed frustration that the White House received little credit for the nation's strong economic performance because of public discontent about the Iraq war. Today, the president is getting little credit for improved security in Iraq, as the public increasingly focuses on a struggling U.S. economy.

That is the problem Bush faces as he prepares to deliver his seventh and probably final State of the Union address tonight.

"Probably final?" "Probably final?" Is the WaPo joining with the National Review in wondering if the only thing that can preserve the WaPo way of life is a coup?. Maybe they've been reading Philip Atkinson's Conquering The Drawbacks of Democracy again.

In my last post, I discussed Microsoft's plans with respect to the post-Longhorn development cycle. I think it's important to look beyond that moment when Singularity bears fruit and look at the ten year plan.

Microsoft is putting a lot of money into the X-Box, and the X-Box has a hard drive, networking capability, and even high-definition multimedia capability. I think it should be obvious what life is going to be like in Microsoft's 2010.

Most families on the Internet will use MS's X-Box for all of their interneting. They won't need much more. They may rent their .net Office on a daily or hourly basis, putting it away when they don't need it. They'll play games, do IM, download music and movies, and do everything they want to that doesn't demand real creativity with their X-Box.

Those who still have "general purpose" boxes will come under more and more scrutiny. The most commonplace question will be "Why do you need a PC?" And the most common assumption will be, "Because you pirate content."

And then the U.S. will start to license PCs. I mean, it makes sense: given that all of the "legitimate" uses for a PC are covered under the X-Box Singularity 2010 utility, there will be only two reasons for having a PC: "illegitimate" purpose, and development. And it will finally be time for states to create a licensing program for developers and for the platforms on which they develop. France has already started down this road: it will soon be illegal to publish source code in France, because if you know how the software works, you can circumvent the market plan-preserving code of existing business.

More and more, Richard Stallman's "Freedom to Read" is looking prophetic. Enjoy your future, citizen.

Or else.