Hope that you’re well and enjoying this unfortunately rainy weekend.

While I feel somewhat uncomfortable engaging in a political conversation within a religious context, I do agree that such discussions are important when they occur in a healthy, reasoned, discursive manner. I’m offering my thoughts because the subject is political philosophy rather than the merits of a particular candidate. Should HC leaders decide that such discussion is inappropriate (or if you’d not like to hear any more from me), please let me know.

In the interest of disclosure, I should note that I consider myself an independent voter and carefully research each candidate regardless of party affiliation before casting my ballot. Most of my votes in the current election for partisan offices were for democratic candidates, though I did not vote a straight ticket. I should also note that I affirm many core principles of fiscal conservatism - in addition to keeping my own spending on a short leash.

If you don’t mind, I’d like to offer some thoughts on the (cherry-picked) series of quotations you’ve offered.

I’m troubled that the context in which the first quote by Thomas Jefferson is offered suggests that liberalism is predicated upon the curtailing of liberty. Particularly with regard to legislation passed during the past eight years, I’d suggest that today’s politicians claiming to embody the principles of conservatism often do not. I have in mind legislation such as the Patriot Act (and the failed Patriot II) which enabled widespread infringement upon public liberties such as nationwide roving wiretaps and a vastly expanded scope of surveillance under FISA, followed by many real-world abuses of such power resulting in rampant illegal surveillance of U.S. citizens. These same politicians also often champion the strictest and most devastating policies affecting non-native families in our country - policies which tear mothers and fathers from their children and force them to leave one another behind without recourse. Finally, I’d also note that such candidates are among the most vociferous opponents of liberties such as the right of certain couples to seek state-recognized domestic partnerships and marriage. Whether the issue is privacy, the right to love and marry, or the right to live with and care for one’s own family, it seems that the principles of liberalism defend a much more robust liberty than those of neoconservatives. Like Thomas Jefferson, I too would rather be exposed to “the inconveniences of attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”

You’ve also offered a few quotations from Thomas Jefferson and James Madison concerning charity and welfare. As you might expect, a recurring theme in Madison’s writings and speeches is Federalism, or the separation of powers between federal, state, and municipal governments. The quote in which you’ve bolded the phrase “Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government” is taken particularly out of its context, which ironically supports the opposite conclusion. Mr. Madison spoke these words to the House of Representatives in 1794 concerning a measure proposing relief for St. Domingo refugees. The issue in question was whether or not money collected from citizens of the fledgling nation could be used to aid those who were not citizens. Madison’s motion lost, and a few months later “‘An Act for the relief of the citizens of Venezuela’ was passed, authorizing the President to expend $50,000 to purchase provisions for that object” (source). With Mr. Madison’s opinion among the losing minority, it would seem that the founding fathers agreed that charity is an American tradition, providing for both the general welfare of our people and those whom we agree are in dire need.

Rather than continuing to address each of these quotes in context, I’d like to depart for a moment to discuss fiscal conservatism. This is a core conservative principle which I affirm, but one I find poorly embodied by conservative politicians in recent decades. Elected in 1981, President Reagan left office with over a $200 billion dollar deficit and raised the U.S. national debt from a manageable $700 billion to $3 trillion dollars. Following in his footsteps, President George H.W. Bush left office with a $300 billion budget deficit and raised the national debt to just under $5 trillion. During democratic Bill Clinton’s presidency, our nation enjoyed over a $200 billion surplus and the national debt’s accumulation rate slowed and nearly plateaued, ending $1.3 trillion greater over an eight-year period.

More recently, George W. Bush has left us with a $482 billion budget deficit and presided over the most rapid, devastating increase in national debt in U.S. history, which has risen from $6 trillion to nearly $11 trillion. This increase is greater than the national debt of all other forty-two presidents in U.S. history combined (for reference, FDR left office with a national debt of $216.5 billion; adjusted for inflation, this is still less than half of George W. Bush’s contribution). Again, it would seem that in the history of government spending, “conservative” presidents leave office with far greater debt than liberals. For more information, see this graph, or this one which illustrates the derivative (rate of change) of government spending.

If you’re curious about the budget projections for this year’s presidential candidates, the net cost of both tax plans is $294 billion. The difference is that one candidate’s tax cut applies to the vast majority of Americans whose incomes are under $200,000, while the other’s are extended to the wealthy elite (report).

I’m offering this message because I, too am concerned about the direction of our nation and hope that the next president will uphold the principles of justice, liberty, compassion, and equality. Regardless of who you support, I do hope that you’ll vote on or before Tuesday for the candidates of your choice. Remember, ballots must be received by 8pm to be counted. It’s too late to mail them, but you can drop them off here.

Blessings,

Scott Andreas

scott@paradoxica.net

It’s definitely not perfect, but it passes all of the test cases down to the “Phrase Attributes” section at Hobix. Enjoy -

Update: Strange problem with GitHub’s gist tool; the content below has several characters stripped out. Click here for the real deal.

I prefer Vimeo for its great design, simplicity, and quality.  YouTube is also known for having the worst comments on the web - even glancing at them can be a downer.

But sometimes you just can’t avoid it, so why not cut out all the riff-raff?  Now, all videos on YouTube.com look like this:

Want some?  It’s easy. All you need is Firefox and the Stylish add-on (if you don’t already have it). Read on for instructions…

Here’s how to get it:

(1) Download and install the Stylish add-on for Firefox.
(2) Browse to a YouTube clip (on YouTube, not embedded) like this one.
(3) Click the Tools menu in Firefox’s Menu Bar and choose Tools » Stylish » Write Style » Blank Style.
(4) Type “YouTube + Extra Awesome” in the description box, then paste this file (below) into the large text box and click Save. Enjoy!

Live outside the US? See the note below.

But “intuitive” isn’t enough.  Many web apps push me away for one simple reason: they’re #&$*ing slow!

I’m wondering - are web apps driving obsolescence?

A few years ago, it was common to say of an old computer - “Well, it’s still good for word processing, e-mail, and browsing the web.” Less so, today.  Don’t get me wrong, of course - I love web applications and build them for a living.  But I do believe that there’s a place for native code, and a place for Javascript.

In this screenshot, I’m running Safari 3, top (a process management tool), and Activity Monitor. When I open GMail, Safari’s CPU utilization spikes to a whopping 67.8%. Opening, deleting, or tagging a message produces a similar spike. Playing Flash video ramps up the fans. And web-based office suites throw my browser into a seizure.

But what’s under the hood? Am I running Leopard on an SE 30?

I use a 15” 1.5ghz PowerBook G4 (Aluminum; Spring 2004) with a fresh copy of Leopard. It has 2 gigs of RAM and a 160gb hard drive. I’ve added a second display, an iSight, a 500gb external hard drive, another 80gb 2.5” external drive, plus an outstanding keyboard and mouse. It’s three and a half years old, but still a great machine.

I’ll admit it’s not a speed demon. The front-side bus runs at an anemic 167mhz (by 2004 standards, even). I can’t run Windows, or fancy Intel code, and playing HD video is a struggle.

But otherwise, it’s very capable. When I’m working on a design/dev project, I’m generally using (at once): Finder, Safari, Shrook (RSS), iChat, Skype, Mail, iCal, iTunes, Coda, Photoshop CS3, Illustrator CS3, CyberDuck, TextWrangler, Terminal, and Billings. Even then, it doesn’t miss a beat.

I use GMail as an example because it’s highly-optimized and tuned for speed. But if something this well-engineered sends me packing, imagine the havoc wreaked by less-optimized and more-ambitious projects like Zoho or Adobe’s rumored web-based version of Photoshop?

Our attempts at replacing desktop apps with Javascript and Flash clones are bringing computers to their knees.

We’re now driving product upgrade cycles, and finding uses for older PCs is becoming more difficult.

This raises a few questions:

1) Who’s using our web app?
Maybe I’m an extreme example - a developer using a 3.5 year old system. But we need to ask - what are we expecting of our users? Even if they’re in front of a cheap-o Dell that rolled off the line last Christmas, there’s likely a load of cruft weighing it down (useless systray bloatware, toolbars galore, and well, Vista). How do our sites perform on average machines (meaning the fleet in active use right now)?  Client-side performance tuning is critical.

2) Are Javascript and Flash really that great?
Call me a luddite, but I still love native code. It’s not cross-platform and it’s tougher to write, but it’s zippy. I’m not suggesting we ditch AJAX for assembly. But if I can run a few Adobe CS3 apps at once and GMail can overwhelm my PC, that says something. Is there a better way to accomplish the functionality we’d like to deliver (think Flickr.com + their desktop uploading apps)?

3) Should we be driving hardware upgrade cycles?
I don’t think so - maybe you do. But the environmentalist in me gets edgy when computers are considered “obsolete” after two years. That’s a lot of unnecessary e-waste.

4) When am I going to get a new computer?
May. Or whenever the new MacBook Pros come out. Or if you buy me one now. Four years is a good run.

What do you think? Are my expectations unrealistic, or are we stretching Flash and Javascript a bit too far? What are some alternatives?

While standing in line for security, I noticed the light on the front flashing wildly. When I attempted to turn it on, the speakers made a buzzing noise, the screen stayed black, and (alarmingly), a smoke smell started seeping out. You can imagine how much fun the hand-searching of my bag was.

While waiting to board, I made an appointment at the Chicago store’s Genius Bar. Upon arriving, the guy confirmed that the logic board was fried six months after my three-year AppleCare expired. The repair cost was about $700. Utterly saddened with the prospect of losing my laptop and having to buy a new one before MacWorld (heading back to the UK before new ones can/will be released) , I wasn’t sure what to do.

After a couple minutes, Ernest returned from “the back” with my PowerBook and made my 2007:

“Given the history of this machine, I’ve approved the repair at no cost to you. It should be ready in about a week and a half - we need to order some parts. We’ll ship it to you, wherever you’re at.”

Mega score for Apple, there. Until then, I’m gimping it with a PIII-900mhz Gateway that I bought 6 years ago. I can’t wait for Seraph to come back.

BUT, now they’re threatening Fake Steve Jobs and have forced ThinkSecret offline. There goes one of the few things that gives meaning to my mid-afternoon. Ugh.

You give and take away, Steve. You give and take away.