04 September 2016


If you appreciate the open freedom of the Internet then you must be concerned with something that is about to happen at the end of this month unless it is stopped. The Obama administration intends to give up management of the Internet and turn that function over to an international body, i.e. the United Nations. The American government does not, even now, directly control the Internet. It is managed by a private nonprofit NGO through the US Department of Commerce, which is about to be set loose to fall under “international” control. 

A substantial majority of my readers live outside of the United States and this should concern them as well. Anyone who believes in the free flow of ideas and information should appreciate that under the present system this freedom is absolute. There is no interference and no restrictions at all. Even in countries that attempt and sometimes succeed in censoring the Internet there is no control of information that can still appear elsewhere. This will certainly change if the UN or equivalent body gets ahold of it. There are repressive regimes all over the world that would like nothing better than to be able to censor and control information flows on the Internet. As I wrote two years ago when this noxious proposition first surfaced: 

One could argue that the Internet has long since become an international phenomenon and it therefore ought to be under the purview of an international body. However, there are many other instances of global standards being maintained by a particular country. For example Britain and Greenwich Mean Time, as well as other standards and measure. It is thus, not unprecedented for standards that originated in a particular country to be maintained by that country. Only a basic hostility to the US can account for a wish to change this. 
Furthermore the record of international bodies is less than impressive. There are many countries clamoring for various forms of censorship, and this is the surest path to that end. It will also provide the pretext for exclusion, i.e. of Israel, as has happened in other international bodies. How about Islamic, or any other restrictive standards? How about erasing something because some regime somewhere finds it offensive? This is effectively taking the part of repressive regimes rather than the people on the street. The possibilities for mischief are endless, but what is certain is that it will be the end of the wide open Internet. Some governments may   oppose the US hold on the Internet, but the people don’t because they trust it to be free and open. That will end the minute the US gives up control.

That moment has arrived. It is vital that the independence of the Internet be preserved. Otherwise dark forces will begin to interfere and call for the suppression of information, or worse, the promulgation of disinformation. All those who love liberty must make their voices heard and stop this transfer, or failing that, in the worst case make certain that ironclad safeguards are put in place to assure freedom of expression. The record of international bodies is not good in this respect, and we must be sanguine about the prospects if this transition occurs. The Internet has thrived because the present circumstances have allowed it to. If this “international” oversight materializes you can be certain that it will soon degenerate into control, changing from passive, detached supervision to direct, active management of content, domains, and expression. We cannot trust international safeguards given the atrocious record of hypocrisy at the UN with regard to “human rights,” and the huge discrepancy between the UN charter and the practices of its membership. The safest course is to keep the Internet exactly as it is now, where it originated and developed and has come to serve all of humanity without distinction. 

02 August 2016


In this election Hillary Clinton is the default presidential candidate, the person who will continue the policies of the current administration, by her own account. Given the high level of distrust, and low level of esteem in which she is held by a majority of the American people, Republicans simply had to nominate a not-Hillary, and would have likely cruised to victory in the presidential election. Almost any of the potential candidates could have filled this role, except for Donald Trump. He has managed to move the election dangerously close to being about not-Trump. The result is a clash between two negatives: not-Hillary vs. not-Trump, with the winner being the one who ultimately is perceived as less loathsome. Thus the campaign won’t come down to who would make the best president, but rather who would be worse, with people voting against a candidate rather than for one. 

This foreshadows a nasty campaign and a relatively low voter turnout as people become turned off by the whole process. Hillary has to run on the notion that things aren’t so bad, and for that matter that she’s not so bad, which is a tough sell. But fate has rewarded her with an even more problematic candidate in Donald Trump. Although he actually has the upper hand on conditions, i.e. things aren’t so good, in the mind of the public, his problem is not his policies, such as they are, but his personality. If he continues to respond rashly to every perceived slight, if he continues to display a lack of self-control and elevates trivia to an unwarranted significance he will certainly lose. For he will have converted the election from being about Hillary to being about himself. Trump would probably have a better chance if he kept his mouth shut between now and November, because the only way he can win is by keeping the election about Hillary.

Despite the negative impressions they have generated, it is Trump’s outbursts that have attracted a significant segment of the population, which indicates just how alienated they are. They don’t care about propriety and temperament. They want someone who is so much of an outsider that he will upend the whole system. This makes him immune from almost any exposure of past allegedly dubious business practices. They are against the existing order and the way things are going for them personally, and Trump offers at least the possibility of change. But that base is not enough to win an election. That will hinge of people who are undecided as to who is worse. 

Hillary, on the other hand, has to run against her own party if she wants to win, given how far left it has lurched. Her own primaries accentuate her weakness, being so objectionable that just about the worst candidate who could have opposed her came close to winning the nomination. She will win her party’s base, which may vote without enthusiasm, but that is not enough to win the election. She also has to convince and then add enough voters who think her opponent is even worse. 

There is something wrong with an electoral system that winds up giving people a choice between the lesser of two evils. There are the Libertarian and Green party alternatives, and the former could get enough votes to affect the outcome, but the winner will still be either Clinton or Trump. We must ponder how it is that a country so fortunate, rich, and still full of promise could wind up with such a dismal choice. The saving grace is that the institutional structure is still strong enough to prevent anyone from mucking things up too seriously, given federalism and the separation of powers embedded in the constitution. The Framers understood the fragility of human nature, and designed a system that could withstand incompetence, stupidity, and egomania. Nevertheless even they might be surprised at the dismal choice we face more than two centuries later. 

30 July 2016


There is considerable anguish amongst the conservative intelligentsia concerning the rise of Donald Trump. Virtually the entire establishment of conservative leaders, intellectuals, and pundits are united in their distaste and opposition to his candidacy, based initially on the perception that “he is not one of us,” followed by a firm commitment to the notion that “he must be stopped.” That these efforts failed miserably may be a testament to the possibility that the extent of their actual influence may not significantly exceed the diminutive circulation of their magazines. It also may be indicative of the reality that many self-identified conservatives hold radically different views as to what conservatism consists of, given the widening breach between the mass following of Trump and the conservative elites. The latter may well have painted themselves into a corner, from which there is no easy exit, by constantly vilifying Trump. Furthermore they may increasingly come to be perceived as “liberals” by a runaway base that may well have held different views all along. 

A case could be made that in this election Hillary Clinton is the conservative, given that she represents continuity, the status quo, the traditional political order, and that she is unlikely to upend the system in any way, notwithstanding her progressive posturing. In the area where presidents exercise the most power, international affairs, she is dedicated to the existing order that has been built up over decades and may be more hawkish than Trump in many respects. In fact given the way they have cast out Trump she would appear to be the logical alternative. The agony arises because these same conservative leaders have been implacable in their opposition to the Clintons over the years. I’ve never understood the intensity of that animus, at least on ideological grounds, given Clinton’s relative moderation, so it’s more personal insofar as many people think Hillary has a miserable personality and is basically dishonest. She may be an awful person, but we now have the spectacle of conservative elites actively opposing the Republican candidate for president which can only aide the election of the Democratic candidate they have loathed for decades. 

They have been joined by some Republican politicians, former officials and a considerable chunk of the corporate establishment and wealthy that last left the party in droves when Barry Goldwater was the Republican candidate. But these former officials consist almost entirely of people associated with the Bushes, who were ultimately disastrous for the country and the Republican party when in power. Their departure is no loss for a party that can hardly be considered the party of the wealthy any longer as it becomes more of a Republican Peoples' Party, in the European sense, with a working and middle class base. This is not simply populist irrationality that liberals of the left an right would have us believe, but a natural reaction on the part of people who have not fared well over the last few decades. The problem is that the candidate who has successfully channeled these sentiments, Donald Trump, may be woefully unprepared to actually govern. But at this point Republican elected officials can do little more than support the national ticket if they want to avoid disaster. 

The net effect is that the conservative intelligentsia has been left out in the cold, with, from their standpoint, two unpalatable candidates. It is hard to see how anyone could support Hillary Clinton and still be a Republican. On the other hand, a process that began with 17 candidates, several of them attractive and well-suited for the presidency, has yielded what they regard as a populist interloper. Thus there is nowhere to go. This is a consequence of a deeply flawed system based upon primaries that few people vote in, an endless election campaign season, and mass media that exacerbate these conditions. Unless we reform the electoral system and give the power to choose candidates back to elected officials it is only going to get worse. Another electoral season is coming to a dismal end, so these days when I turn on the news I’m more interested in the weather.

04 June 2016


One of the ongoing nuisances of the Left is their propensity to manufacture issues in places where there were none. This is evident in the latest “controversy” over transgenderism, instigated by President Obama in the waning days of his administration, when he oh-so-boldly mandated that high schools across the entire country allow transgendered students to use the bathrooms of their sexual identity. There is nothing especially offensive about this in and of itself. What is intolerable is the administration’s attempting to dictate this, threatening to withhold funds from states and school districts that don’t comply with the Edict of Trans; never mind that these clowns have totally ignored the really serious violations of “sanctuary cities” openly defying federal law with impunity and facing no consequences. 

Republican legislatures predictably took the bait and started passing state laws mandating the opposite; i.e. that students must use the lavatories designated for their sexual identity at birth. Meanwhile I’m not aware of reporters finding a single transgendered high school student in the entire country suffering from lavatory discrimination; they are simply too young to have crossed over in any significant numbers. But liberals have never met a minority they don’t like, so the transgendered are the latest cause, never mind that they are but a fraction of 1% of the American population, yet have become the focus of attention of no less than the President of the United States, who has made a fool of himself as a result. One has to wonder what is left for progressives to minoritize now. Are fetishes next? 

The absurdity of all of this is brought home by a simple question: what were they doing before this “controversy” erupted? Transgendered people have been around for as long as sex-change operations have been viable and presumably were getting by without much controversy until liberals discovered and minted their “minority” status. The result is that we now have restrooms with all sorts of screwy sexual symbols that essentially mean the same thing as a bathroom with no gender identity, which have typically been found all along. What is the point of the stupid symbols if it is simply a bathroom anyone can use? There is none; it is an ideological statement to assuage the emotions of the left. That is the reason it ought to be opposed. We’ve had enough of this loony ideological assault on common sense. 

Even more annoying is the trend of corporations quickly adapting or caving to left-wing pressure, based on say, all of twenty emails,  in order to maintain their “progressive” self-image. The notion that corporations are still associated with the right these days is quaint, given their behavior, as many have gone out of their way to impose Obama-like mandates on their companies, or have even gone so far as to threaten moving facilities from states that don’t comply. Sooner or later there is going to be a reckoning on this, because the left is simply vastly outnumbered by the right. Either the right will neutralize this or start making their own demands, boycott threats, etc. to pressure companies in their direction. The truth is corporations have no business responding to political pressure of any kind; their business ought to be business, period. 

As for the transgendered, those having sex changes are mostly men, so the reality is whether a person formally a man now identifying as a woman, and so attired, ought to be able to use the ladies room. I really don’t see the problem. Ladies rooms consist of private stalls, so how they do their actual business is private. If someone is dressed as a woman, conveys themselves in that fashion, and wishes to be so identified, so be it. It would be more absurd to force someone with the appearance of a woman to walk into the mens room. There were no issues her before. But what this idiotic President has done is to open a can of worms since it provides the basis for anyone to claim they are whatever they want, and for non-transgendered men to enter the ladies room. It may even have the opposite effect of that intended, by increasing hostility to transgendered people. It is further pointless since they presumably were adapting to conditions and getting by well enough before all this erupted, to no good end. 

02 April 2016


Throughout the last century the US was steadfast in its opposition to socialism. It was an ideology that never gained a foothold in America, even under the most dire economic circumstances like the Great Depression. Moreover sometimes this came at great cost in lives and treasure in the struggle against its most virulent communist form. Yet today we find that at least a plurality if not a majority of that generation referred to as “milennials” has a favorable view of socialism. How is this possible after all we endured to be rid of this noxious notion? University faculties occupied by tenured radicals from the sixties may play a role, but above all else it is a degenerate historical ignorance (not even historical amnesia, as that would imply once knowing something and forgetting it); an abysmal lack of knowledge of history and the human experience that has brought us to where we are today. 
But those of us who lived through it can never forget. Over 100 million people were killed over the course of the last century as a result of attempts to force this idea upon them. It was a titanic struggle for the fate of humanity, and there were times when our prospects seemed bleak and the triumph of freedom was by no means certain. More than one hundred thousand Americans gave their lives resisting the spread of communism, and we must now wonder whether all the sacrifice and struggle has been in vain. What terrible irony that the country that was the bulwark against socialism should now have a generation infatuated with it. 

Some might say that I am confusing communism with socialism, but that is not true. They are the same, with the fundamental operating principle being that the state should control the resources of society, directly or indirectly and manage them accordingly for the benefit of humanity, leaving little to private life.  No matter that the idea has failed miserably wherever it has been tried, from eastern Europe through Asia, while in western Europe what socialist parties there are exist in name only, as they have steadily moved away from any dalliance with socialism. The opposite is threatening the American way of life today as an avowed socialist has gained a considerable amount of support in the Democratic party, leading one to wonder where that party is headed, at least on the national level. Bernie Sanders speaks of “democratic socialism” but this is a man so steeped in ideology that he honeymooned in the Soviet Union at a time when that worker’s paradise was an implacable foe of the United States and the western world, which was little short of treason in sentiment if not practice. 

Ignorance of historical experience allows some younger people to view socialism as something new and appealing, never mind that it is a 19th century idea that has been discarded almost everywhere else in the world. But there is not even a rudimentary ideology in this current incarnation, for it is all about selfishness rather than altruism. They want free stuff. Moreover they feel entitled to it, having been indulged with an abundance of “self-esteem” all their lives, despite lacking any underlying foundation for it. They have grown up with things that are free, i.e. on the Internet via free sites, free information, and corporate models that give away free stuff for other returns, and when that doesn’t do it,  outright piracy. There is thus a sense of entitlement for things that are disconnected from work. 

In childhood many of us have wondered why everything can’t be free, but we usually outgrow such naive notions. Perhaps the provision of free stuff in this economy has delayed the realization of the basic economic facts of life, for it is true that many of these nascent socialists quickly discard these beliefs once they go to work for a living. They come to see that the trouble with socialism, as Margaret Thatcher famously said, is that “sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.”

11 March 2016


Americans now appear to be heading towards the awful task of having to choose between a man who is abysmally ignorant regarding the constitution and government of the US, and who thinks that judges “sign bills,” and on the other side a candidate who will receive her party’s nomination….unless she is indicted. In the face of that the Republican leaders are starting to rally around a man that none of them can stand, but now Ted Cruz has improbably become the white knight for the Republican establishment, which is understandable given the alternatives of Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. Trump does not appear to have any brain trust, but since there is little evidence he possesses any kind of political philosophy, that becomes important because it will provide some indication of where he is likely to go.

How have we come to this, especially when this long campaign season began with such a promising field of potential Republican candidates?  The blame must fall on a seriously flawed modern electoral system which inherently yields flawed results, as we have seen with the past few presidents. It rewards people who can endure the marathon election cycle, and who are good at running for office, but not so much at governing. I’ve written on this in the past, and now more than ever believe that true reform of the political system can only occur by overhauling the way people are nominated, especially at the presidential level. My proposal is essentially this: that presidential candidates should be nominated by the elected officials of the respective parties. Who, after all, constitutes the party more than those who have been elected to office?  Who better to judge the character and capabilities of potential candidates than colleagues who are familiar with them? In the present environment this notion may finally gain more traction in congress. 

Against this it could be argued that “the people” ought to choose the candidates, reflecting the popular will. The trouble is “the people” as such don’t really make that choice. Only a small percentage of the population actually votes in primary elections, and they usually tend to be those who are both politically active and ideologically motivated. But the result is that extreme candidates tend to win these contests, which inevitably results in political polarization. It was not always this way. Primaries have only become decisive in modern times. Although primaries began as a progressive reform early in the last century they did not lead to the party nomination until 1960, with the election of John F. Kennedy. 

It is worth noting that Kennedy didn’t even announce his candidacy until January of 1960 for the election held in November that year. Today candidates start running the day after the last election, and in earnest at least two years before the actual election. The result is all politics all the time,  and a virtually permanent campaign. To sustain such a campaign over so long a period requires vast resources, which means endless fundraising as well. Under these circumstances it is futile to try and reform campaign financing because it is not the fundamental cause of the problem. It is rather the length of the campaigns that requires the resources.  Thus what we really need to do is limit the amount of time a campaign can take place in, as they do in the U.K. 

If elected officials nominated the presidential candidates and the campaign period was limited we would get better candidates, and an end to the ceaseless cacaphony of the permanent campaign. It is true that there are interests that might have a lot to lose under these conditions, such as campaign consultants, fundraisers, party hacks, but above all the media, which is primarily responsible for turning the whole thing into a circus. They anointed Obama and have now given us Trump. It is true that this proposal would cause huge amounts of advertising revenue to be lost and it might bring an end to coverage of the campaign as though it were a sporting event.  Then they might be compelled to provide more real news for a change. The political temperature would be lowered and as we have hit bottom with the current election campaign, this might lead to a restoration of faith in our institutions at long last. 

29 February 2016


Support for Apple’s position resisting the Justice Department’s attempt to force them to crack open their own security system is not the same as uncritical support for the company and its practices. Long time users, some as loyal as groupies, have routinely been screwed by the company as purchases have often become obsolete as soon as they are received. There is also the recurring habit of making connections obsolete, particularly in computers, constantly replacing an existing interface with a different one rendering peripherals obsolete or creating an aftermarket for adapters to bypass the change. Apple also seductively lures you into its “ecosystem” so you are stuck there, having invested so much in it. 

That is why I bought an IPad Pro a few months ago, even though I hated the IPad I already owned, because the circumstances are comparable to the relatives you are stuck with. I bought it from AT&T, complete with the cellular option sharing my IPhone line only to find that you can’t make calls with it; it only receives, or has to have the IPhone present (like the watch) which is kind of ridiculous. That makes the cellular feature primarily useful for expensive data charges if you’re stuck somewhere with no wifi. I sprang for the 128Gb maximum memory because you still can’t use any external storage, i.e. with an SD card, because I have a huge number of apps and books on it. That pushed past the capacity of my Idrive,  making it necessary to pay for additional cloud storage. The operating system still sucks, especially if you’ve used a Mac, because the IOS system is basically invisible unless you spring for apps that can do basic things like file handling. The only real improvement over the previous IPad is numbers and letters appear on an expanded keyboard instead of having to switch between them thanks to the additional real estate. To do any serious writing you have to buy an external case and keyboard, so what you wind up with in the end is basically a second rate laptop. 

On the plus side, when I had battery and other problems with the device Apple replaced the whole thing with no hassle. They also offer a hell of a lot of software for free or at a low price even for professional programs like Logic audio or Final Cut Pro, and has made the cost of IOS apps remarkably cheap. I bought the IPad Pro to use as an external surface for things that run on the Mac, supplementing it, and for use as a scratchpad on the go. You can also use finger swipes to edit photos and remote controls on audio. However typing is i still better on a PC (Apple makes lousy keyboards- for one of my Mac Pros I actually had to buy a Microsoft keyboard to type comfortably).  Documents and photos are passed through icloud to other devices that can continue editing, but remember this- Apple does not back up your Icloud documents on your computer. You have to do that yourself. So if you ever have a cloud problem, your work disappears, as happened to me one time. 

Photos is a simple program, but does allow for third party extensions making useful to serious photographers, who are now faced with two systems; Apple’s and Adobe’s Creative Cloud for Photoshop and Lightroom users. Apple’s claim that all your photo are stored basically assumes you take pictures with an IPhone which I never do. I use an SLR, and at high resolution the files are huge and will quickly exhaust the space they give you. 

Clearly the emphasis now is on mobile devices, and power computer users are left hanging as desktops fade away from the mainstream. Apple’s latest desktop, which looks like an office trash can, echoes this trend. The previous Mac Pro was much better; indeed, from my experience it was the best computer ever made. It is big, but in addition to the startup drive it contains four bays that you can easily fill with hard drives and set up a multi-terabyte RAID array while enjoying the luxury of 64gb of memory on 12-core computing. Such features account for the robust aftermarket for machines that are six or more years old. Replace the boot drive with an SSD an you’re up to date on everything. 

It’s not just Apple though. The desktop market has significantly slowed down. PCs have had the same Intel processors, i.e. i3, i5, i7 for a number of years, where in the past every year brought something different. Computers still don’t have the reliability of video or audio gear or appliances etc. in terms of breaking down, but as obsolescence decreases reliability should increase. Laptops are now in much wider use, but there is a vulnerability that desktops don’t have, namely the screen. Once that goes on a laptop it’s gone. But few companies now focus on desktops, which increasingly have been relegated to serious technophiles, game enthusiasts, and server applications.

in truth what is a PC today? I would argue that smartphones; personal communicators, are the real “PCs” today, with all the things they can do. Far more people use smartphones than desktop computers, and apart from the phone function itself they are a primary Internet gateway. Those who have grown up with these things are aware of little distinction between the Internet and the device itself and have only a vague understanding of a computer as a useful stand-alone device without the Internet. 

So old “PCs” ought to be relegated to “desktops,” as the handheld devices we use increasingly are the real PCs. If you never write much more than 140 characters at a time or don’t care about grammar and syntax these things may suffice. But if you type fast, or touch type, they are painful, and the Apple “chiclet” keyboards aren’t much better  for any kind of serious writing. The best keyboard I ever used was the one on the old IBM Selectric typewriter, where words would somehow just fly across the page, and computer keyboards are only as good as they are close to that standard. 

Given the ubiquity of handheld devices, and an increasing number of other “smart” devices like televisions, DVRs, etc. things have come around full circle for the old desktop. It all began with a relatively small number of enthusiasts on the full-size computers of their day, only to come back to a base of power users who still find advantages in the desktop. For it is only with a desktop that you can pile on massive amounts of memory, multiple high capacity disks,  a motherboard that can take various expansion cards, and super sharp graphics boards that can support the largest monitors you can find in duplicate, triplicate or more. For these reasons, although relatively small in number alongside the rest of the market, in at least a few hands desktops will continue to be used and appreciated for the forseeable future.