perspectives

Today I clicked on a CNNMoney article with the headline "Mac share grew after Windows 7 debut".  Okay, I'm thinking that's an interesting topic.  So I clicked. 

Turns out it's a regular column titled "Mac news from outside the reality distortion field."  So now I'm thinking that this is very interesting because I have Mac friends.  You know who you are.  I know who you are.  You and I both know that you are not rational.  So I figure I'll get the alternative viewpoint.  You know, the one that's an alternative to "Steve Jobs is like God, only perfecter."

Before I being reading, I see the headshot of the column's author, Philip Elmer-DeWitt. In the blurb about Mr. Elmer-DeWitt it says:

Philip Elmer-DeWitt believes that an ounce of skepticism never hurts when writing about the company. He should know. He's been covering Apple – and watching Steve Jobs operate — since 1982.

And now I'm thinking, "Whoa!  We're finally going to see rational news about Apple, how fun!"

The article begins:

If Microsoft (MSFT) was hoping that the launch of Windows 7 would halt the erosion of its operating system market share — and curb further inroads by Apple (AAPL)  — there is no evidence that it's working yet.

I don't follow the OS wars very closely, so I'm thinking that this sounds reasonable.  I know MSFT has had as high as 90% of the OS market, but I figure that this mus be slipping.  I wait for the next paragraph.  I see:

...preliminary data released overnight Sunday by Net Applications show Mac OS X's Internet share growing by 2.73% in October, from 5.12% to 5.26%.

And then:

Windows' Internet presence, meanwhile, fell from 92.77% to 92.54%

Seriously?  This is from "outside the reality distortion field"?  And he's written an article about "eroding market share" and "curb[ing] further inroads". 

For reference, Dell is the #1 seller of PC's with a 13.9% market share.

Nokia is the #1 cell phone company with about 38% market share.

Coke, the #1 beverage company in the world, has about 43% maket share.

MSFT?  92.54%

Mr. Elmer-DeWitt, you are firmly within the distortion field.

Why we love good writing

I consider John Feinstein the best non-fiction author today. I know I'll get disagreement about that, but it's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. Today on his blog he noted that he was struggling this morning because his coffeemaker broke and he is going to have missed his morning routine today. He finishes the introduction with:

I know I can go and buy coffee--or a new coffee maker after I drop my son off at school. Not the same.... I feel like Miss Clavelle in Madeleine

I feel the same way when I miss my routine coffee in the morning, but I am not clever enough to reference the great children's book Madeline while whining about it.

Thoughts on Art for the Day

One thing Picasso might have considered is naming his works something other than exactly what they are about.

"Woman in Blue"

Thanks, Pablo, I got that one on my own since it was, essentially, a photorealistic painting of a woman. In blue.

Indoctrinating our Children

My local school system has gotten dozens of calls about Obama's speech to our nation's school children.  I can't imagine what is on their minds.  The objection is that he is going to send a political message to our kids?  I don't buy it for a lot of reasons. 

From the Indianapolis Examiner, Samuel Bruce says, "The problem with the direct to the school speech is it not filtered through parents and guardians."

What on Earth is he talking about.  Everything message given at school is essentially unfiltered through me, and Disney has unfiltered access to tens of millions of American kids every day, and who thinks they have the children's interests at heart?

Second, in what universe do the people objecting to this live in?  He's going to talk about the importance of education and public service and how the power of a single dream is blah, blah, blah.  He's going to bore school children of America for 20 minutes.  Since when is this a new event in school?

Ryan Witt, also from the Examiner brings some actual information to the "controversy" by reminding us that "Presidents Reagan and George H. W. Bush did in fact speak to school children in national addresses...".  Check out the embedded video in his article to see the elder Bush boring school children in the 1980s.

I do agree with George Will, who was referencing an entirely different topic when he said Barack Obama is eventually going to have to realize that some things are not the president's business. I think this is a waste of *his* time and an over-reaching of why he was elected, but in a minor way that I don't think it particularly damaging to the Republic.

Like it or not, the President of the United States is a role model, the most visible and important role model we have.  It's crazy to think this is the worst message our kids will receive at school this year... or this week.

Palinism

I like the term, coined as far as I know by Richard Cohen in an Op-Ed piece in the Washington Post.  He points out the similarities between Palin's ability to drive the debate on health care as a death panel scare to MacCarthy's ability to drive the debate in Washington as a whole as a red scare.

He's right, in that both debates are trumped up, baseless lies, and are beside any kind of actual point.

He's also right in a way he didn't intend.  The red scare was fear mongering and insane, but there was legitimate cause to at least investigate a few people in the State Department and to oust a few sympathizers.  What it became--McCarthyism--was a crazy caricature of responsible security.

I am not comfortable with the current direction of Democratic health care reform.  The problem is that the only real opposition to their proposals is a crazy caricature of responsible debate. 

What to do when the enemies of my enemies are insane?

Possible Lifting?

In searching for the Jesse Jackson quote comparing Michael Vick to Jackie Robinson, I ran across this commentary from Mason Lerner of "The Faster Times".

Looking further I found this piece from James Causey of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Does anyone else think that Causey's piece (10 August) sounds an awful lot like Mason's (9 August)?

They both comment on the NY Times piece on Jackon's comments, as did I, but the pieces seem more than coincidentally similar to my ear.

Jackson on Everything

Jesse Jackson has recently weight in on Michael Vick's potential career in the NFL.  Seriously. 

Whatever credibility Jackson had left is now completely gone in my mind.  What on Earth does he have to add to this?  Well the New York Times reports that he says:

“I want to make it an issue,” Jackson said Thursday in a telephone interview. “I want teams to explain why they have a quarterback who has less skills but is playing or at least is on the taxi squad, and a guy with more skills can’t get into training camp.”

So this is crazy for two reasons. 

1. Jackson wants teams to explain why they have quarterbacks who aren't as skilled?  In whose opinion?  Jackson's?  He knows who's better than whom? 
   
2. He knows that the Bills *must* choose the more skilled backup quarterback?  And why? They have *no* other considerations?  Like maybe is he the kind of guy who kills dogs for fun? 

Where was Jackson when I was laid off?  Why didn't he require Motorola to explain why other, less skilled, project managers were being kept while I was let go?

And this is another quote from the reverend:

"Democracy does not guarantee success. Democracy guarantees an opportunity. It’s not fair to de facto try to lock him out of his right to compete."

What?!  This makes no sense at all.  Democracy is our form of government, not our form of running football leagues.  If he'd said this runs counter to our collective ethic of fairness... well okay.  He'd then have gotten off crazy and elevated himself to just being wrong.

The NY Times also had this to say:

Jackson, born in 1941, has been a civil rights activist for most of his adult life. He said that in some ways, Vick’s attempt to re-enter the N.F.L. was similar to Jackie Robinson’s entering Major League Baseball.

Now unfortunately they don't give us the quote and I've looked and can't find it, which I think is criminally negligent journalism.  Apparently it was confined to saying that Vick and Robinson both had to find courageous owners willing to make a controversial signing.  Could anything be crazier in the context of sports than to compare a criminal attempting to convince NFL teams he can still play to Jackie Robinson breaking the color barrier?  Really, I need to see what Jackson said because while I think the NY Times is generally trustworthy, it doesn't seem possible that even Jesse Jackson is this crazy.

Daddy

Daddy
by Ethan

Daddy
You are the one that puts me together every day.
I wish you were home.
Daddy,
you put me together.