Category Archives: Technology

Omnipresent video is a brutal thing

Anyone who has been to as many banquets and sat through as many ceremonial speeches as I have over the years has seen a dignitary or two fail to maintain a proper level of consciousness at the head table.

But for most of my career, that made for no more than a moment’s amusement to some in the audience, nudging each other to take note of the valiant, but losing, battle of someone trying to keep his/her dignity.

Now, in the YouTube era, with a higher and higher percentage of the public having video cameras in their very phones, there is no personal dignity. No one is allowed to be quietly human any more, and it’s a shame.

All of that was brought to mind by this video of poor ol’ Bill Clinton, doing his best to be everywhere his wife can’t be, struggling to stay awake (and failing) during an MLK Day event. I may not want his wife to win, but I don’t consider it a major failing on his part that he just couldn’t make it through one… more… speech.

Is anybody able to post a comment at all?

Folks, I’ve only received one comment on this blog today — despite lively page-view traffic — and I think I know why. It’s probably because of the thing that one of y’all complained to me about today via e-mail:

Repeatedly i got this message:

An error occurred…
We’re sorry, your comment has not been published because TypePad’s antispam filter has flagged it as potential comment spam.

Spam my a__.

Pardon his French, but I understand the frustration. It frequently blocks me, too, and I can’t seem to get the folks at TypePad to understand that this is a problem.

I started suspecting that the problem was worse today than usual when I got three e-mails in a row commenting on today’s column, but there were no comments.

Anyway, if you try to comment, and can’t (or just find the stupid anti-spam requirement that you enter a nearly illegible code unnecessarily inconvenient), please take a moment to write to me about it here. I’ll pass on your complaints. Maybe they’ll listen to you, since they don’t listen to me.

A bit of perspective on our place in the world, by the numbers

Energy Party consultant Samuel sent me this, which figures. Samuel is the guy who came up with the idea for the endowed chairs program, which bore impressive fruit yet again this week. He’s still the most enthusiastic cheerleader of that program, even after our governor replaced him on the panel that oversees it:

This video — really, sort of a powerpoint presentation, only on YouTube, is worth watching. There are some figures in it that I find suspect (I’m always that way with attempts to quantify the unknowable, which in this case applies to prediction about the future), but others that are essentially beyond reproach, and ought to make us think.

What they ought to make us think is this: So much of what we base the selection of our next president on — party affiliation, ideological purity, our respective preferences on various cultural attitudes — is wildly irrelevant to the challenges of the world in which this person will attempt to be the leader of the planet’s foremost nation. Foremost nation for now, that is. If we don’t start thinking a lot more pragmatically, it won’t be for long.

Dumb crook news

No this blog isn’t turning into the John Boy and Billy show, but there’s a particular kind of Schadenfreude that law-abiding folks seem to share at news of a deserved comeuppance, and I just couldn’t resist passing this one on.

It seems that the ubiquity of camera phones has lots of crooks incriminating themselves. This story in the WSJ today led with this tale:

    Last year, Morgan Kipper was booked on charges of
stealing cars and reselling their parts. He declared his innocence, but
his cellphone suggested otherwise: Its screensaver pictured Mr. Kipper
behind the wheel of a stolen yellow Ferrari.
    Mr. Kipper, 27, joined a growing group of camera-phone
owners who can’t seem to resist capturing themselves breaking the law.
"As a criminal defense attorney, it’s very difficult when a client
proclaims his innocence but incriminates himself by taking photos of
the stolen items," says William Korman, the Boston attorney who
represented Mr. Kipper. The snap-happy chop-shop owner, who pleaded
guilty in April, is now serving a sentence of two-and-a-half to five
years and couldn’t be reached for comment.

OK, back to serious stuff now…

McCain on question about beating the ‘rhymes with rich’


J
ust got this from B.J. over at the McCain campaign:

Hey Mr. Warthen –
I think you might be interested in this. Here’s the deal: On Monday in Hilton Head at a Meet & Greet, some lady asked McCain, “How do we beat the bitch?” He responded. (See Video 1) Last night, CNN’s Rick Sanchez stooped to new levels of sensationalism in reporting the incident. (See Video 2). This morning, we released a statement from Buzz Jacobs, SC Campaign Manager. (See Below) Today at noon, McCain is holding a national blogger call and this is sure to be the hot topic. I thought you might want to get on that call, so if you’re interested, please let me know ASAP and I will send you the call info.

Thanks,
BJ

I told him, yeah, I might want to listen in on that. Anything y’all want to share prior to that? Personally, my immediate reaction is that I have but one complaint about the way Sen. McCain handled it: he spoke of the nomination of the "Democrat Party," not the Democratic Party. And I think the guy on CNN talking about it makes an ass of himself.

Also, here’s the release to which B.J. referred:

STATEMENT FROM SC CAMPAIGN MANAGER ON CNN REPORT
For Immediate Release
Contact: SC Press Office
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
COLUMBIA, SC — U.S. Senator John McCain’s South Carolina campaign manager Buzz Jacobs issued the following statement in response to a report aired last evening by CNN’s Rick Sanchez:

"It is disappointing that Mr. Sanchez would choose to engage in sensationalism in the hopes of generating a story. It not only reflects poorly on him, but on CNN. If Mr. Sanchez had even the faintest perspective on the race for the White House, he would know that Senator McCain has expressed his utmost respect for Senator Clinton numerous times on the campaign trail as he did at Monday’s event in Hilton Head."

                        ###

Spam magnets

Here’s an interesting phenomenon to ponder — and perhaps some of you who understand the Web better than I do can explain why it happens.

One of the few good things about the fact that I now have my blog programmed to hold comments for my approval (I’d rather leave the spigot open, but I’ve been taught over and over that blog hooligans always take advantage of that) is that I can stop all the spam comments before they appear.

These things come in waves. For instance, I’ll get six or seven in a row that all have "hotel" in the fake e-mail address, and ostensibly advertise deals for holidays at hotels in Zurich, London, Hong Kong, etc. The text will more often than not contain a generic-sounding message such as "Great site! I’ll be back," or "Not doing much today; just sitting around." Like I’m interested.

But here’s the thing that puzzles me: These messages keep getting posted on the same old posts, over and over. This one, headlined "Another try," is a real spam magnet — even though, when I went to find a link to it, I had trouble finding it. Google didn’t want to go directly to it, which suggests to me that it hasn’t been accessed much by spammers or anyone else. So how come spam messages keep appearing on it? You’ll note there are a bunch of spam messages on it from before I went to the current policy of approving them before they appear. (I’ll go clean those later.) Is that it? Does the presence of spam attract other spam?

Note that the post is from September 2006, and yet I got a new piece of spam on it today. That’s part of the modus operandi of spammers; I guess glomming onto on long-forgotten posts is a way of flying under the radar.

Here’s another example: "Jim DeMint meeting," from August 2005. This one, old as it is, also received a slice of spam today, and also has a bunch of old spam clinging to its bottom like so many barnacles. Posts right next to it don’t have this problem; the spam goes straight for this one.

Also, once again, Google would not take me straight to this one. But it took me to something interesting: This site, which seems to form a sort of nexus for spam and this particular post. Can anybody tell me what this is, and better yet, how to stop this whole problem from recurring?

Anyway, the whole thing is like something from science-fiction/fantasy. It’s as thought these posts are interdimensional portals of the sort that Heinlein wrote about in this one, or the open ends of wormholes or something. Altogether weird.

Anybody else hear a black helicopter?

Ever since I got some rudimentary training in the manipulating the guts of thestate.com (to help in managing the opinion portion), I’ve been on some list that means I get all sorts of extremely esoteric, bewildering technical e-mails from some entity known as "McClatchy Interactive."

Fortunately, the subject lines are distinctive (gobbledegook such as system_notices-bounces@lists.mcclatchyinteractive.com), so I can delete them without thinking.

But just before I deleted the latest one, I saw this language in the body of the message:

We identified the
offending process and have stopped it from executing. All services are now back
up and should be functioning correctly.

That sounds way cold-blooded. Like the revenge of the Hal and his pals. They stopped it from executing "with extreme prejudice."

Be afraid. Be virtually afraid.

Zogby finds that a lot of y’all are LOSERS

Hot on the heels of the "whom do you hate most" poll, Zogby makes us doubt whether we want to know what his respondents think, reporting this pathetic result:

It won’t make you dinner or rub your feet, but nearly one in four Americans say that the Internet can serve as a substitute for a significant other for some period of time, according to a new poll released today by 463 Communications and Zogby International.

Even though it’s only one in four, that’s sad, people. And that’s without even asking whether we’re talking porn sites here.

Further, the poll found that while maybe we aren’t loser nobodies, a lot of us are willing to become nobodies if the money is right:

What’s in a Name? And while there are well-documented fears about identity theft, many Americans would gladly give up their name for a cash windfall. If they were offered $100,000 by someone who wanted to adopt their name, more than one in five Americans said they would change their name to something completely different. Thirty-four percent of 18 to 24 year olds were prepared to take the offer.

I wonder how much higher the numbers would have been if the money was a little better. Think about it — most of us couldn’t even pay off our house notes and credit card bills with 100 Gs, much less launch a new life.

The good news is that only 11 percent of us are willing to have our brains wired to receive the Internet direct, without need of exterior devices. Unsurprisingly, more than twice as many men as women would opt for this "convenience." Me, I wouldn’t go for it unless the display in my head was really high-quality.

Hyper-intense eye candy

Football2

        Way, way more intense than this…

Followers of this blog may or may not have picked up on the fact that I am not a football fan. In fact, it would not be unfair to call me an anti-fan. I mean, I’m glad everyone is such a good mood in Columbia these days because of the Gamecocks’ fortunes (bread and circuses do, indeed, have a practical point), but I’ve also seen them drunk, angry, and up close, so I take these good vibes with a full lick of salt.

But Saturday night, I found myself in a local pub actually watching college football — and being drawn into it. It was less a cultural phenomenon than a neurological one. It was the effect, previously unknown to me, of wide-screen HDTV.

I commented to my wife that someday, when our perpetual state of pecuniary strangulation has subsided somewhat (I’m a perpetual optimist), I’m gonna have me one of them. The idea, for me, is that I’ll then be able to get full the effect from all those DVDs I’ve been collecting in widescreen format (even though I realize they won’t fully use the features of the screen). That’s why I have a TV set, after all — to watch movies on.

And wonder of wonders, she didn’t contradict me! She actually spoke of the thing as though it were a possibility, wondering where it might go in the house. She was thinking along the lines of the same location as my hypothetical pool table. I suggested it would be hard to fully extend a LaZboy with a pool table in the way, but I did it gently, so as not to break the spell.

I think she was, at least to a slight extent, in the grip of the same thing that grapped me — the extreme, deep intensity of those hypersharp colors dancing around on the screen. I actually got, sort of, in a way, caught up in the games on the screen.

Looking at one of the two giant screens, I pointed out that everybody seemed to have on makeup. She said they DID have on makeup. Well, yeah, the sportscasters in the studio had on makeup — I imagined I could see each grain of powder caked onto their base — but even the fans in the stands seemed to have on makeup. I think it was just that every feature on their faces was so ridiculously clear and sharp, that it was as though they were artificially accented.

But then, I looked over at the other screen, and everybody looked just as intensely clear and sharp, but they didn’t seem to have on makeup. They looked explosively natural. I then realized that there was a tiny flaw in the color tuning of the first one, imposing a slight bronzing effect on European skin tones, suggestive of makeup. But it looked so good anyway that if I hadn’t had the other screen to compare it to, I would have said the color was beyond perfect.

Yeah, I know "beyond perfect" is an oxymoron, but what do you say about colors and shapes that impress themselves on your brain in a way that goes beyond colors and shapes as they are commonly understood. It’s like those old detergent commercials from when they first started adding phosphorus or whatever to the powder, and the ads said "whiter than white." These uniforms on these players were redder than red and bluer than blue and turquoiser that turquoise.

At one point, we encountered some folks we knew — friends of one of our daughters. And as my wife was speaking to them and I was looking over her shoulder trying to listen, it hit me that their faces were so dimly lit, so flat in their coloring, that my eyes sort of slid off of them, with little to grab onto.

My senses had become jaded that quickly. We had been there less than an hour, and the intensity of color had already made real people and real life insufficiently stimulating. I was appropriately embarrassed, ashamed and appalled at this realization. Time to leave.

Sirens_2
But it occurred to me leaving that if I had one of those things at home, I might not just watch movies on it. I might even watch football. But don’t worry, I won’t let me or mine get corrupted or anything. I’ll get my men to stick beeswax into their ears and tie me to the mast before hitting the "power" button.

Football4

        … and way bluer than this.

Chat with Brownback, Ron Paul

Recently I’ve been getting these e-mails, but haven’t had time to stop and check out the opportunities offered. Maybe some of y’all could check it out and report back to the group:

    Republican candidates Sam Brownback and Ron Paul will be live online in
two separate hour-long sessions at washingtonpost.com today to answer
reader questions.
    To submit questions and join the discussion please see the following
links:

  1. Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) will be online at 11 a.m. ET
  2. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) will be online at 3 p.m. ET.

Privacy, schmeivacy

Our editorial board is a carefully constructed balancing act; we tend to be all over the place on a lot of issues, and the key to coming up with a position is to prove daily that we can work together — despite our differences — in ways that legislative bodies seem to find impossible. (Back when he was speaker, David Wilkins once said I couldn’t understand how hard it is to get people to rally around a bill — I scoffed because every morning, we go into a meeting and can’t leave the room until we’ve passed out several bills, so he does not have my sympathy.)

One of our widest divides is between me and Cindi Scoppe on privacy. She is always concerned about protecting it; my own attitude can be represented, with only slight exaggeration, as "privacy, schmeivacy."

So it was that, in an effort to probe the bounds of my extremism, Cindi copied a news story to me, topped with her question, "too un-private even for you?" An excerpt from the news story:

A COMPANY WILL MONITOR PHONE CALLS AND DEVISE ADS TO SUIT
{By LOUISE STORY}=<=
   (This article is part of TIMES EXPRESS. It is a condensed version of a story that will appear in tomorrow’s New York Times.)<
{c.2007 New York Times News Service}=<
   Companies like Google scan their e-mail users’ in-boxes to deliver ads related to those messages. Will people be as willing to let a company listen in on their phone conversations to do the same?<
   Pudding Media, a start-up based in San Jose, Calif., is introducing an Internet phone service on Monday that will be supported by advertising related to what people are talking about in their calls. The Web-based phone service is similar to Skype’s online service _ consumers plug a headset and a microphone into their computers, dial any phone number and chat away. But unlike Internet phone services that charge by the length of the calls, Pudding Media offers calling without any toll charges.<
   The trade-off is that Pudding Media is eavesdropping on phone calls in order to display ads on the screen that are related to the conversation. Voice recognition software monitors the calls, selects ads based on what it hears and pushes the ads to the subscriber’s computer screen while he or she is still talking.<
   A conversation about movies, for example, will elicit movie reviews and ads for new films that the caller will see during the conversation….

My reply to Cindi, kept brief because it was sent from my Treo, was:

No, it’s too PRIVATE for me. I prefer to leave such things to Big Brother.

You just can’t give an inch to these privacy freaks, you know.

Don’t send me snail mail!

Snail_003

B
eing a fan of history and an instinctive traditionalist to boot, it pains me to say this. There is a certain elegance and grace to the written letter, a quality that says, "You were important enough for me to go to this much trouble," that is the exclusive domain of the handwritten letter.

But while I appreciate the compliment, I simply don’t have the time to deal withSnail_002
it. As a matter of fact, I am removed by about five degrees of separation from even being able to think about having the time to deal with it. I used to have a staff person to open the mail, deal with most of it on the front end, place in my IN box the very, very few pieces that absolutely needed my attention, and then do with it whatever I decided with it (respond, file, forward) after I glanced through it and then placed it in my OUT tray. And even then I didn’t have time to deal with it. The virtual mountains of e-mail,  the press of constant meetings, the obligation to occasionally, when I could get around to it, do a wee bit of journalism, kept me from keeping up even in that system.

Now, I don’t have any of that support, so mounds of snail mail — most of it bound for the wastebin, but some of it actually in need of my attention — pile up on my desk, until such time as some emergency causes me to plow through it in search of something, and I push aside all more urgent matters just long enough to reduce the pile in one mad surge — and I promise you, if you sent me something, I don’t spend one percent of the time you spent sending it. And this makes me feel guilty, but I don’t know what to do about it.

And then, finally, there’s the problem that increasingly, I find it very hard to read. I find it hard even to read enough to determine whether I should read further. I go to the end to see the signature, go back, try to read it again, and just can’t make it out.

I don’t know whether this is because I’ve been spoiled by type, or I’m getting older and lack the mental elasticity to intuit meaning from few clues, or what.

But if you want me to read it, type it. And as long as you’re going to type it (since "type" these days means on a word processor; RARE is the note written on typewriter, and that is usually from some clinically insane person from the other end of the country), please send it electronically. Then I might, at some point, be able to get to it. I’ll do my best, anyway.

NOTE: The illegible (to me) sample I’ve included here is from someone from out-of-state; I didn’t wish to to embarrass a regular reader or anyone identifiable.

Snail_001

Almost, but not quite, entirely unlike communication

Earlier today, in order to get my hands on an article I remembered from 1996, I created an online account with The New Republic. Almost immediately, as tends to be the way with these often counterintuitive interactions, I had a question about said account. I soon received this reply:

Please do not respond to this message. [that’s always my favorite bit with such messages]

We have received your recent inquiry and will process your request promptly.

We are pleased to be of service to you.

Sincerely,
Subscriber Services Department

This message created in me the almost overwhelming impression that I was, in fact, not dealing with a sort of middling-liberal magazine, but was instead doing business with the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation, creators of the exasperatingly ground-breaking product, Genuine People Personalities. Although the Guide is supposed to be fictional, I also sometimes suspect that John Edwards got the GPP that he’s using on the campaign trail from Sirius. (If that last bit seemed gratuitous, it was. I had nothing that needed saying about Mr. Edwards, but bud is keeping count of the number of times I bring him up, and I feel the need to be a good blog host and keep him entertained.)

In any event, this contact comes at a good time. The British consul out of Atlanta has expressed a desire to call on me next week, and so I’m hoping between now and then, Sirius can install one of those beverage machines that emits something that is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea. If I served anything better, the Brits would suspect me of not being a real American, and as with bud, I hate to disappoint.

Now we know how debates can be stupider

Dems1

    "I think this is a ridiculous exercise."
            — Joe Biden

Amen.

If the frontiersmen who trashed the White House after Andrew Jackson’s inaugural had had YouTube, it would have looked like what we saw out of Charleston Monday night.

No, I take that back. The yahoos who had to be lured back out of the mansion with ice cream in 1829 were not this insipid. They were real; they were who they were, and I shouldn’t malign them by comparing them to the "Ain’t I cute" questioners on the "YouTube debate."

Gail Collins has it exactly right on today’s op-ed page, as I’ve said before (sorry; can’t show it to you — you know how the NYT is. You can’t have a serious debate with five or six or — come on, eight? — candidates on the stage. But there are worse things than the debates we had seen up to now — people who would occupy the most important job in the world being subjected to "Reality TV," and having to be deeply respectful of this abuse. (Certainly I think it’s a very important question," said Chris Dodd to the first one. It wasn’t.)

Joe Biden was only answering one of the questions that came out of this process in the quote above, but it easily applied to the evening — or most of it. Some of the questions were questions that should have been asked. But they would have been better asked by people who did not see themselves and the message. And they say politicians are narcissistic.

I like YouTube. I love YouTube. It can be fun. It can be useful. But unless it is applied much better than it was in this case, it cannot bring intelligence or coherence to a format that is far too fragmented and distracting already — the free-for-all debate among anyone and everyone who says he or she wants the nomination.

If you wish to learn what was said — and I certainly don’t blame you if you didn’t watch it — without the distractions of the posturing, mugging, simpering and snideness of the the questioners hitting you full in the face — here’s a transcript. But it doesn’t help much.

Did I get anything out of this debate? Yes. I saw once again that behind all the "I want to get out of Iraq faster than Cindy Sheehan does" posturing by this crowd seeking the affections of the angry base, serious people know that it’s not that simple. Obama: "At this point, I think we can be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in." Of course, he went on to promise a quick retreat, but I think he knows better (at this point, I’ll grasp at any straw for hope that someone who might be president might have a clue). Biden: "You know we can’t just pull out now." Of course, he then quickly proposes a pullout, but at least he has a coherent plan. I think it’s an extraordinarily dangerous plan (creating an independent Kurdistan on Turkey’s border?), but it’s a plan.

I could go into other "issues," such as Chris Dodd’s white hair, or Anderson What’s-His-Name’s white hair, or whether John Edwards is better for women than Hillary Clinton (his wife says so, but let’s not go there), or how black Barack Obama is. But I think it’s safe to say that we’ll hear more about such things as the months grind slowly on.

Bottom line: We didn’t learn anything more from this than the middle-school slam-book stuff we had known before: Hillary projects presidential; Obama is smart and charismatic; Biden and Richardson are experienced, Gravel is certifiable, Kucinich is irritating, Edwards is a demagogue, and Dodd is uninteresting.

But hey; I can pander to the masses as much as the next guy: What did you think?

Democrats2

‘… and on banjo, Mr. Giddily Pickets!’

Quick, go to the search function on thestate.com and search for "JoDell Pickens." You’ll see one of the most delightfully goofy guesses I’ve ever seen a search engine or a spell-checker make.

I was looking for that name while reading tomorrow’s proofs. There were a couple of letters mentioning thatGiddily Ms. Pickens had asserted in a news story that she employed illegal aliens. I thought I’d better double-check that. (It was true, by the way; that was in the story.)

Anyway, the search engine asked, "Did you mean giddily pickets?"

Wouldn’t that be a wonderful stage name for a performer on the Grand Ole Opry?

Or perhaps it refers to the actions of a particularly blissed-out-looking protester, such as the lovely young Italian antiwar demonstrator below?

When I told a colleague about the question the computer had asked me, he replied, "No, but I am intrigued…." Unfortunately, the impertinent machine was merely teasing us; it had no such association to share.

Alas, not even Google could sate my curiosity on the point. Shame.

Antiwaritaly

Afghanistan calling

The lower level of the Carolina Coliseum is not the best place to receive a phone call from Afghanistan.

I was sitting near the door of a seminar room in the Journalism school there, waiting for Jack Bass to finish his presentation before I spoke to Charles Bierbauer‘s class, looking at my Treo trying to remember what I was supposed to be there to talk about, when the thing started buzzing.

I lunged out into the hall to answer it, and got nothing but an occasional blip of sound. One of the blips said "Smith," so I got out of the building as quickly as I can. With Assembly Street traffic in the background, I stuck a finger in my other ear and talked for about 15 minutes with Capt. James Smith, who was calling on his satellite phone from Kandahar Airfield. (What, if anything, is going through the brains of people who deliberately gun their motorcycles to max volume on city streets?)

I had nothing to write on — I lost connection with him a couple more times as it was, and didn’t want to lose the contact completely, so I was loathe to run back down and get something from my coat pocket. But the gist is that he’s finally in place at the base where he and a handful of others will be embedded with Afghan Army units opposing the Taliban in that region. They were supposed to do this in two-man teams (he would work with the noncom who underwent the special training with him at Fort Riley, Kansas), but that mission profile has been expanded to eight-man teams, which seems like a smart move to me.

Of course, he said, every time he turns around there, he is reminded that Afghanistan is not the "main event" in terms of U.S. military priorities right now, so he and his immediate comrades don’t always get what they need right away. For instance, the C-130 that was supposed to take him from Camp Phoenix, where the main body of the 218th is, to Kandahar was taken away for another mission several days back, delaying his arrival.

He’s eager and pumped about getting started, but sober about the challenges. As for his initial impressions of his surroundings, my memory is at least good enough to quote him as calling Afghanistan "a beautiful country… a tragically beautiful country." He’s very aware of the hundreds — he corrects me and says "thousands" — of years of suffering by the Afghan people, and he’s committed to doing what he can to improve their lot.

One editorial (or the next best thing) coming right up

Fridays are tough around here — finishing up all the weekend pages and such. A week like this is tougher than usual, since we have an extra day’s worth that needs to be done in advance, what with Monday being Yankee Memorial Day and all.

So when a call was forwarded to me from the publisher’s office, from a reader asking that we do an editorial on a subject of her choosing, we didn’t exactly drop everything and do so. Not that there was anything wrong with the subject or the point she was trying to make. In fact, my colleague who is the duty worrier about foodstuffs said "she’s right" — and we went back to work.

But before I go home tonight, it occurs to me that this lady can just do her own editorial — in fact, she’s already done it, and here it is: the phone message she left.

Sure, it’s not technically an editorial, since it’s this caller’s view and not that of the editorial board. But still, it’s something. Think of it as a kind of cool new way to do letters to the editor. Only this one’s anonymous, and we don’t allow that with letters. Anonymous, but — in keeping with our rules around here — within the bounds.

I’m having fun now that I’ve sorta kinda figured out how to do audio on here. And in this instance, I help this lady, it’s put exactly the way she wanted to put it, and I don’t have to check the facts — because it’s her message, not mine.

Ain’t modern technology wonderful?

Audio: My exchange with McCain

This is sort of an experiment. Let’s see if I have sufficiently reduced the size of this audio file from this morning’s phone call to the point that you can download and listen to it easily.

If not, I’ll come back and stream it to you from YouTube or something. But I don’t have time for that right now, so let’s try this quick way.

Let me know how it works. If it works REALLY well, I’ll try posting the whole interview. For now, this is just the part with MY questions and his answers.

That is SO last decade, senator

The McCain campaign sent me a fund-soliciting e-mail pushing "John McCain Mousepads:"

We are asking that you join us today by making a generous contribution
of whatever you canMouse_announcement_large
afford. With your contribution of $75 or more, we
will send you one of the official John McCain 2008 mouse pads below as
a special thank you. If you are not able to give $75 at this time,
please select the additional contribution options below. Thank you for
your support!

My question is, in a time when even the hand-me-down mouses I get to use here at work on my Windows 98 desktop are optical meeses, who on Earth still uses mouse pads.

Some have tried to make an issue of Sen. McCain’s age. This doesn’t help. It’s like he said, "Let’s put out something high-tech, that shows we’re ‘with it,’" but you know how grandpa always embarrasses himself when he does that.

What’s next, Walkmen? How about a $1,000 buggy whip?

Anyway, if you actually do want any McCain stuff, the coffee mug is much more reasonable, at $15.

The unkindest of all

One of my colleagues yesterday remarked that Mitt Romney’s candidacy is doomed to "the death of 1,000 YouTube cuts."

I’m thinking he may have a point. What think you? Will we South Carolinians, who have seen more of all of these candidates than almost anyone, soon be able to paraphrase Caporegime Clemenza:

"Oh, Romney? Won’t see him no more."