Note: contents of this post is after the jump due to its political nature.
I was just noting to Jennifer yesterday a couple of days ago that my biggest frustration with the debate about Palin's transparent misrepresentations about earmarks is that they shouldn't even be the issue. The big lie here is that earmarks, for as vile as they may be, aren't going to actually make a difference to the country's fiscal situation. As I returned from a client site on Friday and fired up my RSS reader for the first time in a week, I found that (as usual) Mark Thoma is already on the case, aptly pointing out in a single post that McCain's "economic policy" prescriptions to date amount to little more than misdirection in the face of what can only be described as a foreclosure crisis, a market melt-down, a flagging dollar which threatens our unique position as the world's reserve currency, huge inflationary pressure due to moribund energy policy, and yawning fiscal deficits (which, yes, have a lot to do with an ill-advised war and deeply regressive tax cutting). The over-compensating assessment by Thoma is that 0.58% of the budget is directed toward earmarks. Will someone please wake me when McCain starts talking about spending priorities which might actually matter?
To see if the McCain campagin was just making hay over a perceived weakness of the opponent, I checked out John McCain's website for his economic "policy". You can't get very far in most of it before noting that it's all about oil and drilling. To wit, even when describing the need to "eliminate wasteful government programs" the McCain policy statement doesn't name a single program to be trimmed. Looking for a detailed set of policy priorities on the McCain site is a dead-end. The oft-repeated claim that a McCain administration's encouragement of drilling as a way to "send a signal to the market" regarding the price of oil is, by all industry accounts, laughable. As the graph (via Mark Thoma, via Grist) makes clear, drilling ain't gonna get us there either:
Claims regarding the encouragement of nuclear power generation capacity completely gloss over the complexities of permitting, time-to-build, and financing these projects, not to mention the as-yet un-finished business of long-term waste disposal, a topic that McCain himself seems to be of two minds about. Solar and other renewables actually have the property of being feasible on a much smaller scale, allowing them to be implemented gradually. For all intents and purposes, even if nuclear were cheaper per KW/hr (it's not), it would still be a risky capital investment (likely borrowed) for any utility – therefore the cost of servicing debt becomes a major factor in the ability for nuclear to take off. Why would any utility exec take the risk on a 5 to 10 yr project with a high likelihood of failure with many of the dominant costs of both construction and operation completely up in the air when you can just additively expand your capacity with solar or wind with lower up-front costs, no waste-disposal risk, and the potential to start producing in the 1-2 yr timeframe? And given this reality, why doesn't the McCain energy policy acknowledge that these alternatives need the same level of government support as drilling and nuclear? And why would McCain not do the easy thing and support the existing (paltry) support that the government offers to these incremental, renewable energy sources?
In reading the McCain policy statments, I'm left with a long list of things that a McCain administration will somehow accomplish without any credible details regarding how these goals will be met. The message here is that John McCain, through completely un-specified means, will meet all of the lofty goals outlined in his policy wish-lists (which, given the lack of detail, is what they amount to). Perhaps we're supposed to believe that his personal character and skill as a politician will somehow overcome the yawning credibility gulf of his statements and the reality that he'll be dealing with a Democratically controlled congress should he win. No politician should, in the heat of a campaign, box themselves in too far by promising specific agendas which they may not be able to deliver on, but the lack of coherent supporting details by the McCain campaign goes directly to the issues of candor and credibility. While I would have voted for him in 2000, there's no way that I can justify supporting a candidate now who is willing to push fairy tales about the economic realities and forces which drive our economy. Seriously, the McCain website still includes the much-derided "gas tax holiday" proposal. When high-school economics is enough to destroy the credibility of your policies, then you're either pandering (a form of lying) or are simply ignorant. What we've got here is not a failure to communicate by the McCain campaign, it's a failure to face reality head-on. It's voodoo economics all over again.
It's no wonder that the McCain campaign is trying to make this election about something other than issues...the senator's written-by-lobbyists policies just won't stand up to anything like the level of scrutiny that the Obama plans will. Is the Obama plan for the economy a slam dunk? No, but it's a damn sight better than McCain's fairy tales.
...for Mark Thoma.
Note: the rest of this post is after the jump due to it's political nature.
When are Dems gonna figure out that the Republicans won't stop playing the refs so long as it works? Remember, this is the party which put Mitt Romney – former venture capitalist, former governor of Massachusetts, and former champion of a government health-care mandate – on a stage 2 nights ago where he mocked "elites" and "east coast liberals" and credulously seemed to suggest that Washington was somehow "liberal" after having his party in un-contested power for 6 of the last 8 years. Since then, they've simply used their position as the barely-minority party in the Senate to filibuster the upper house to a virtual stand-still, hoping we won't notice and will just blame the party "in power" for the Republican's legislative obstructionism. For anyone paying even the slightest bit of attention, the convention in St. Paul was a whiplash of "he said what?!?" moments. Also, some "she said what!?!" head-turners Wednesday night. Indeed, there seems no amount of cognitive dissonance the Republican base cannot swallow hook, line, and sinker. Hearing what sounded like a small, brutish mob drooling at Rudy Giuliani's remarks made me realize how fully gone the John McCain of '00 really is. The guy I would have voted for has already been voted off the island. Like the immigration bill he once sponsored but now won't vote for, I wonder what he now thinks of John McCain '00. At least The Daily Show was on the case:
Also, the Daily Show's gleeful juxtaposition's of conservative commentators tying themselves in knots is truly must-see...well, whatever you call a Flash movie embedded in a page on the interwebs.
For what it's worth, I listened to both conventions (have radio, not TV) and was off-put somewhat by both party's looseness with the truth. A rundown of Obama's speech shows that it's not all inspiration and high-minded idealism on the Dem side, but while I raised my eyebrows and pricked up my ears a few times during the Obama speech, the Republicans got my blood boiling night-after-night. They laid full-bore into the falsehoods, distortions, and seemingly context-free condemnations. The FactCheck.org rundown on night 3 and on McCain's speech pick up most of the things that got my goat the most. It really is embarrassing for them how long a list it is.
It's hard caring about issues and policy and watching what any party does with the facts. Regardless, the just-concluded Republican convention has me convinced that this party is irreparable. A group of people this willing to poison the public discourse deserves no quarter, no matter what their stated agenda.
Taking a page (or is it a post?) from Brad DeLong's long-running laments on the state of journalism in general, I have been reading the coverage of the Chrome announcement and keep asking myself "why, oh why, can't we have better tech journalism?"
Take, for example, ZDNet's gutter-to-gutter coverage which, I'm afraid, simply ends in the intellectual gutter. Larry Dignan's piece does the profession no favors by simply recycling the tried-and-true blogger formula for traffic generation:
I know about X, Google did Y, which is clearly *all about* X
The best of this flavor of "story" approaches the quality level of a plausible but objectively outlandish conspiracy theory, often pulling together bits of fact with a healthy dose of wild speculation (journalistically couched as the unfounded and unquestioned opinion of some supposedly credible third party).
ZDNet piles all aboard the loony-bin express with Paula Rooney's "analysis" piece, helpfully asking the non-question "is this a prelude to Google acquiring Mozilla?". In what twisted alternate universe would this wild, hair-brained straw-man garner a full 'graf in a legit online publication, let alone a respected print daily? A small, tiny dig into the strategy of Google's Mozilla search placement deal and the infrastructure of the Chrome browser would lead anyone (and everyone) to conclude that Google's interest here is in keeping the browser a viable platform by any means necessary, not that they would ever gain anything by "acquiring" MoCo or MoFo (an even more nutty idea, since it would be difficult for a 501(c)3 organization to transfer resources and assets to a for-profit entity anyway).
The strategic and tactical incoherence continues with the daringly dumb quote:
Larry Dignan of ZDnet suggests that perhaps Google and Mozilla are working together as a tag team to defeat Microsoft’s Internet Explorer, and that Google may perhaps purchase the Mozilla Firefox crew and integrate the two code bases to deliver a kock out punch to Microsoft’s IE. Will Mozilla become Google browser labs? Given the close cooperation of the two projects, it’s more than possible.
The coupe-de-disgrace belongs to PC World, though. After laying out 7 sensible, but "we're just cribbing this from the press release, really" reasons to like Chrome they proceed to indulge in 7 forehead-slappingly idiotic reasons why you might consider something announced as a Beta to be...well...a beta. It feels kinda dirty just linking to it. Luckily, the PC World crew was able to get it together enough to publish a scoop-free "I played with it for 5 minutes" piece that WaPo wasn't embarrassed to run, although the "like being there!" aspect really looses it's punch when anyone can download the beta and, well, be there.
At least with Wired you know you'll be getting fawning access journalism without the pretense of objectivity, but damnit, it'll be well written and vaguely cogent.
I won't even start on the blags. It's to depressing. I'll except Ajaxian and Philipp Lenssen here as they added some useful background from the inside perspective and scooped the story (respectively). "Citizen journalism" has a loooong way to go before it earns a place in the 4th estate, though.
Why, oh why, can't we have better tech journalists?
The rumors seem to have been true...the gBrowser is real. And it looks like it will simply be awesome. To my friends who have been toiling on it in deep secrecy for so very long, congratulations. Yes, yes, more to do, blah blah...screw that. You shipped! Huzzah!
So what does Chrome mean for those of us who aren't breaking out the champagne? Well, first, it's the second sign (after Gears and YBP (har!)) that the content authors are taking back the web from the "browser guys". I've been fascinated for the last 6 months or so by the strategic mis-alignment which results when both the browsing and authoring experience in the hands of organizations only care about one but not the other. Mozilla gets paid by search-box revenue and users download it because it's better for browsing, therefore Mozilla is incented to build new ways to browse, but their investments in content are somewhat mis-aligned (and, frankly, it shows). Google and Yahoo, on the other hand, are critically dependent on the content getting better, so they produce plugins to augment HTML in un-intrusive ways. Chrome crosses over into the browser business from the perspective of content, and it also shows, albeit in a good-ish way. I guess we'll need to wait and see how browsing-oriented Chrome gets (e.g., will it sprout an extensions platform – ala Firefox – or will the propsect of an ad-blocking plugin for the Google browser make that proposal D.O.A.?).
Regardless of how Chrome evolves as a product, the important question now is: how will it be distributed? The obviously non-evil thing to do is to say "look, it's great, it's free" and hope that the world discovers it on its own thanks to word-of-mouth and/or leverage of the Google brand. Given that Chrome delivers new awesome things which are end-user-visible (some "end-user-awesome", if you will), there's some real chance that Chrome can get to roughly Firefox level market-share without breaking too much of a sweat. Not that Firefox's market share is anything to really covet, given that MoFo/MoCo have been toiling at it for a decade now. To get real, honest-to-god leverage out of this process, Chrome is going to need something like 60+% market share, and that means changing ingrained user habits. I put the probability of that happening without distribution channel love at roughly bupkis.
Microsoft killed Netscape by bundling the browser with the OS. Apple is making inroads by bundling. Firefox is even getting aggressive. So where does this leave "don't be evil"? Given the toolbar promotional deals which Google has cut in the past, I think there's some organizational capacity inside the Goog to use the distribution channels they've already created as a way of getting to critical mass. What I don't see, though, is a view of how to bring the mission of Gears into alignment with Chrome (or vice versa). They're both important, but Chrome is a long-term bet while Gears is the near-future solution. They are not in opposition, but their strategies for gaining leverage over the problems facing content authors are very different.
We need what Gears can offer to every browser right now while Chrome dukes it out for market share on the browsing experience merits. Hopefully, if nothing else, the Chrome installer will add Gears to other browsers on the system that users install Chrome to. Even if they don't pick the googly experience for browsing day-to-day, perhaps Chrome can still serve to give new tools to the content-author side of the house. Other browser vendors won't do such a thing since they win or loose on an exclusive "I must replace the other guy" basis. Here, Google (and by "Google", I mean "the open web") wins either way. Hopefully Google's interest in making the content experience better trumps the "we're all browser guys now" instinct in this case.
We'll find out tomorrow, I guess. Here's to hoping.
As outlined by JQuery lead John Resig in this post, it's hard not to notice how much Dojo's query engine stomps on the the competition on current browsers. Dojo will load even quicker when we're able to remove the XPath branch in the query engine which is currently only being kept on life support for the benefit of Firefox. The rest of Dojo has been designed with the same eye to real-world performance factors in mind, hence the build and package systems which help you implement Steve Souders' performance recommendations gradually, without major code changes.