The Clinton Rules

And so we begin in earnest: Hillary Clinton, non-tipper.

Forget for a moment that this wasn't Hillary popping in for a honeybun on her way to catch a Greyhound over to Mount Pilate, this was one of those campaign "events" generated entirely for the media...why the candidate is just plain folk: they eat too!
There were dozens of her staffers there. The overall bill ran to $157. They have records showing they left a $100 tip. Perilously close to 50% (EXTRA: Clinton. Is she too rich to rule?).

Forget all that, though.

Concentrate on this: if you think that this sort of asinine "story," originating from that right-wing noise machine bastion NPR is limited to Clinton, then think again. Once she's been dispatched based on excessive or minimalistic tips (and, rest assured, there will be blowback on over-tipping down the line), the laugh, cleavage, haircuts, shoeshines, brand and/or price-point of shampoo, or whatever other critical issue can ultimately be found, the media will eventually move on. Rest assured, though, they won't move on to, say, Giuliani claiming to know more of torture than John McCain, a man who has actually been tortured. Nope. Nor do we care about the five big lies relating to Giuliani's signature issue, 9/11. Nope, none of that is important enough even for a passing mention in the mainstream media. Neither can we focus on Hillary's own highly dubious choice in voting to give Bush license to attack Iran without provocation or further Congressional approval. What we care about are vague missteps in the tightly choreographed luncheon photo shoots of the Democrat. Especially when there's proof (in this case, proof of a gratuity) that there was no misstep. That's the best kind of misstep possible: the one that can't be put to rest because it never happened in the first place. Let's go 24/7 on this one! This is how you take the true measure of a candidate, after all.

Next debate: Blink round! Candidates, signify with one blink or two: 15% or 20% the adequate tip for service that's merely "so so"? (Did you see how he/she blinks!?! Is this a President? I think Americans blink with a little more conviction. And, Christ, do I see four buttons on that suit?)

Revert?

Seeing as it's almost 2008, I guess it's time for a reasonably comprehensive look at the War on Gore. Not that anyone involved with the magnificent work that gave us President George W. Bush, a man who didn't know Social Security was a federal program (and may still not), sees anything particularly wrong with their output. Not at all, why that was tough-minded stuff, all that about Gore's potential for lactation and the rather conveniently consistent misquoting on top of misquoting. Why, it still goes on today...there are probably no fewer than 10 mentions of "invented the internet" around the American press-o-sphere today.

But, then, even Peretz seems to miss the point, wondering if a Gore entry into the 2008 contest would cause the press to "revert." Yeah, if he got in, the press would likely start spending all its time reporting on a given candidate's hairstyle or necklines and whether or not their house is too valuable for them to care about the poor. We wouldn't want any of that to get started up. Again.

Some Obsermavations

First of all, it's called The Simpsons Movie. They've had nearly twenty years to ruminate on it and that was the best they could come up with? It's obvious that the powers that be certainly know what people like: it's got to have sex appeal and a catchy name...

Secondly, and, if we assume the name was not of their choosing, more importantly: why in the name of Our Lord do I see President Schwarzenegger in the trailer? Has everything that has gone before ceased to be? Has the world gone topsy-turvy? Has Rainier Wolfcastle passed softly into the night? Is McGarnacle next? Are we soon to wake only to find in our morning's VitaPeach health block that Chairman Mao is dead?

Honestly, why see the movie? What possible inducement are they offering to a fan?

iPhone and 3G

I'm not so sure that the iPhone will ever support 3G. Methinks, in his heart of hearts, Steve Jobs plans to leapfrog all of that...long-term, the iPhone will essentially be a wireless internet device that can make what amounts to a radio-call in a pinch. Check out this excerpt from an interview with Jobs and AT&T CEO and Chairman Randall Stephenson:

[Stephenson:] Wi-Fi is just an enhancement to your existing wireless capability. I have this perspective that the more wireless we become, the more wireline we become. The deeper you push these wireless capabilities the more you're relying on the underlying wired transport which is a much faster, high-capacity transport.

AT&T would be insane not to see it this way. Essentially-universal broadband is coming sooner or later. They're a copper-wire company that needs to be an over-the-air company. If they don't leverage that existing (and unique) backbone into something useful for a WiFi world they're out of business; they're certainly not going to require all that wire for the future's phone calls. So they gradually morph into a WiFi-providing, fat datapipe company, leveraging a wireless phone userbase that need not even notice the change as it happens. Ultimately, you're paying a subscription fee to AT&T for WiFi access that happens to include access to EDGE (and 3G) networks for use in a pinch, otherwise known as "away from the city."
For AT&T it's a return to the good old days: they control the underlying network, they control the access devices (instead of a Princess Slimline, you get an iPhone or derivative), they subcontract access out to other providers. There is no Step Two. Step three: Profit!

I don't care whose nephew you are.