It's a good Bleat. Funny how similar some parts of our lives are - I am also working on my family movie, although I am on August. I stick to one piece of music for now - I'm sure by the time Artemis is 3 we'll be making feature length films, though.

I knew there was a reason Windows Update reminded me of a cheap spammish website - Brian reveals how they include all sorts of pop-up ads in the update software, including really cheesy crap like "YOUR COMPUTER IS INFECTED!!!" No thanks. I've decided to go as long as possible without doing anything that sends one red cent to Microsoft. No Office updates, no Xbox, no nuttin'. Call me a Mac extremist, but Microsoft is just plain frickin' annoying, and they don't deserve my business.

Since we're on the subject, Apple has just released, via .Mac, their new backup utility. This is something I like about Apple and their .Mac service - yes, I paid more for my Mac, and yes I pay $60 per year or so for the .Mac service. But, they are purchases that keep on giving. Instead of nickel and diming me for every little thing, they give all sorts of incremental service improvements: Free software like Backup and Virex, easy to create web pages (see links above), easy software updates for their excellent programs like iPhoto, iTunes, iMovie and iDVD (yes I have it now, and it rocks), and lots of little things like that. I like this business model - it makes computing pleasant instead of annoying.

Last note: If you liked the discussion of TicketMaster's auction initiative, check out the continuing discussion here (see comments).

I try to avoid getting sucked into the bias and politics at the New York Times, but today I'm going to indulge.

Here's the article.

This Op-Ed from the NYT just makes me shake my head in wonder - wonder that it got printed at all, and wonder if the author has been paying *any* attention to politics for the past couple years.

The author, Matthew Miller, complains that Democrats are not focusing on issues "on which all Americans can agree". Sounds like a good concept - when one is in grammar school. But let's take a look: what are these great ideas?

"Can't we agree that anyone who works full time should be able to provide for his or her family?"

I take this to mean, shouldn't one full time worker be able to solely provide for his or her family? Most middle class folks, people who make over $50k or so per year, find that one income is not enough. There are so many things people want to do - activities for kids, trips, items to buy, "basic" services like cable TV and cell phones - that one income is just not enough. Nonetheless, the author seems to suggest that any full-time worker, even a burger-flipper at McDonalds, "should be able to provide for his or her family". The answer is, no. There are full time jobs that are not careers, that are not good enough to support an entire family. So, either have two parties work (like so much of America already does), or live on less. Later the author mentions a living wage - hell, why not just make it $100K and everyone can retire? Really, paying people $9 per hour to do a task that is only worth $5 per hour is not going to improve this country. Suffice it to say, I am an American, and I don't agree. So, this idea is out.

"That every citizen should have basic health coverage?"

This is probably fodder for an entire episode, but let me quickly address this. Insurance companies make a lot of money. They make it primarily by charging premiums to customers. Therefore, the relationship between insured and insurer is a net gain for the insurer and a loss for the insured. The decision to avoid insurance is not necessarily insane, as policymakers would have it - it's more of a gamble. That said, sure, most people want insurance to smooth out the bumps in health care costs, and to guard against any really major expenses. The author does mention the idea to "give uninsured families generous vouchers (or tax credits) to buy health coverage at group rates from regulated private insurers," which is not a bad idea - but that would certainly be a shift away from current Democrat policy.

Finally, the author asks if we can agree "that special efforts should be made to make sure that poor children have good schools?" Sure, special efforts - I agree. Let's look back at that health care solution, and what do we find: vouchers and tax credits. But when it comes to education, liberals and Democrats hate vouchers, so instead the author figures to reengineer capitalism by simply raising wages, which will magically attract new talent to educate inner-city kids. Presumably the current mediocre teachers would be replaced by the newer, better teachers - how that is better than allowing kids to go to other schools that are already proven to be better, I don't know. Well, better for the kids, I mean. For the mediocre teachers, it is certainly better - they get more money for the same job. Is that what we're supposed to all agree about?

Have a great weekend.