Are you pro-serif or sans-serif?

Such a tough choice! Where’s the Comic Sans candidate?

It never fails to amaze me that in a territory as heated as politics, graphic design does so little to make a difference. And we have nobody to blame but ourselves… Let me qualify. In the remote part of New England where we live, civilians pierce their lawns with red, white and blue posters advocating their candidate of choice. Like billboards, they are angled so that motorists can see them and — hard to imagine — be duly swayed once they enter the voting booth in November. And swayed by what, exactly? How about the fact that the Bush/Cheney posters offer the same patriotic color palette as the Kerry/Edwards posters? Why has no smart graphic designer come along to remedy this?

I just made SEQ541 a GPL program. Hopefully someone else will pick up the torch and add all the features to this program that I don’t have time to add! 🙂

Thoughts about the debate…

Some camera angles made Bush look really tan.

Both candidates have a tendency to lean their heads about 5-10 degrees to the right when talking. Kerry is a little more down and to the right than Bush.

CNN.com’s current headline is “President Bush and Sen. John Kerry argued over who had the best foreign policies for the next four years. They agreed nuclear proliferation was the biggest threat but from the war in Iraq to keeping America safe, they tried to put clear space between each other…” If you watched the debate, you should know that this is not an entirely correct statement. Bush said repeatedly, when prodded, that the “single biggest threat” is “proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists“. He always followed that statement up with “in the hands of terrorists,” and he never once used the word “nuclear,” he used the wmd word.

Bob Novak noted on his blog: “Rules were supposed to prevent cutaway shots, but Fox has ignored them. Kerry is shown nodding his head when Bush talks — not a good habit.” I agree, but I wouldn’t say the look on his face was necessarily a look of agreement, it was more of a newage “I hear what you’re saying..” kind of nod.

Did you notice during the debate that Kerry never looked at the camera? This bothered me, but then at the very end for his closing remarks he looks straight into the camera and delivers his entire closing speech. This has to have been intentional, but I fail to see the psychology behind it. Is this supposed to give him a better “punch” at the end or something?

Bush studders when he talks–a lot. Personally, I think it’s embarassing. In Bush’s own words from tonight “it’s no way for the Commander in Chief to act.” Kerry’s voice was calm and controlled, but if you looked closely at the beginning you could see his hands were shaking.

Bush had a really interesting posture all throughout the debate. This had to have been intentional. He kind of hunched over and leaned in whenever he really wanted to drive a statement home, especially when the statement had something to do with values or convictions. Did you notice that? Whenever he wanted to imply that Kerry didn’t have the strength to be President, or whenever he was responding to invading Iraq or attacking Iraq he’d lean in, smirk, and then gesture with one of his hands and say something like “it’s just what you believe; deep down in your heart of hearts..” The technique is a great one. To me, I think it’s intended to send this message: “believe in me, not in what I’m saying,” and I think it works.

Whenever Kerry wanted to drive a statement home he would put on a really serious facial expression and make firm karate-chop gestures with both of his hands in sync. I think he was trying to counter Bush’s “I believe what I’m doing is right” with “I know for a fact what’s right.”

To me, the “differences between the candidates” that were revealed at the debate were: Bush offers beliefs; Kerry offers judgement.

(I’m watching the debate)…

Kerry, for Christ’s sake, LOOK INTO THE CAMERA.

Sad day for my Powerbook.

As I write this message, my Powerbook G4 800 fan is on full blast. The case is extremely hot; I can’t hold my finger to the section of metal between the keyboard and the display for more than a second it’s so hot. CPU load is less than 0.2, usage is under 10%. All I have open is Safari and iChat.

My Powerbook used to have overheating issues a few months ago, but it only happened when I was really pushing the CPU–compiling or playing games. Now all I need to do is have the system on for 5 minutes and it will severely overheat.

This has been going on for two weeks now and I have no idea how to mitigate this. Nothing I do seems to get the laptop to cool down; the fan may become more quiet but it’s still uncomfortable to type on because the keyboard is so warm.

I love this laptop. I’ve had it for about 2 years so I know I’m due for a replacement. I’d buy a replacement today but I know the G5 Powerbooks are just around the corner…

I’m considering getting a PC laptop because all of the code for my thesis is done in Win32/Direct3D, but something about going back to a PC laptop just doesn’t feel right. 🙂 Certainly, in PC land I can get something much more powerful much cheaper, but I love the Mac toolset for email, writing (LaTeX), and web surfing… Also, PC laptops don’t have exactly have a better track record for reliability… :-/

Excellent quote

If Islam ever tries to get into this country, “Homeland Security spokesman Brian Doyle said Islam would be put on the first available flight back to Britain.”

They’re actually referring to Yusuf Islam, or everyone’s favorite singer-turned-Muslim, Cat Stevens.

A law enforcement official who asked not to be identified said the United States had information Islam had donated money to the militant Islamic group Hamas.

Hmm.

Excerpts from today’s Stratfor

…it is essential to realize that from al Qaeda’s strategic point of view, the last three years have been a series of failures and disappointments. This is the objective reality. It is not the American perception. The first reason for this perception gap is the definition the administration has given the war: It is a war on terrorism. If the goal of the war has been to deny al Qaeda strategic victory, then the United States is winning the war.

We have also argued, and continue to be amazed, that the single greatest failure of the Bush administration in this war has been its inability to give a coherent explanation of why it invaded Iraq. The public justification — that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction — was patently absurd on its face. You do not invade a country with a year’s warning if you are really afraid of WMD. The incoherence of the justification was self-evident prior to the war, and the failure to find WMD was merely icing on the cake. The consequence was a crisis of confidence that was a very unlikely outcome after Sept. 11 and which the administration built for itself. In other words, the decision to invade Iraq was, from our point of view, inevitable following the failure of the covert war. What was not inevitable was the catastrophic failure to explain the invasion and the resulting crisis of confidence.

…we can say that al Qaeda has failed to achieve its strategic goals. At the same time, the United States is facing its own strategic crisis. Since Vietnam, the fundamental question has been whether the United States has sufficient will and national unity to execute a long-term war. One of the purposes of the Iraq invasion was to demonstrate American will. The errors in what we might call information warfare — or propaganda — by the Bush administration have generated severe doubts. The administration’s management of the situation has turned into a strategic defeat — although not a decisive one as yet.

Massive dissent about wars has been the norm in American history. We tend to think of World War II as the norm, but, quite the contrary, it was the exception. The Revolutionary War, Mexican War, Civil War, Vietnam War and others all contained amazing levels of rancor among the American public. The vilification among the citizenry of Washington’s generalship or Lincoln’s presidency during the action was quite amazing. Thus, it is not the dissent that is startling, but the perception of U.S. weakness that it generates in the Islamic world. And the responsibility does not rest with the dissidents, but with the president’s failure to understand the strategic consequences of public incoherence on policy issues. Keeping it simple works only when the simple explanation is not too difficult to understand.