Why I follow @aplusk and not @cnnbrk

I'm on twitter as @dbentley. Recently, there's been a race between Ashton Kutcher and CNN for who can be the first account to have 1 million followers. As of this writing, it's neck and neck.

Personally, I follow @aplusk (Ashton Kutcher) and not @cnnbrk (CNN). Why?

• CNN isn't anything new. It's headlines. It's a wire service. It's an RSS feed limited to <>
• It doesn't try to be anything more. It follows one account. It doesn't interact with the community. Yeah, you "get" the internet. But by that CNN doesn't mean "understanding", it means "getting more eyeballs".

Ashton is creating community and interacting with it. I'm not sure where Twitter's going, but I know that Ashton's leading and CNN's coasting.

Not an important posting

Kraft Mac and Cheese has premium flavors. And they're good. And yet, the premium flavors cost the same at my local store ($1.89). One of them even includes an extra .05 oz net wt. How is the premium mac and cheese not more expensive to make? Or does Kraft simply believe in their product so much that they are subsiziding it?

Idea for the Golden Globes

The Golden Globes have separate awards for Best Dramatic Picture and Best Comedic Picture. My impression is that, were they forced to choose a Best Picture, most years it would be the Best Dramatic Picture winner, and so that category is viewed as "higher". Even though some years, it might maybe...

Well, why don't we try. I think that if you're voting for the Golden Globes, then you should vote for each category separately, and also choose one of them as Best Picture. Then, they should disqualify the Best Picture winner as winning its category. Instead, they would award Best Dramatic Picture winner to the second-place in that category (in years that Dramatic picture won Best Picture).

This would mean that the cast and crew of a Best Dramatic Picture would want to win. But they'd also kinda want to lose, in the hopes that they won Best Picture (which would be announced later).

I think this would make for much cooler shots where some directors would be a little bit happy they lost Best Dramatic Picture. Until they later lost Best Picture, too. To Mamma Mia!

The tears of heart-broken actresses can cure... well, nothing. But they sure make me laugh.

An Honest-to-God Constitutional Crisis!

Man, Rod Blagojevich is a Dick. Determined to go down swinging, he appoints Roland Burris, whose only weakness is sympathizing with that Dick Rod Blagojevich. And suddenly, though no one wants to say it, we have a Constitutional Crisis on our hands. I'm no lawyer, but here's my thinking.

The two major points seem to be:

1. the Constitution, which states that each house of Congress is "the Judge of the Elections, Returns, and Qualifications of its own members". Great, easy enough. The Senate gets to decide everything. Except nope, because the second major point...
2. Powell v. McCormack says that Congress only gets to test the Qualifications set in the Constitution (older than such and such age, citizen of X state for at least Y months, etc.), and can't set the barbarous Qualification of "you can't have been kicked out of Congress before". Meh, not sure I agree with the decision, but hey, it's the Law of the Land.
   

Almost all of the analyses I've seen have been trying to fit the current conditions to the contours of Powell v. McCormack. But what people haven't been mentioning is "Political Question", the doctrine by which the Supreme Court can choose not to decide a case because it has no right to interfere. Somewhere, that clause has to give a house in Congress a right to act in some way to exclude members (or else it wouldn't have been included). And when it exercises that right, it is "the Judge".

That's scary. Because that means that once it figures out exactly the limits of that power, within that realm its power is absolute. And can't be checked. And can be wielded for political purposes. Could someone explain to me why a majority of the Senate couldn't get together and say to prospective Senators (presumably of the other party): "I'm sorry, we don't believe your birth certificate. We think you're 29, and therefore unable to serve in this Senate; better luck never."?

We like Checks and Balances. But it seems here that the Constitution has said "there is an area here where each House is the final authority". I think that's the heart of the issue. At some point, the Supreme Court has to let each House make its own mistakes, and let them card members-elect and then act like dicks, and then have the system come crumbling down with a new amendment that will create an alternative system that has its own pitfalls. Oh Constitutional Crisis, you're so fun to hypothesize about!

Why do Unions like Pensions?

I understand why people like pensions.  You work for a while, then you get to retire, and you don't have to worry.

But there's also lock-in.  You only get the pension if you stay with a company.  Through good times, and bad.  maybe it's not a fun place to work anymore.  Maybe it's downright horrid.  But if you stay for another four years, you get your pension, so you stay.

Why is that good for employees?  Wouldn't it be better to have fluidity (on the part of the workers) so that they can apply not just short-term pressure (strikes) but long-term pressure (retention)?

Or is this a situation where the structure of a union has incentives not aligned with the rank-and-file workers?  (Because if you leave the company, you might fall under a different union representative, or a different union)

Vista and Silverlight: two tastes that really ought to not be forced together

I'm kind of interested in the Mojave Experiment.  Microsoft went out and showed people "Mojave" and how much better it was than Vista, their never-got-off-the-ground-acceptance-wise OS.  And then, "surprise", Mojave is Vista, Soylent Green is People, and Bob is Your Uncle.

A friend was looking for a computer and asking about Vista and with how much vigor she ought avoid it.  My understanding is that much of the backlash is because it's hard to get things working with Vista if you upgrade, but if you get it on a computer you'll be fine.  I was hoping to give her some ciation towards this, and so went to http://www.mojaveexperiment.com/ .

And it requires Silverlight.  Microsoft's other latest technology.  If you're trying to convince slow adopters, why would you use a different early adopter technology?

It's such a great idea, with such a head-in-the-sand implementation.

[These views are my own and not my employer's; though I hope they become yours.  Because I'm right.]

Words' Resurgence

I'm reading George Orwell's Down and Out in Paris and London.  It's a (slightly fictionalized, it turns out) telling of his time being poor in... Paris and London.  Good book, and even though I sometimes disagree with Orwell I never regret the time I spent reading him.

Two big thoughts have struck me:

1) I could make a lot of money compiling a guide to English funny currency.  What the hell is a bob?  And a crown?  What's five and sixpence mean?  And a quid?  (In fact, I know the answers to most of these).  But a Creative Commons-licensed (non-commercial) essay describing the universe and lexicon, along with a per-decade commentary on economics (so you can know how much 4 pounds is in each time period, say) would be awesome.  I imagine that, written well enough, and licensed cheaply enough, you could allow editors to include it in editions of... basically any English Literature book ever.

2) I got to this passage:  "And instantly [] the tramps began to misbehave[]. All round the gallery men lolled in their pews, laughed, chattered..."  Loll is a verb, meaning to lounge around, but in that context it seemed so much to presage "lol" as in "omfg lol" that I wondered if I hadn't gotten a copy of the book remixed a la Laugh-Out-Loud Cats.  It just all worked so well:  a book about tramps that was in the context of laughing by a writer who thought so much about language (yes, 1984, but also its underappreciated precursor "Politics and the English Language".

So, George (nee Eric), tell me, is newspeak really a foreshadowing of teenage girl speak?  My hat, as ever, is off to you.