Monthly Archives: November 2009

Get rid of the filibuster

Posted on by

Over the weekend, the Senate Democrats managed to unite long enough to move the health care reform bill to the floor for debate. They patched together the sixty votes needed to override a filibuster attempt by the equally united Republicans. Hooray!

Of course, all is not over. The bill still has to pass the Senate (where another attempt at a filibuster will surely be made).

Personally, I am fed up with filibusters.

For starters, the idea that a bill needs to survive at least two threatened filibusters to get approved is overkill. It’s absurd enough to have to deal with a filibuster threat once per bill.

Actually, I would prefer to eliminate filibusters altogether. The House survives without them. So could the Senate.

Not too long ago, back in 2005, when the Republicans controlled the Senate, they threatened “a nuclear option,” a move to essentially eliminate the filibuster altogether. They were frustrated with Democratic filibusters that were holding up judicial nominees. In the end, the “crisis” was averted — and the filibuster remained intact. Too bad.

Before I take any political position, I try to examine it from both sides of the fence. Sure, as a left-wing Democrat in favor of universal health care, I would welcome the elimination of the filibuster roadblock in the current Congress. But, if this happens, the day will surely come when the tables are turned and it will be a Republican majority forcing through its legislative agenda without the filibuster as a brake. I need to consider this as well. Without this sort of of consideration, you wind up looking hypocritical, switching positions as the political winds shift (a common illness in Washington; see this article).

On balance, I’d take the risk and would welcome a death-blow to this anachronistic procedure.

My major objections to the filibuster are two-fold.

First, it is too easy to filibuster. As has been repeatedly pointed out by the media, you now need 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate. I don’t believe this was ever the intention of the Constitution or even the original concept of the filibuster itself. Remember when you actually had to stand up and keep talking to maintain a filibuster? Back then, a filibuster was not automatically guaranteed to succeed. Now, you simply have to threaten a filibuster and a bill is dead within seconds.

For a good explanation of “How Cloture Rule Allows Minority To Block Legislation Without ‘Actual Filibustering,'” see this article.

My second objection follows from the first: the frequency of filibusters has ballooned in recent years. As noted in Wikipedia: “In the 1960s, no Senate term had more than seven filibusters.” In 2008, there was a record 112 cloture votes [needed to end debate on a filibustered bill].

Two other articles, one from the Washington Post and the other from politico.com, similarly discuss the merits of ending a filibuster.

In the end, frequent filibusters hurt the entire Senate. When neither party can pass significant legislation, even when they have a clear majority, the result is that nothing significant ever gets accomplished. The public inevitably adopts a “pox on both their houses” view. Sadly, as the minority party can typically prevent any revision to the rules, and as a filibuster serves the short-term interests of the minority, I doubt we’ll see any changes any time soon.

App Store: No appeal for developers?

Posted on by

My most recent article for The Mac Observer delves into the problems developers have with Apple’s App Store approval process — focusing on a recent series of nonsensical rejections. More recently, I stumbled upon another article on the same topic. It makes an intriguing point: the main problem with the App Store is that Apple treats software as a commodity similar to a song in your music library. It doesn’t work. Read the article if you want to find out why.

I’ve since concluded that there is yet another major problem with the App Store approval process: There is no effective and standardized way to appeal a decision.

When I call almost any company, such as my credit card company, to complain about something — and I am dissatisfied with what the person is telling me — I can ask to “speak to your supervisor.” Usually, this works; they do pass my call up the ladder. The result may not change. But at least I get to speak to someone with more authority to make a change.

I understand that the support people at the bottom rung are encouraged not to “get the supervisor” too easily — lest every minor complaint get bumped up. But at least they are permitted the discretion to decide. For my part, I try not to exercise this option unless I truly believe I have a major grievance.

Based on the developers’ stories I have read, the situation with Apple is quite different. You get the feeling that the ones at the bottom of the ladder (assuming you even get to speak to anyone at all, rather than being forced to work through email) are told by Apple: “Make your decision, based on the guidelines we give you. Then stick to it no matter what. Whatever complaint you may hear, ignore it and repeat that your decision is final. Under no circumstances indicate that there is any possible appeal (other than via the developer resubmitting the app and starting over). And certainly don’t pass off a call to any “higher up.”

If Apple adopted a more reasonable approach to dealing with dissatisfied developers, it might have avoided most, if not all, of the “horror stories” that have been circulating on the Web.

The iPhone is ready to go beyond AT&T

Posted on by

In the November 23 issue of Newsweek, Daniel Lyons argues that the iPhone is in danger of the same fate the befell the Mac: doomed to a small market share while another player becomes dominant. For the Mac, the other “player” was Microsoft. For the iPhone, the biggest threat is Google’s Android.

The problem, as Lyons sees it, is that Android is an open system that potentially works on any company’s hardware, just as was the case for MS-DOS/Windows. The iPhone, in contrast, is a closed system “keeping the software tightly coupled to the hardware.”

While I too have lamented the iPhone’s closed nature, I have to disagree with Lyons’ overall conclusion. The foundation of the iPhone’s appeal comes from the über-successful iPod. While the iPod might be similarly criticized as “closed,” it is never-the-less the 2000-gorilla of MP3 players. With the iPod touch as its wingman, the iPhone is similarly positioned to be follow in the footsteps of the iPod rather than the Mac.

With one exception.

I totally agree with Lyon’s concern that the iPhone runs only on the AT&T network. In the beginning, back in 2007, this hardly mattered. Starting from an installed base of zero, the iPhone was destined to take off no matter what. Any AT&T customer thinking of getting a smartphone was going to give the iPhone a serious look. For millions of other users, the desire to have an iPhone trumped everything — and they switched to AT&T.

Times have changed. AT&T continues to take hits for its relatively poor 3G network. Its refusal to activate Internet tethering on the iPhone because of its expected network impact is yet another black mark. Meanwhile, as Google’s Android phone improves, it may become less critical to switch to AT&T just so you can get an iPhone.

The result is that the potential pool of iPhone users will inevitably plateau. No other smartphone need worry about bumping into this ceiling.

What’s the solution? It’s an easy one. Apple needs to expand the iPhone’s availability to carriers beyond AT&T. The iPhone already supports a multitude of different carriers around the world. It shouldn’t be that difficult to support more than one carrier in the U.S.. Numerous others have come to the same conclusion (see this article for one example).

The hangup is more legal than technological. Apple and AT&T currently have a licensing agreement that requires that the status quo be maintained. Although both parties remain relatively mum about the details of this arrangement, there are predictions that the contract will expire as soon as next year.

When that happens, I would strongly urge Apple to drop its exclusive licensing with AT&T. No other single move would have as much positive impact on the iPhone’s future market share. By so doing, the iPhone will be well on its way to the same level of dominance now enjoyed by the iPod.

Nicholas Wade on Evolution: Strike Two

Posted on by

A few weeks ago, the New York Times ran a review of Richard Dawkin’s latest book on evolution, The Greatest Show on Earth. The review, written by Nicholas Wade, had a very troubling slant. In what I view as its most grievous error, Wade contended that Dawkins “doesn’t know what a theory is,” In saying this, Wade gave support to the discredited view that “evolution is only a theory” and thus easily dismissed. Frankly, I expected better from the New York Times.

This isn’t just my opinion. The Times initially posted two Letters to the Editor from eminent scientists, both critical of the review. Adding that they received an “unusually large number” of letters “from readers who identified themselves as scientists or philosophers,” the Times posted a further collection of letters — all critical.

Apparently, this was not enough to convince the Times to itself be a bit more critical in evaluating Mr. Wade’s writing. He was back again with a Week-in-Review column titled “The Evolution of the God Gene.” Here he makes at least three very questionable assertions.

First is the claim that the ubiquity of religion in human culture suggests that there may be a gene for religion, favored by natural selection. Hence the title of the column. A gene that directly codes for a belief in God is almost certainly a gross over-simplification of how genetics and evolution works — even if there were some overall truth to Wade’s assertion.

But it gets worse. Wade next asserts that the presumed presence of a God gene implies that religion has a “constructive role” in society and should thus be viewed “favorably.” This logic runs counter to a wealth of literature that correctly points out that just because something may be favored by natural selection does not mean that we should view it as “good.”

For example, there is research that suggests a genetic evolutionary basis for human infidelity and even rape. There is certainly not a consensus of agreement on this matter. But even among those who support the viewpoint, no one would argue that this means human societies should promote infidelity or rape. Nor does it mean that humans should not consciously work to override what, in our present society, is a negative evolutionary inheritance. More generally for any trait, even if it was useful in our evolutionary past, this does not mean it remains so today. This extends to any supposed “God gene” as well.

Finally, Wade’s assertions move from the distorted and incorrect to the truly absurd. He correctly notes that a supposed evolutionary basis for religion would “neither prove nor disprove the existence of gods.” The problem is that the rest of the article implies that this point is largely irrelevant. That is, he argues that, if religion has the “benefits” he proposes, we should support religion even if its most fundamental assertion is false.

I’m sorry. To travel from what is at best a questionable premise to a conclusion that we should all close our eyes and support a belief even if it has no more veracity than a fairy tale — borders on the ridiculous.

Once again, I am a bit mystified that the New York Times saw fit to publish this article, which now amounts to “strike two” for Wade. Maybe, one more and he’s out.

As for Wade himself, he has just published a book titled “The Faith Instinct: How Religion Evolved and Why It Endures.” I’m guessing that the God Gene column amounts to a summary of and promotion for his book.