Blog

A review of Google Glass makes an interesting point that I don’t think is right. Taking your phone out of your pocket to check your email shows everyone that you are not interested in them, but surreptitiously checking your email on Google Glass does not:

For example, how many times a day do you pick up your phone to check the time or to see if you have any missed calls or text messages? I couldn’t count the times that I’ve wasted that arm motion, in the sense that it has taken attention away from things around me. Every single time you take your phone out, you’re telling the people that are around you that you have no interest in interacting with them for at least 30 seconds while you dive into your phone. Now, am I saying that having a screen above your eye is any less socially awkward? No. But it lets you access the same information quicker without having to stop what you’re doing.

Isn’t the very act of wearing Glass a signaling to the world that whatever is on your lens is more important than what is around you? Now, I don’t think that is necessarily a bad thing, and with time, will become more socially acceptable.

I am still mixed on the idea of Glass. Though, this one attribute, of quietly checking my stuff without anyone knowing is somewhat appealing–and troubling.

Is it possible to consider two sources of information at once–the people in front of you, and the data on your screen? The Times has an interesting piece about high-tech ski goggles used on the slope that can provide a heads-up display:

“When my girls first started using them, they would get in trouble because they were watching their speed and not paying attention to what they were doing,” he said. “They would fall, but you only do that once before you realize it’s not a good thing to do.”

Besides, he said of the little screen, “once you get used to it, you can pick it up without having to take focus off the mountain itself.”

Therein lies the rub. Safety advocates say it is not possible, as seductive as it might sound, to take in simultaneously two streams of information: the real-life action, and the virtual performance data.

“You’re effectively skiing blind; you’re going to miss a mogul or hit somebody,” said David Strayer, a neuroscientist at the University of Utah, in Salt Lake City, who for more than two decades has studied the science of attention and distraction. Even the briefest glance at the information takes over a skier’s field of vision and focus, he said.

I think I could pull it off. I have five monitors, and I can usually keep my peripheral vision on all of them. If something flashes on a far monitor, I can usually see it out of the corner of the eye. A heads-up display on googles would be easier.

Oh this should be a fun political question. The Times reports on the lawsuit filed by Rangel, asserting:

The lawsuit, filed on Monday in Federal District Court here, claims that the House ethics committee broke its own rules during its investigation of Mr. Rangel, including the inappropriate sharing of confidential evidence by investigators with Republicans on the committee. He also claims that he was denied the right to cross-examine witnesses during his hearing, and that some of the investigators had made racist statements.

He brought suit under the “Rules of its Proceedings” clause, coupled with due process violations. He also asserts that the “speech or debate” clause does not apply because the defendants “intentionally and willfully [were] in violation of what was required to fall within the privilege.”

I can’t imagine the courts want to get involved with this–as the complaint notes, there have been no court cases to interpret the “rules of proceedings” clause.

Who can name all the Justices who share the same last name:

• John Marshall and Thurgood Marshall
• Samuel Chase and Salmon Chase
• Thomas Johnson and William Johnson
• John Marshall Harlan I and John Marshall Harlan II
• Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar (yes this was actually a Justice) and Joseph Rucker Lamar – they were cousins
• Howell Jackson and Robert H. Jackson (H/T John Q. Barrett)
• Edward White and Byron White
• Owen Roberts and John Roberts – they share an bond for switches in time

 

Earlier, I blogged about statements from Rand Paul, where he implied that he was okay with using a lethal drone strike in the case of a criminal investigation, where a suspect posed a threat.

In a statement, Rand walked balk that statement:

“My comments last night left the mistaken impression that my position on drones had changed.

“Let me be clear: it has not. Armed drones should not be used in normal crime situations. They only may only be considered in extraordinary, lethal situations where there is an ongoing, imminent threat. I described that scenario previously during my Senate filibuster.

“Additionally, surveillance drones should only be used with warrants and specific targets.

“Fighting terrorism and capturing terrorists must be done while preserving our constitutional protections. This was demonstrated last week in Boston. As we all seek to prevent future tragedies, we must continue to bear this in mind.”

So a lethal drone strike could not be used to take out a guy running out of a 7-11 carrying a stack of bills and a Glock?

H/T Ilya Shapiro

The Times has an interesting piece lamenting President Obama’s inability to twist arms, and exact loyalty from his caucus.

After more than four years in the Oval Office, the president has rarely demonstrated an appetite for ruthless politics that instills fear in lawmakers. That raises a broader question: If he cannot translate the support of 90 percent of the public for background checks into a victory on Capitol Hill, what can he expect to accomplish legislatively for his remaining three and a half years in office?

Interestingly, the article chooses to compare Obama to Johnson, who had a reputation as an arm-twister-extraordinaire.

Robert Dallek, a historian and biographer of President Lyndon B. Johnson, said Mr. Obama seems “inclined to believe that sweet reason is what you need to use with people in high office.” That contrasts with Johnson’s belief that “what you need to do is to back people up against a wall,” Mr. Dallek said.

“Obama has this more reasoned temperament,” he said. “It may well be that it’s not the prescription for making gains. It raises questions about his powers of persuasion.” “President Obama is not Lyndon Johnson, and this is not the 1960s,” said Representative Mike Thompson, a California Democrat and chairman of the House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force. Mr. Johnson had large Democratic majorities in Congress during much of his presidency. “It’s a different time and different people, and everyone has their own way of doing things. This president can be every bit as convincing as any president before him.”

The comparisons to Johnson are interesting.

In the Epilogue to my book, I consider the various vote tallies of landmark pieces of legislation passed in the 20th Century. With the exception of the Affordable Care Act, all of these laws were passed by a bipartisan majority.

Here is an excerpt:

All of the major, landmark, transformational federal laws enacted in the twentieth century were passed with bipartisan support. There was always buy-in from the minority party—support often obtained through messy political compromises and bargaining. The Social Security Act of 1935 was supported by 77 Republicans in the House, who joined 288 Democrats. In the Senate, 15 Republicans joined 60 Democrats. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed the Senate by a vote of 73 in favor and 27 opposed. A bold coalition of 27 Republicans and 44 Democrats united to break a segregationist-led filibuster. The Social Security Amendments of 1965, which created Medicaid and Medicare, passed the House by a vote of 307–116, with 70 Republicans voting in favor. This monumental health care legislation cleared the Senate by a vote of 70–24; 13 Republicans crossed the aisle. The Civil Rights Act of 1968 was passed with broad bipartisan support; the Voting Rights Act of 1968 gained bipartisan support. In 1990 the Americans with Disabilities Act passed with 90 percent agreement in the House and Senate. The absence of any consensus for the Affordable Care Act in 2009 was remarkable, and proved to be a very inauspicious start.

I’m pleased that my comparison about Obama and Johnson are resonating well with the current political landscape. As I noted in my book, the comparisons are even more stark when you consider the nature of the laws being passed by Johnson and Obama.

Let’s put this in context. President Lyndon B. Johnson was able to get more former segregationists to vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 than President Obama was able to get moderate Republicans to vote for the Affordable Care Act. Legislation is indeed always a compromise, especially in a state of gridlock exacerbated by recalcitrant Republicans. However, the president and leaders in the Congress forced this law thorough with full knowledge that there would be no bipartisan support and that they would lose members of their own caucus.

In his second term, the President simply lacks the power to pass anything along a party-line vote (put aside for a moment the issue of the filibuster–the Democrats dare not abolish it for they soon may be in the minority and do not want relinquish the power). He will need to seek compromise. But as evidenced by the recent gun vote, he can’t even keep his own caucus in line.