ESPN360 and the iPhone

Notice I didn't say ESPN360 on the iPhone - for that you'll have to look elsewhere. But for someone like me, whose Comcast internet means no ESPN360 access, I just found out my iPhone was the key to unlocking the online sports streaming service.

Since ESPN has obstinately decided to use the cable TV model on the web - charge the providers, not the customers - those of us who get our Internet through a non-participating ISP (and for all I dislike about Comcast, I can't blame them for not buying into this horrible precedent of an online business model) can't access the Worldwide Leader's online live video.

The iPhone is no help on the go - as far as I know, there's no way to watch the video on the device. But navigate to espn360.com using AT&T's 3G (or Edge, I imagine) service and ESPN sees you as qualified. If you have a free myESPN account (or if you sign up) you can then click "Remote Access" to set your username as someone who can use the service. Then at home using a non-360 ISP, log in to ESPN and start watching.

Heard this story on NPR this morning - it nearly made me physically ill. Things like this just make me angry, and I have no good idea on what to do about it, other than get better funding for DNA labs these days and hope the system really is competent and stories like this are the exception rather than the rule.

Family Of Man Cleared By DNA Still Seeks Justice

falling off the blogging wagon

Clearly, I have not thrown much up on this virtual wall lately. Facebook and it's easy iPhone app have sucked most of my random thoughts away from this venue - status updates are the wave of the present.

The usual time-sucks - work, my other (freelance) work, and a desire to capitalize on my leisure opportunities are in play here, as is my general trait toward inaction in the absence of an actual deadline.

I'm hoping to keep, or restart, or start for the first time (depending on how you look at it) a line from my brain to this outlet for my thoughts, mostly for my own amusement (which is all it's ever been, since a sporadic blog of totally random links and thoughts garners about 5 hits a day at the best of times).

No promises, of course. But maybe I can wean myself off the Facebook and start to throw a few status updates Blogger's way.

William Jefferson is now unemployed, leaving him more time to hang around his house and gaze longingly into what I hope is a now-empty freezer.

Please, please, can somebody send Charles Rangel back as well?

In a roundup of news stories about Congress today, two stories were about Republicans warning Democrats about pushing through their agenda in the next Congress.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) warned Democrats today against preventing Republicans from offering amendments on the floor and making labor legislation a top priority in the 111th Congress.

Just one day after Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) won the chairmanship of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Republicans are seeking assurances that he won’t use his new position to push legislation that would grant California and other states the right to regulate greenhouse gases from automobiles.

Now, I understand there are some legitimate concerns about one party pushing through legislation. Legislation designed solely to cement the party's position in power or to remove checks - such as completely removing the ability to offer amendments, especially when you should be able to easily vote down the ones you don't like - would be something I'd genuinely worry about. But Republicans making threats to Democrats about passing policies that are more or less part of the platform? After this past election, I'm not quite sure what the Republicans think they have to back up their threats. Although I'm fairly sure the Democrats are capable of capitulating.

Cultural confusion

This headline seriously confused me, until I realized it means an entirely different thing in Britain than it does here.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/3468111/Pot-plants-instead-of-bouquets-for-medallists-at-2012-London-Olympics.html

Lieberman

The vote was today, and the Senate Democrats voted essentially to ignore common sense and allow Lieberman to keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee. This is the sort of thing that makes me angry.

It's not as bad as the Dems capitulation in recent years on all questionable national security measures (FISA, the Patriot Act) but it's not a good start to this supposed new era of Democratic leadership.

I didn't want Lieberman kicked out of the party. But it seemed pretty simple - support the other party's candidate and badmouth your own, lose your most powerful platform. The justifications don't make sense to me - the talk about reconciliation and unity to honor Obama's message is the worst sort of smokescreen. This feels, pure and simple, like Congressmen unwilling to take a stand to take power away from a colleague because they don't want to have to worry about losing power themselves.

I don't advocate holding committee spots over the head of any legislator who breaks ranks on an issue. In fact, I would be even more angry about that sort of move, which seems more in keeping with the Tom DeLay school of political philosophy. Principled stands on issues, or even a crass political move on a vote, doesn't merit retribution from the party. But this isn't about one issue, or any principled stand, it's about a Senator who has actively campaigned against the symbolic head of the party, as well as staked out ground well to the right of where the party should be heading.

What really makes me angry at this move isn't even the issues surrounding the Lieberman vote, but what it tells us about the mood of the party leadership. The Democrats have been playing scared for a long time, even after picking up control in 2006. After riding a wave of obvious sentiment against the way the country has been governed and Bush's presidency, instead of making coherent arguments and standing up against Bush on key votes, instead they've made an occasional valid point and then immediately backed down once the votes were cast. It's as though Rove's politics of fear have the bulk of the Democratic congress so worried about falling prey to easy attacks on complex votes they aren't willing to do anything that might give the other side an opening.

To me, this was the most exciting thing about Obama's campaign. On some key points, when the opposition was trying to stir up resentment about his positions Obama didn't take the bait. Instead of retreating or responding in kind, he actually stood behind his position. Look at his speech on the politics of race. Or his willingness to stand behind his statements about pursuing diplomatic talks with our enemies.

I think there is a real danger of the Democrats losing the public affection they've gained in the past two election cycles, but to me the most likely way that will happen is by concentrating on votes that are clearly designed to benefit the people passing them - by worrying more about amassing power than benefiting the nation. And by not passing sweeping reforms of a progressive bent. The situation calls for large measures, and the leadership should be willing to make complex arguments to the American public, even if such moves may be seen as politically unpopular in the short term.

What this vote tells me is the Democratic Senate is not going to be interested in those sorts of large-scale measures or complex discussions. They're going to be interested in enjoying the political power they've been denied for much of the past three decades. And this is going to be the surest way to screw it all up.