She was a beauty, alright. Reminds me of my wife in some ways.

I remember when the Amish would rather skin their favorite hog Joshua before he was fully fattened than use electrical power for anything. Now they're using solar panels.

I consider this a sign of the Apocalypse.

Digg Report: Today's #1 Digg, at a light 2304, is a story about... well... Digg. I've noticed that whenever there's news about Kevin Rose, one of Digg's founders, it tends to go straight to the top. That seems a little solipsistic to me, but whatever.

My Sprint Treo is getting a little long in the tooth. I want one of these.

There's no such thing as an emission-free vehicle. At best, the emissions simply happen somewhere else. Of course, some methods for producing energy produce less emissions than others.

Shouldn't it be call the "Lord Jesus Library" instead?

Better to die free?

Ahem. And the last arms race went so well for Russia, didn't it?

A positive story about an American businessman. It doesn't happen very often, so enjoy.

When you've been on the inside of something, your words should probably carry some weight.

Hypocrisy is bad enough. Armed hipocrisy is another thing entirely.

This is good news and bad news. Good, because it was foiled. Bad, because such plots are on-going.

This is a fascinating story, for all it says about the UN, Russia, Iraq, and for all it doesn't say.

As far as I'm concerned, they're looking in the wrong place.

And the National Kitchen Utensils Association is to blame...

Doesn't have as much of a ring to it as does the NRA.

Huh. This is going to get more and more interesting as time goes on. Do we need virtual police to protect our virtual selves and our virtual property from virtual crimes in a virtual world?

Say that ten times fast, and you might hurt yourself.

Replace "Lebanon" with "Israel" in this story's title, and the media would be screaming of a "massacre."

What a surprise: a Leftist "protest" turns violent.

I've commented before on the issue of "personal" information in songs purchased from iTunes Plus. Certainly, one might not want some of the information to get around, in particular sensitive information like passwords, and even more particularly if that information isn't encrypted.

At first, I was tempted to say (actually, I did say) that one only need worry about the information if one was posting songs to the Internet. My conclusion was based in part on the idea that one has all sorts of information on one's computer, and songs purchased from iTunes would probably be the least of one's worries if a computer is stolen or lost.

However, I then realized the quite obvious and more important point: the songs are also kept on iPods, which 1) don't offer any way to encrypt information, unlike a PC, and 2) are far more often lost and stolen. Also, one doesn't really expect personal information to be stored there, and might avoid doing so on purpose (for example, by not using an iPod's PIM functions).

And so, I can see that some people might have a legitimate concern over this issue, and Apple should certainly provide more information on what they're storing in songs purchased from iTunes Plus. From the linked story above, this is also apparently the case for all songs purchased from iTunes.

Update: I also don't find the argument in this story to be compelling. One problem with unencrypted information on an iPod, even if just a name and email address, is that it's not very useful as an anti-piracy measure. If one's iPod were stolen, and all of the songs contained on it were made available via P2P sharing, how could the purchaser prove that he wasn't the one who uploaded them? Or, conversely, how could Apple prove that he was? In short, the information should be encrypted, and only Apple should have the key.

I don't think there's any reasonable assumption of privacy on a public street, or in windows that face a public street. That's why most people tend not to undress in front of open windows (unless one is into such a thing, and not that there's anything wrong with that).

Seriously, though, there are all sorts of pictures and video that one might end up in, whether it's for the news or a family snapshot. If one is worried about being noticed in public, than one should probably stay home.

If you have any toothpaste made in China, toss it. That is, unless you plan to go somewhere very, very cold, and your mouth could use some antifreeze.

Somehow, Ron Paul holds on to his high ranking on Technorati.

Beats me.

As I've said in other contexts, the mere fact that giving away intellectual property might, in some cases, make economic sense for the property owner, it's irrelevant to whether or not intellectual property protections should exist. Without such protections, the property owner loses the ability to decide such things for himself.

It's like saying that if someone hijacked a truckload of Toyotas on the way to a dealership and drove them around town, then Toyota should be happy with the free publicity.*

Of course, here's where someone will argue that Toyotas aren't like songs, because if you take away a Toyota the owner actually loses something, where with a piece of intellectual property the owner hasn't lost anything at all. The fact that, when someone downloads a pirated copy of a song, he doesn't have to pay the creator of the song, means nothing, I'm told--which usually returns to the circular argument that the creator will end up making more money anyways, so it's okay. The concept of controlling one's property and who benefits from it escapes some people, I suppose.

Actually, I agree with all 10 of these points. They seem well-reasoned to me, except for perhaps a little ad hominem in number 7 (which even then has some truth to it).

Okay, so, maybe this is possible. I mentioned the fleet's presence in the Persian Gulf in an earlier post, and am willing to consider that the talks with Iran in Baghdad might have been a final warning to Iran. Hosting them on Memorial Day, in that context, might even have been a subtle reminder that America has engaged in such actions before, and that we're willing to pay a price for our continued security.

I'll be waiting to see, but I won't be holding my breath.

Update: Oops, sorry. Hat tip to Little Green Footballs.

Update 2: But then there's this sort of thing.

Unfortunately, while I wish I could believe Fred Thompson, here, I don't think for a moment that if we were in Israel's shoes, we'd act with less "restraint." If the US had ever used "whatever means necessary to win the war" on Islamic fundamentalism, the thing would have been over a long time ago.

But, it is good to hear Thompson say such things. Maybe it's simply the way he thinks, which would be something in his advantage.

This year's Objectivist Conference is in Telluride, Colorado. Looks like a great time.

If I can scrape up a few bucks, I might just go.

I'll leave election politics to sites like Instapundit. They do it better than I ever could, and frankly, such politics both bore me and frustrated the hell out of me.

That's a bad combination.

Sometimes, people vote with their feet. 17% unemployment, high taxes, regulations, and blood sausage.

I'd certainly go elsewhere.

Thus, Putin acknowledges that he considers himself an enemy of the West. Will we listen to him?

Someone's crazy in this story, but it's not Bush.

As usual, this Digg story title is misleading. While certain O'Reilly spoke of a "white, Christian, male power structure," McCain didn't. He didn't deny it, but then that's a completely different thing--sometimes, it's best to let sleeping dogs lie.

That O'Reilly would say something like this, though, is unsurprising.

I do think it's time for Battlestar Galactica to go. Wrap things up cleanly, and then move on. If they can do it without jumping the shark, all the better.

This is treason.

I should link to James Lilek's Bleat every day. It would remind me to read it.

There's just something about his style that gives a quick pick-me-up. If he could bottle it, he'd be a millionaire.

Of course, contrary to those who believe intellectual property doesn't exist, he can't bottle it. And there's only one of him. If that's not the definition of a "scarce resource," I don't know what is.

Why should anyone worry about his legally purchased music tracks showing up on the Internet, unless, well, he's copying his music to the Internet? And, if this stops him from doing so, isn't it a bit odd for him to whine about it?

When methods for utilizing fingerprints in identifying criminals were first created, did criminals complain?

Having consulted on document management concepts for over six years, I agree that printing blogs (or any Web page) is unnecessary. Indeed, in the majority of cases, I've found that electronic documents rarely need printing--most people, at home and at work, are capable of receiving and processing documents as PDFs, Web forms, and other formats. And, increasingly, incredibly powerful document workflow software is available to not only reduce reliance on paper but make business processes significantly more efficient.

At the very least, there are free solutions for bookmarking Web pages. Personally, I use Onfolio, which is available here. Note that it requires the Internet Explorer Live Toobar.

I find genetics remarkable, and look forward to the day when medicines will be custom-designed for an individual's genetic makeup. My SWAG is: if a person lives another 25 years, he'll live another 50. If he lives another 50, he'll live another 100. And if he lives another 100, the sky's the limit.

That's barring accidents and suicides, of course, and raises some interesting questions about work and retirement, among other things, but I find it all very positive.

I've read some convincing arguments that Kevorkian wasn't and isn't a criminal, and I strongly support the individual's right to end his own life. I can't help but believe, however, that Kevorkian's not really the best figure around which to frame the debate over assisted suicide.

He always struck me as creepy and a little off-kilter, as if he was doing something he enjoyed--and it would take a particular mind and a subtle grasp of some complex philosophical principles to find rational enjoyment in ending the life of a terminally ill patient. If my negative opinion of the man is because of media portrayal , then my apoligies to him. At this point, though, I remain unconvinced.

Don't inhale.

Detailed plans of the new US Embassy in Baghdad make their way to the Internet, and the media has to broadcast it far and wide. What exactly is the "news" in this?

Oops.

This looks like fun. I haven't had a free moment lately to even think about my Xbox 360, but if I ever should get some time, this is something I'll probably take a look at. Of course, Halo 3 is coming soon, which I'll probably just give up sleep to play.

Ultimately, I think this is a good thing, because it signals a shift in Europe from its far-Left and anti-American stance to... well... something else. It shows the philosophical bankruptcy of the media that "pragmatic" is considered a good thing, but admittedly it's better than the leanings of recent European history.

As the West prepares for a future clouded by the backsliding in Russia, the military buildup in China, and of course Islamic fundamentalism, it's better that Europe be on our side, than against us. That much is certainly true. Just how with us Europe will be, however, remains to be seen, and perhaps I remain a little jaded in this respect.

Nasa Director Michael Griffin:

"I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take."

That won't be a popular position.

This is fine with me. I was never a fan of Doctor Who, either the original or the SciFi Channel remake. Maybe that'll free time to return Battlestar Galactica to Friday nights, where it belongs.

Although with the latter's increasingly dark and mystical bent, I'm not sure if I care about that so much anymore, either.

Digg Report: Today's #1 Digg, at 5007 Diggs, is about a poor sap caught coming out of a strip club by Google Maps Street View. A little stroke of serendipity, if you've been following along today.

So far, Digg isn't demonstrating the ability to link to truly meaningful stories. It's looking more and more like it's populated mainly by Leftist, nerdy, pubescent, alcoholic dweebs. If it's a technology that's going to change the world, I'm not sure we'll like what it comes up with.

Update: A commenter provided an interesting link: a whole slew of Google Maps Street View sightings. Some are a bit funny, as well. Thanks for the link!

I suppose some people might find it interesting to watch Justine. I've tried it, and so far I'm not sure I get the attraction.

Just because the Internet makes something possible, doesn't mean it should be done, I think. A snoozer so far.

By the way, she needs some help with decorating. Her space is a little drab. And what's with the music? I can't quite recognize it, but it's depressing as hell. No wonder she looks so unhappy. And what's with all the...

Wait a minute. Maybe this is a little titillating, after all.

I'm not concerned about Google's Street View Maps. Anything you can see by just driving down the street seems fair game to me.

Via Cox and Forkum, an article by Robert Tracinski on Al Gore's book, An Assault on Reason. It's worth a read.

Tracinski, that is. Not Gore.

I thought Boing Boing was all for protecting privacy and such. I guess not. Unless, of course, it's protecting against government trying to find criminals and terrorists.

Actually, no, Boing Boing, this billboard does not appear to have anything to do with the idea that "Saddam Hussein was the mastermind behind 9/11." It merely illustrates the idea that Iraq is part of the larger war against Islamic terrorists. That the war started with 9/11 and is thus illustrated this way is unfortunate; it should have started much earlier, with the previous attack on the WTC, with the USS Cole, with the Beirut bombing, with the Iranian invasion of the US Embassy in 1979.

Welcoming home a solider from Iraq, and reminding him (and everyone else) that there's a wider battle being fought, is not something that should be exposed to such snide comments from Boing Boing. At least, they should try to avoid being outright misleading.

Nessie?

Remains to be seen, I think. No pun intended.

On a related note, here's a story about another music label that's signed a deal with YouTube. Unfortunately, I get the impression that such deals are signed because intellectual property holders believe they have no other way to protect their property. Better to get some revenues, they think, than none at all.

That might be true, but it's an unfortunate result of technology that makes protecting intellectual property nearly impossible.

I'm not sure that it really matters whether it's P2P sharing that's the largest source of illegal music copies, or some other source. Perhaps the music labels go after P2P because it's possible to do so, while, as the linked story states, it's virtually impossible to go after copying of borrowed CD's. If anything, it just goes to prove the tremendous negative impact that technology is having on the protection of intellectual property.

Is it government's responsibility to determine the causes of our actions, and to stop us from harming ourselves? Or, is it government's responsibility merely to create an environment wherein our actual actions, as they directly affect others, have consequences?

The former notion has created something of a slippery slope of late, as expected. It started with drugs (excluding alcohol, of course), more recently including cigarettes. Then, it was extended to opinions, in the case of "hate" crimes. Next was unhealthy foods, like the banning of trans fats. Now, it's being extended to video games.

As individuals, we're legally responsible for the results of our actions. Hating a racial group shouldn't be against the law; killing someone, regardless of their race, should be. A crime isn't made worse by virtue of one's racism, and it isn't made better if one loves the victim's race. And, killing someone because of the race isn't excused by one's racism, which is an implicit assumption behind hate crimes--that one is somehow compelled to commit a crime by virtue of one's racism.

The same with video games--even if they cause some people to commit a crime, that's not the same as committing the crime itself. And whether or not they're bad for children is for each child's parents to decide.

Celebrity Report: There really are celebrities able to make commitments and good decisions, and to live by some sort of values. Here's a quick story about a few celebrity marriages that are happy, long-lived, and without pathology. My favorite here is Will Smith. Great actor, funny, and seems like a genuinely good guy. Married to a hottie, as well.

Google is releasing a software component allowing its browser-based applications to run on a computer even when it's not connected to the Internet. I find this fascinating, if for no other reason than that it's a seeming admission that Internet-based applications are inherently deficient.

In addition, the component, called Google Gears, might create a significant problem for Google. No longer will its applications run solely on its own servers, over which the company has total control. Now, I assume, there will be the distinct potential that users will have applications with bugs that can only be resolved by connecting to the Internet for updates. This is, of course, a common problem to all client-based applications, and I wonder if it's something that Google is equipped to handle. Will they be that much better at writing stable code than the typical software vendor--code that's installed on millions of different systems with different software, specifications, and levels of user competence?

It'll be interesting to see how this works out. I've long believed that Google's business model was to eventually become just like Microsoft. I see this as a concrete step in that direction.

Hack Alert: Here's another extraneous use of the word "hack." The only difference is that this poster, following an apparent deluge of Diggers, at least had the wisdom to admit his error. I take my hat off to him, particularly in sympathy for the Digg effect.

Regarding Google and their apparent inability to come up with anything tasteful and appropriate for Memorial Day, Little Green Footballs has posted some good ideas.

I'm not an artist, but these don't seem all that difficult.

And I suppose there's something inherently wrong with American government efforts at "protecting American content businesses"? I think I'll copy Techdirt's postings and make them my own. I'm sure they won't complain.

The headline speaks for itself. One day, when I get the time, I'll really delve into why some people in the technology industry have such a hard time with basic philosophical principles.

This is promising: an electrical field treatment for brain cancer. Of course, it's made in Israel, and so I'm sure some people won't buy it.

Digg Report: Today's #1 Digg, at a remarkable 9921 Diggs, is--surprisingly--about a Microsoft product, the Microsoft Surface. Even more surprising is that the comments are actually generally positive, as far as I can tell. That's unusual for a highly-Dugg story about anything related to Microsoft.

Incidentally, the technology itself is fascinating. Reminds me of Minority Reports, among other things. Put this interface onto a flat panel and mount it in mid-air. As a desktop, it seems a little constrained, but still pretty cool.

Of course, it would look nice on my Tablet PC, although unfortunately mine doesn't have a touch screen (rather, only a pen-based digitizer). Funny, though, until seeing this, I didn't see any need for one.

If I were this lady, I'd be upset that my page was taken down, but ultimately relieved that MySpace is removing registered sex offenders from its service. It's not like a MySpace page requires all the much work, in any event.

Actually, nothing should force Apple to explain why it's putting purchasing information in "non-DRM" music tracks sold on iTunes Plus. If one doesn't like the information being put in there, one can always refrain from purchasing it. And, one should wonder why someone would have such a problem, rather than why Apple is putting the information in.

"Oh, it's just a harmless little *bunny*, isn't it?"...

Er, hamster.

I mentioned class warfare the other day. I didn't expect it to become so real, so fast.

I leave Indianapolis, and the Colts win a Superbowl. I come to LA, and the Lakers are falling apart. I just can't catch a break.

Hopefully this guy will be found soon, and executed.

Idiot.

Hasn't this kind of thing been tried before? Maybe Mark Cuban can make a go of it.

Boing Boing is still all over the map about the Venezualan "TV crisis" (read, on-going oppression by a crazy, brutal, Left-wing dictator).

Is this a joke? If not, could this have any purpose other than grabbing other people's wireless signals? If anyone can say why Boing Boing links to this without mentioning its obvious downside, please let me know. People should secure their networks, but then again people should lock their cars. The fact that they don't doesn't mean it's okay to break into them.

This device seems tailor made to break into more than one network at a time.

This is an odd device: the Palm Foleo. I have to agree with Ars Technica: this is a product looking for a market. Why would I spend $499 for a device that essentially just extends my Palm Treo smartphone?

Huh.

More from Ahmadinejad. MEMRI is a great resource for this sort of thing.

If you're looking for a new notebook, and have any interest in a Tablet PC (which you should, because a convertible Tablet is just like a real notebook, only better), then this is a good, affordable option. Thanks to the folks at Gottabemobile.com for sniffing this out.

I'm not a big fan of widescreen Tablets, because they tend to stretch the writing surface unnaturally. My Toshiba M400 has a smallish screen, but it's in the same general proportions as a sheet of paper--which is distinctively not widescreen. Also, note that many Tablets (as with many notebooks in general today) have very high-res screens, making fonts and other screen elements tiny. A lot more information fits on the screen, for sure, but if your eyes are getting older like mine, it gets a bit tiring.

It's amazing, though, how much notebook you can get for $899.99. From what I can see, this unit sacrifices little, and would excel at the typical Tablet functions. Maybe a little more RAM would be nice, but all in all, a good looking machine.

Hat tip to Instapundit, here's a nice bit of writing about, well, writing. I'll study it, because I fear I'm guilty.

Ayn Rand said that emotions result from our most basic (and subconsciously integrated) philosophical premises. I agree with this, and believe that this sort of research inverses cause and effect. In fact, I'd say it proves Rand correct, if one looks at it from this perspective:

Your subconscious is like a computer—more complex a computer than men can build—and its main function is the integration of your ideas. Who programs it? Your conscious mind. If you default, if you don't reach any firm convictions, your subconscious is programmed by chance—and you deliver yourself into the power of ideas you do not know you have accepted. But one way or the other, your computer gives you print-outs, daily and hourly, in the form of emotions—which are lightning-like estimates of the things around you, calculated according to your values. If you programmed your computer by conscious thinking, you know the nature of your values and emotions. If you didn't, you don't. - The Ayn Rand Letter Vol. III, No. 7, December 31, 1973.

Who ever said class warfare was over? Not me. In this plan, Obama must hope to sink both the economy and the healthcare system at the same time.

The devil we know...

This is interesting, but rejecting Kyoto was one of the only things I liked about Bush. I guess I was wrong, too.*

*Actually, that's not entirely true. I knew that Bush couldn't have immediately rejected the Kyoto Treaty, which was created in 1997. I've been under the impression, though, that Bush continues to reject it. That assumption is what I might really be wrong about.

Silly Boing Boint: music tracks without DRM sell for more than music tracks with DRM because there's a (I'd say, entirely valid) presumption that the non-DRM tracks will be pirated. Something must be done to mitigate the subsequent loss of revenues.

It's not, as you say here, because a track with DRM is somehow intrinsically less valuable. Yeesh.

Here, Daniel Pipes gives a fascinating account of a book detailing how the Soviets brought about Israel's "Six Day War" as an intended prelude to a Soviet attack. Titled Foxbats Over Dimona, this sounds like a fascinating story about how the Soviets were guilty of the sorts of geopolitical shenanigans that the Left likes to pin exclusively on the US.

Of all the arguments against intellectual property, the idea that they hamper "innovation" seems the most odd. Since patents and copyright protect original works, and innovation means to create something new, then it would seem that protecting intellectual property results in more new things, not less. After all, if one wants to avoid patent and copyright infringement, then one necessarily needs to create something original.

I hesitate to discuss this, because it might seem like I'm considering something other than a purely individual rights-based argument for protecting intellectual property. I'm not. Property of both a material and intellectual property should be protected because such property represents human effort, physical and intellectual, and every individual has the right to benefit from his efforts according to his own standards.

Other arguments, though, like the one referenced above, are social arguments that place the good of "society" above the individual. Because "society" is a nebulous term disconnected from any real entity, the supposed goods are also nebulous--applying to everyone and no one at the same time. In this case, it's "innovation," which as to be expected is a meaningless phrase that means the opposite of its intended definition.

It's not "innovation" that the argument refers to, in the sense of the on-going creation of new inventions and works, but rather the widespread adoption of them. Microsoft is wrong to assert its patents, the argument would go, not because the patents stop Linux developers from creating something "new." They don't, of course; the patents only stop developers from utilizing already patented technologies in their works--which thus requires new, truly innovate means to accomplish something.

Rather, according to the argument, Microsoft is wrong to assert its patents because doing so hampers the wider adoption of some technology. That's the crux of the argument, which is a variant of the idea that "information wants to be free." By limiting the adoption of a work to dissemination by a single entity, a patent presumably makes the work available to a smaller subset of the population--hence, its adoption is hampered.

However, it's not actually true that a patent makes a technology less available. Instead, it makes a technology only available from the patent holder. Even by the standard of "society," patents are harmless, unless one abandons the very notion of property. From a societal standpoint, certainly, an individual's possession of a piece of property necessarily limits its utility for everyone else. However, only in collectivist command economies is this a negative. In free societies, one doesn't expect to control someone else property--unless, of course, as in the "innovation" argument, one is speaking of intellectual property.

Microsoft has products for sale utilizing technologies that are covered under its patents. One has easy access to those technologies--one merely needs to purchase the relevant products. The only ones to complain at this arrangement are Linux and other developers who desire to use the technologies in their own products and consumers who want the technologies for free. Neither are legitimate concerns in a society that protects the rights of the individual.

As a Tablet PC user, I also find this quite interesting.

Fujitsu makes good stuff. Soon, we'll roll up our PC's and put them in our pockets.

Here's Cox and Forkum's take on Chavez and the Venezuelan TV station. As usual, they're right on target.

And anyone who believes the cost would be a mere $50 billion/year is 1) naive and 2) missing the more subtle point that, if the total cost of the "ravages of global warming" is a scant $50 billion, then it's hardly worth worrying about. Of course, were America to give in to this sort of extortion, which would be bad enough, we'd find the cost to be much higher--up to and including the eventual destruction of the American economy.

Which is, of course, the Left's ultimate objective.

Little Green Footballs provide some information on Google's response to the ongoing Memorial Day kerfuffle. Looks like it's the same response they've been giving for years, meaning that ultimately they really don't intend to do anything about it. The gist of their response, which is that they can't think of how to avoid their usual "lightheartedness" is disingenuous at best. I'm sure they could come up with something.

I mentioned in another post how politicized is the entire issue of global warming (science or the lack thereof aside). This should put the matter to rest.

Outside of the increasingly hackneyed "hack" moniker, this is a great story about how technology can overcome even physical afflictions.

I couldn't care less whether one or more of the Teletubbies are gay. It's the fact that they're incomprehensible--and sort of creepy--that matters to me.

Individuals are responsible for their actions. This includes being responsible for whatever might influence those actions, be it drugs, corruption, or video games. And so, the question of whether or not video games "cause" certain actions is irrelevant--it's not the video game's fault in any case, it's the individual's who chose to play the game.

I'm assuming that our military is doing the same sort of thing, and that we're protecting against such attacks. Cyberwarfare, for all of its cyberpunk sci fi connotations, is a very real threat, as demonstrated by Russia's attack against Estonia's Internet infrastructure.

China sentences corrupt FDA director to death. "Unusually harsh," the story says.

Once again, I have to ask: why does Russia assume the European missile shield is a defense against them? Maybe because they know it should be?

The one time I see Boing Boing publish something that's anti-Left (in this case, Chavez's closing of a Venezualan TV station), they recant and subsequently post 1o times as much material in support of the notion that it wasn't really a bad thing to do, after all.

Update: This is causing some conflict among the Boing Boing faithful. I'm not sure they know what to think.

My question is, why would anyone invest in Russian enterprises? How confident can one be that an investment won't simply fund a Russian company's eventual nationalizaton? Ask Shell and British Petroleum how well their Russian investments are going.

*Note: The larger question of whether or not Western companies should be investing in potential enemies such as Russia and China is a larger question, and isn't discussed here.

I've always suspected there was a reason why I haven't been watching Lost. Edward Cline, author of the Sparrowhawk series, sums it up nicely, and echoes my thoughts while watching the first few episodes. Heroes isn't a perfect show, philosophically, but the first season did have a storyline that one was compelled to watch simply because one assumed (rightfully so, I think) that it was leading somewhere--and, one wanted to know where.

It looks like the Left has lost its darling, Cindy Sheehan. And it sounds like she's a little bitter.