I called an Apple Store, just for kicks, to see how things were going during the launch, and if he thought they might have any phones ever. He described the line to me, the one outside of his store, as something like a human Möbius strip – a warping tendril folded in, a thing without earthly end.

"I'm looking at eternity," he said. "I can see the tail of The Beast."

via Penny Arcade – The Shipment.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/jun/12/anthony-bourdain-war-fast-food

…

And since then it's all been about the little girl. Because I am acutely aware of the fact that she's a blank page, her brain a soft surface waiting for the irreversible impressions of every raised voice, every gaffe and unguarded moment.

I'm not against hamburgers. But I believe that a burger should be made of "beef" (not necessarily the best beef, but definitely recognisable as something that was, before grinding, mostly red, reasonably fresh, presumably from a steer or cow, something that your average doberman would find enticing). I don't believe my hamburger should have to come with a warning to cook it well done to kill off any potential contaminants or bacteria.

It is repugnant, in principle, to me – the suggestion that we legislate against fast food. We will surely have crossed some kind of terrible line if we are infantilised to the extent that the government has to step in and take the Whoppers out of our hands. It is dismaying – and probably inevitable. When we reach the point where we are unable to raise a military force of physically fit specimens, or public safety becomes an issue after some lurid example of a large person blocking a fire exit, they surely shall.

But if you are literally serving shit to children, then I've got no problem with a jury of your peers wiring your nuts to a car battery and feeding you the accumulated sweepings of the bottom of a monkey cage. In fact, I'll hold the spoon.

In this way, me and the PETA folks and the vegetarians have something in common. They don't want us to eat any meat. I'm beginning to think, in light of recent accounts, that we should, on balance, eat a little less meat. PETA doesn't want stressed animals to be cruelly crowded into sheds, ankle deep in their own crap, because they don't want any animals to die – ever – and basically think that chickens should, in time, gain the right to vote. I don't want animals stressed or crowded or treated cruelly or inhumanely because that makes them provably less delicious. And, often, less safe to eat.

…

This is what we call an unalloyed piece of good, if LONG !@#$ OVERDUE, news. The Supreme Court has affirmed that those pesky rights and protections in the Constitution that some of us still think might be sorta, maybe, kinda important to apply equally to everyone, well, they even apply to people our government alleges have committed heinous crimes.

<Samuel L. Jackson>
THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, MOTHERF-CKERS — DID YOU READ IT?
</Samuel L. Jackson>

This is going to put a spring in my step all day. Sad comment that simply reaffirming rights that are unambiguously spelled out in our country's founding documents can cheer me up like this, but there you go.

Also, as of this writing, CNN.com's link for this story off their front page says "Gitmo detainees win round at Supreme Court." I'm pretty sure that when you win a decision at the "Supreme" Court, that's not just winning a "round."

After all, what's the government going to do? Come up with some other flimsy legal pretext to keep a bunch of detainees acquired under dubious circumstances from having private conversations with their lawyers, having the same access to evidence as their prosecution, or having any chance of seeing as fair and impartial a trial as America can provide before the next administration comes in to deal with the legal mess left behind by this one?

… Naaaaah.

But I'll relish this small reminder that we might just live in a nation of laws after all.

Suspected terrorists and foreign fighters held by the U.S. military at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have the right to challenge their detention in federal court, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

The decision marked another legal blow to the Bush administrations war on terrorism policies.

In a 5-4 ruling, the justices said the U.S. military lacks the legal autonomy to prosecute as many as 300 prisoners.

At issue were the rights of the detainees to contest their imprisonment as well as the rules established to try them in military tribunals.

A congressional law passed in 2006 would limit court jurisdiction to hear such challenges.

It is a legal question the justices have tackled three times since 2004, including Thursdays ruling.

Each time the high court ruled against the governments claim that it has the authority to hold people it labels "enemy combatants."

Neat service pulling intriguing Tweets by how many times they've been marked as someone's favorite — something like Flickr's "interestingness" algorithm. I went to check out the page (at the above link) and noted this little gem, from Twitter user hotdogsladiesкомпютри:

Clinton fans tell us they'll protest by supporting McCain. Many also vow to protest gas prices by shitting in their cars. Back to you, Tom.

The frequently-sagacious Rands on why he likes Twitter — struck a chord with me.

[...]

Twitter is a social network, yes, but it’s a social network without the superpoke scrabtaculous zombie noise and, for that, I’m thankful, because I’ve got work to do. Yes, I could spend days tidying my profile and scrubbing my friends list, but to what end? I want to know more people, and sure, it’s interesting to see what they’re up to, but what I really want to know is what is going on inside their heads with a minimum of fuss.

I want to see how they see the world. This is why I follow people on Twitter. This is why they follow me.

[...]

and, from another post of his on Twitter:

Twitter is an informational yard sale. You simply never know when that off-the-cuff comment you toss will alter a person’s day.

Via the inimitable Warren Ellis, of course.

This is impressive, and a phenomenon I watched in the 2000 Republican primaries — people see a very likable John McCain and ascribe their own positions to him… which he tacitly encourages, I'm sure, by not talking about certain hot-button issues very much. Good on him for not holding 100% to any one orthodoxy, but I wonder how some of these positions will play out in the general, once more ads start flying around.

Emphasis mine.

…

On abortion, a number of people believe that Sen. McCain supports abortion rights. He doesn't. At a town-hall meeting in March, he vowed: "I will continue my commitment to rights of the unborn so we can give every soul the chance to exist on this Earth."

Yet nearly one in four women who support abortion rights and also support Sen. McCain believe that he shares their views, according to a Planned Parenthood Action Fund survey of women in 16 battleground states.

Planned Parenthood, which supports abortion rights, also found that about half of these supporters weren't sure about Sen. McCains position. Just under 20% knew his stand on abortion but supported him anyway.

In fact, with the exception of fetal-tissue and stem-cell research, he has a long and consistent voting record opposing abortion. He supports sex-education programs that promote abstinence until marriage without any mention of contraception.

On gay rights, he opposes same-sex marriage and voted against employment nondiscrimination legislation. He supports the current "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the military and opposes expanding the federal hate-crimes law to include sexual orientation. But he also opposes a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, saying it violates states' rights.

On gun rights, he opposed the assault-weapons ban and mandatory waiting periods. But he co-sponsored legislation requiring background checks at gun shows. The National Rifle Association was bitterly opposed to limits set in the campaign-finance legislation Sen. McCain spearheaded.

…

Go to it with a mobile phone.

It's got some of the best optimized-for-the-iPhone web design I've seen. That said, if I were an AP client newspaper with any kind of web presence, I would be pissed. The bigger the online presence AP has, the less room there is for AP clients to do things. NPR has the same potential problem with their member stations: if NPR lets you listen to All Things Considered online, suddenly every computer becomes competition for terrestrial radio stations.

Good article laying out the basics of the Takeway, where I'll be officially starting in just over a week.

…

Well, O.K., his opening was a little lame; the reference to Grand Theft Auto had to do with the fact that the latest version of the game was just released, and the hosts and a guest would be discussing it later in the show. But let’s cut Mr. Hockenberry some slack. They’ve still got a lot of kinks to work out at “The Takeaway,” which is being co-produced by WNYC and Public Radio International, in association with the BBC, WGBH, and full disclosure The New York Times. Tuesday was only the show’s second day on the air.

For now, “The Takeaway” is running live from 6 to 7 a.m., with a second hour, from 8 to 9, that repeats some of the original pieces while adding new, live segments. In June, though, when WNYC moves into new studios, the show will expand to four hours, two of them completely live. Which means that Mr. Hockenberry and Ms. Udoji will be on the air for most of the same time as the mother of all public radio shows, mighty “Morning Edition.”

…

"Looking for the mouse" is a fantastic metaphor. Well worth watching the whole thing.

… Also, Mr. Shirky looks and sounds a bit like a balder younger brother to Tom Hanks.