apple juice

I don’t think I can add much to what has already been said about Steve Jobs. Like others I’ve read on the web, I consider my life, professionally and personally to be linked in a way to Apple, and Steve Jobs. From my first interactions with the Apple II in kindergarten, to my Campus Representative job in college, the Mac SE/30 I bought my Grandparents so they could email, my current job, the announcement we sent out about our engagement (edited with iMovie), the thousands of photos I have stored on our laptops, FaceTime and iChat conversations with my family and friends. It all seems possible because of Apple and Jobs. We probably would have gotten here without Steve Jobs, just a little less elegantly and maybe not for another few years.

Here’s just a couple things you should read / watch about Jobs:

Universe Dented, Grass Underfoot

The Steve Jobs I Knew

Steve Jobs’ Commencement Address at Stanford, 2005

The iconic, “Here’s to the crazy ones” Think different ad, narrated by Jobs

 

 

good point from Dave Winer – Relying on Facebook, Google and Twitter – it’s like vegans who wear leather.

another take from the atlantic. 5 Reasons Why ‘Occupy Wall Street’ Won’t Work

I’m not sure you can say it won’t work when you don’t really know what their goals are yet. (I guess that is his first point, but still). I’m interested to see how this develops. There is a group in Minneapolis, appropriately named OccupyMN, ready to hunker down October 7th.

I have to say that I’m a bit disturbed about the recent news about Anwar al-Awlaki being killed in Yemen by our super secret special forces. Certainly bothers me that a U.S. citizen was essentially executed without due process of the law. Actually, executions bother me in general, I don’t really much care who the person is.

But I suppose there is some point at which you implicitly give up your rights as a U.S. citizen, perhaps organizing terrorist operations against the U.S. counts as one of those points.

I also find it interesting that this is one of those situations in the bizarro-world of american politics where briefly and in an insane manner, the left and right sides of the political spectrum turn themselves inside out and get all wound up. Peace-loving democrats cheering on the President for acting decisively? War-mongering Republicans suddenly concerned about flexing our military to take out potential threats? Isn’t this what happened when Clinton sent a few cruise missiles into Yemen during the “wag the dog” incident? Who was he targeting again? Oh yeah, Osama Bin Laden.

Anyway, here’s another perspective from a progressive who is supporting this action. Mostly I agree with these guys, but not so sure on this one….

Telling You What I Think: “

I won’t mention the show. Because these things are often cancelled at the last moment. But I’m going to go on TV this afternoon to debate the targeted killing of Anwar al-Awlaki. And I’m on the ‘for’ position. (These things always get radically simplified. But when asked, do I think it was illegal? No. I don’t.) I suspect this will cause a great deal of consternation for some readers of the site. So I thought I’d explain my thinking in advance.

Just to have the key facts on the table, as most of you know, Anwar al-Awlaki, unlike virtually all the other members of al Qaeda targeted by the US, was an American citizen. He was born in New Mexico of Yemeni parents, returned to Yemen when he was seven and then returned to the United States for college. More recently he returned to Yemen and became involved with the al Qaeda affiliate al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

So how is it exactly that a US President can order the extra-judicial killing of an American citizen? I agree. It’s a troubling thought. But I would approach it differently. Is it really possible that a US citizen can be operating abroad as a key leader of an international terrorist group, organizing and inspiring terrorist attacks within the US, and the US has no recourse other than to secure an arrest warrant and arrest him somewhere in the wilds of Yemen? That strikes me as preposterous.

The key in my mind is that al-Awlaki is or was essentially waging war against the United States from abroad.

Now, there’s a great deal we don’t know and probably won’t know. And that leaves open a great opportunity for abuse. There is for instance some controversy over whether al-Awlaki was simply inspiring terrorist attacks or whether he was operationally involved in them. I don’t think a US president should ever be allowed to do this within the United States or anywhere else where arrest is a credible option. I also think that in the case of targeting a US citizen, the President of the United States should need to personally authorize the decision. Someone has to take responsibility and be accountable.

The idea that his US citizenship mandates that he be handled through the US criminal justice system in every case, even the most extreme ones such as this, simply doesn’t make sense to me. So I just can’t credit that argument that targeting him is ‘illegal’.

Just to emphasize the point again, this is a case where there’s a ton we don’t know. So I’m answering the question based on my understanding of what happened. Liable to abuse? Sure. Illegal. I can’t see the argument, either legally or logically.

(Via Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall.)

I wish I could see the look on my face when I learned this…