The Distant Ocean

But what if they really do suck.com?

One of the reasons I like reading the business press is stories like this:

The Internet has become a mecca for disgruntled consumers, creating new challenges for companies accustomed to controlling their message tightly. While companies can't pull down a negative YouTube video or erase a critical Twitter post, they have more power when it comes to domain names. [...]

Of the companies surveyed, 35% own the domain name for their brand followed by the word "sucks." They include Wal-Mart Stores, Coca-Cola, Toys"R"Us, Target and Whole Foods Market, according to FairWinds. Some 45% of these domains have yet to be registered by anyone.

Here's a refreshingly direct acknowledgment of that desire for control they're talking about, from the stub page you get if you visit southwestsucks.com:

Southwest wants to control the release of inaccurate and irresponsible information about the Company via the Internet.

By "inaccurate and irresponsible" they mean "accurate and inconvenient," of course.  I always find it fascinating how corporations embody all the worst attributes of actual flesh and blood human beings—as in this case, with their desire to suppress negative information rather than acting in a way that makes it transparently false.

One

Anyone who follows the Palestinian issue knows there's been much more talk lately about a one-state or binational solution.  Here's some interesting strategizing by the Palestinians in that direction:

The Palestinian Strategy Study Group, an EU-funded project written by 27 leading Palestinian figures from across the political spectrum, argued that the current two-state framework for peace talks is failing to bring the promised independent state. [...] The [group's] final, and most striking proposal, is to shift to a "single state outcome" as the Palestinians' preferred goal. This, it said, would regain the strategic initiative for the Palestinians.

"Although many Palestinians may still prefer a genuine negotiated two-state solution, a failure of the present Annapolis initiative will greatly strengthen those who argue against this," the report said. "Most Palestinians are then likely to be convinced that a negotiated agreement is no longer possible."

The group's full report is here (pdf).  In the summary, they offer this perceptive analysis...:

Israel shows no sign of accepting even the 78% of historic Palestine that lies within the 1967 borders, but continues to encroach beyond them in order to create new ‘facts on the ground’ that will progressively render an independent Palestinian state on the remaining 22% inoperable. [...] Israel calculates that a negotiated two state outcome on the 1988 basis is permanently available, and supposes that it can perpetually hold out for better alternatives to a negotiated agreement. The Israeli position rests on the assumption that procrastination will continue to tilt the strategic balance increasingly in Israel’s favour. In short, Israel is not a serious negotiating partner.

...and then proceed to outline how the Palestinians have the ability not only to balk this Israeli strategy, but to enforce solutions that are far less desirable to Israel than accepting the international consensus.  The approach they outline may seem ambitious, especially given the current state of disarray between the Palestinian factions, but it's still refreshing and encouraging to read a Palestinian strategy document that makes serious proposals about ways to invert the existing balance of power.

Al Gore reads deeply from the book of my soul

Al Gore, delivering pearls of wisdom at the Democratic National Convention:

Al Gore: Eight years ago, some said there was not much difference between the nominees of the two major parties, and it didn’t really matter who became president. Our nation was enjoying peace and prosperity, and some assumed we would continue with both, no matter the outcome. But here we all are in 2008, and I doubt anyone would argue now that election didn’t matter.

With his unfailing, uncanny insight, Al Gore stares deeply into my very being and gives voice to my innermost thoughts.  Yes, it's true, it's all true: eight years ago I blithely assumed our nation would continue with the unparalleled peace and prosperity that Al Gore and also Clinton had brought us, no matter the outcome of the election.  My satisfaction during the Al Gore-Clinton years defied all measure; it was like one never-ending, 24-hour-a-day orgasm.  And I thought to myself: this time of plenty is so perfect, so unassailable, so durable and lasting—why should I bother voting to prolong it?  Why, even if the Republican man is victorious he can't possibly damage this towering edifice of success that Al Gore has constructed with some help from Clinton!

And so I voted for a funny man with a funny name: Ralph Nader.  I scarcely knew or cared what he stood for—if anything—so great was my faith in the perpetual ascendancy I had enjoyed for those years.  I admit it: it was a lark.  A lark, Al Gore!  I assumed the paradise you had brought us could never be shattered!  How wrong, how tragically wrong I was!

I'm so sorry, Al Gore, so very, very sorry.  I know my sin is inexcusable, but I only hope you can find it within yourself to forgive me for the terrible blindness that prevented me from seeing that you, and you alone, were capable of continuing that dazzling peace and prosperity you had brought us.  Al Gore.