The whole world is watching 

It just occurred to me, that while we're arguing about all this silly bullshit like pigs and calling stuff sexist that's just satire, or if what's her name could run H-P, the thing we should all be worrying about is that this election the whole world can see what assholes we are and how much we lie, and do you thikn they're ever going to believe anything we say after the election?

Americans do you know that we are still the most admired country on earth, and all this crap is on the Internet and so is everyone else in the world. The people in the fly-over states are worried about the assholes on the coasts when they really should be worried about the assholes who control the North Korean nukes and the loose nukes in Russia and Pakistan..

There's a lot to worry about and no matter how much you want the world to be simple (Drill Baby Drill) it won't be that simple. You can't make it simple by hiring a VP who is ignorant of the rest of the world. I would say that it'll just catch up to you, but it already did, that's what 9-11 was about.

The whole world is watching and can see our dirty laundry and see how fucked up and stupid we are. And they don't get votes, but they have a lot more power than I think they know and pretty soon they're going to figure it out.

Being an American in 2008 is a lot like working at Microsoft in 1994 or so. Netscape is coming soon and after that Google, and while we'll still be here, the cursor will be somewhere else, and our stock options will be worthless and we'll be fighting with each other while the rest of the world builds around us. Sound familiar?

People thought I stopped writing about technology but the technology and politics are all one and the same.

Written at Cafe Centro in SF, on my Asus so excuse the grammatic errors and typos. Have a nice day, and think twice before you think your fellow Americans are the enemy, they aren't.

BTW the Whole World Is Watching is what the people who were getting beat up by the Chicago police were chanting. The world was watching.

Could Sarah Pailin run Hewlett-Packard? 

That question came up today in a radio interview with McCain surrogate Carly Fiorina and she answered it truthfully, which I would have to say is the right thing to do, but in the bizarre logic of politics, it probably wasn't the smartest thing.

She said no, Pailin could not run Hewlett-Packard. That was her opinion. I agree, but I'm hardly an expert. Fiorina has actually run H-P herself, so she would know.

I suspect if they made the mistake of hiring her to run the company, they'd get nailed in countless lawsuits in the first week, not the least of which would be a suit to have the Board removed for making such an incredibly stupid choice.

If by some miracle she lasted any period of time, it's hard to imagine how she would make a single decision in the interests of the various stakeholders, if she had any idea who the stakeholders are and how to prioritize their interests.

I've run a tech company with 60 employees and tens of thousands of customers and I am not remotely qualified to run a company the size of Hewlett-Packard.

It's interesting to look at the bios of the executive team of the company to see how they got there.

Now it's hard to see how you could conclude that running the United States government is a simpler, smaller, easier job that requires less experience than running a company the size of Hewlett-Packard. Let's compare budgets. Last year Hewlett-Packard spent about $17 billion (not including cost of goods). The US Government spent at least $2.3 trillion. That means that US Government is very roughly the equivalent of 135 H-Ps.

The question should have been asked long ago of every McCain surrogate. What job wouldn't Sarah Pailin be qualified for? And list the possible choices. Play the game yourself if you like.

Yglesias: "I, for one, am appalled by Fiorina's sexism."

In an interview with Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC, Fiorina added: "I don't think John McCain could run a major corporation."