Well it's been an interesting day at the office. I listen to talk radio while coding. If you listen to Rush Limbaugh (he's a popular conservative talk show host in the United States) he mentioned one of my blogs by name as well as my handle (Draginol). I essentially argued that Republicans deserved to lose in November which got picked up by other blogs and in turn picked up on his show. 

Back to non-political stuff, been working on the AI for Dark Avatar. It's really proving challenging on how best to use espionage agents.  Should they be concentrated against a single player? And if so, who? Should they be held in reserve (since new agents cost increasing amounts) so that you can do a mass attack or should you do a steadily increasing stream of them to an opponent?

That's what I'm wrestling with and there are probably valid reasons to do each one.

Also got things ready with the 1.4 release. It's mostly just data file changes to make the economy a bit easier and making morale buildings a bit more powerful -- but making the cost to getting those technologies much greater.

Rush Limbaugh is unhappy with me. Or at least, people like me. 

Since Rush Limbaugh referred to my article (and kindly linked to it on his site) I feel I should respond to some of his points.

I am not at war with conservative bloggers. I quote countless posts from many blogs on this program. I use them as resources. I'm referring to one blog post, and I don't even know who it is.

I use a handle on-line. Draginol. I probably should just use my real name -- it's Brad Wardell.  Rush is correct when he refers to my blogs as amateur.  But that doesn't make my observations invalid.

I don't feel I mischaracterized Rush's point of view: Politics isn't just some game. There are consequences for all Americans if the wrong people are in power. Withholding your vote to "teach a lesson" is unhelpful.  

That's his position and it is only the last part I don't agree fully with.  I am not going to withhold my vote on a candidate simply because of their party. But at the same time, I don't feel a candidate is entitled to my vote simply because they belong to a certain party. I also think that as a practical matter, in the age of detailed statistical analysis that short-term setbacks can have long-term benefits.

Regarding the influence of the Blogsphere...

What made me talk about the influence of the blogsphere was that it certianly came across on his show that he thought a lot of people out there (on the blogs) have been essentially brain-washed by the "drive by" media. I, and many others online took offense to that comment because I don't think he's giving enough credit to the intelligence of the average American let alone conservative. I was NOT trying to argue that the blogsphere is "the future" or something. I was only addressing his insinuation that the blogsphere, the biggest source of conservative angst right now, is not easily influenced by the mainstream media and provided examples of where the blogsphere had a very active and influential role in shaping events.

I appreciate Rush clarifying what he meant. On a 3 hour radio show, it is easy to say something that is construed differently than intended. So let me clarify as well since my 3 minute blog was turned into a segment on a show listened to by millions of people: I am NOT hoping Republicans lose. I am saying that it will serve them right if they do lose and that if they lose maybe they'll learn to not ignore their base. I am certianly not advocating for anyone not to vote.

I am making an observation, not a proclaimation.

It's about the feeling that they are ENTITLED to our vote...

I don't like politicians feeling like they're entitled to my vote. I will be voting in the election but I'm not nearly as enthused about Republicans as I was 6 years ago or even 2 years ago.  And I know there are millions of Americans out there who feel the same as I do and will take that one step further and simply not vote. Hence, if the Republicans lose, they deserve to lose. This is something that has been echoed for months on-line on the growing frustration many of us have with the seemingly increasing cronyism, pork, and lack of effective action.

What lessons would be learned?

Rush follows up here. He argues that when conservatives stay at home, bad things happen.

"Well, the Republicans abandoned their principles, and I'm not going to abandon mine, so screw them!" The last time this happened in significant numbers to deleterious effect was 1992, when a bunch of Republicans said to hell with Bush 41 and the no-new-taxes promise that he broke.

Let's look at this carefully.  So, the last time many conservatives stayed home was in 1992 (incidentally, I did vote for Bush 41 in 1992). And so Bill Clinton was elected...and...? The end of the world? I don't think this is a very good example.  Two years later, the congressional Republicans, having done a lot of statistical analysis on what issues their base cares about came up with The Contract with America. This led to a Republican take over of congress.

You can bet that there will be an immense amount of statistical analysis after the November election and you can bet that Republicans will take the issues of their base more seriously in the future. 

To be clear: I do not hope that Republicans lose congress. But I also don't think it would be the end of the world. That is where the real gulf between Rush and those who agree with him and me and people who agree with me. 

Most people don't lose sleep over the prospect of the Democrats having a slim majority in congress.   We don't look back at the 8 years of Clinton as a national nightmare. And if hard core Republicans did, then shame on them for having nominated Bob Dole, who never had a chance, as the nominee (I'd never vote for Clinton but knew that Dole wasn't going to win early on -- just like most other people I knew).

If it's a matter of life or death, then treat the job that way all the time

You can't have it both ways. You can't say that it's a matter of life and death for the Republicans to maintain control and yet treat the actual job so casually while in office. If the free world hangs in the balance, then bloody act like that during your term and not just in the 60 days before re-election.

Oh, and btw, in response to some of the more colorful comments trying to guess what my background is, here is a blog I wrote that will give you a pretty good idea of where I come from.

Update: Was 1992 really a disaster?

Given how often I get bashed for being a "right wing nut", being called a "liberal" dozens of times this week has made me conclude that I can safely say that my views are no where near the outter fringe of the political spectrum.

Some of the comments, let alone email I've received, to the recent blogs I've writetn regarding Rush Limbaugh vs. Instapundit have been astounding. I guess I'm simply not used to seeing conservatives behaving so much like left-wing fringe advocates.

When one is insulted, repeatedly, it becomes very tempting to lash back. I can't even fathom how people like Glenn Reynolds or Michelle Malkin or other highly respected, very popular, but regularly flamed conservatives handle it.  I had one guy go on over and over again because in my article I spelled repercussion wrong.  Yea, I spelled it repricussion. It wasn't a typo, I spelled it wrong. So sue me. I'm an engineer, not a journalist.

...So our story so far...

Instapundit, one of the world's most popular blog sites, wrote a pre-mortem about the election.  The point of it is that a lot of very hard-core conservatives (along with most other people) expect the Republicans to lose a lot of seats in congress and very possibly at least one of the houses of congress.  He was not writing that he hopes this happens only that if it does happen, the congressional republicans have no one to blame but themselves.

Yes. The Democrats are worse. No doubt about that.  But Republicans tend to hold their elected officials to higher standards. The Republicans have done a lot of foolish things that, as a result, have deflated a significant chunk of their base.

Rush Limbaugh, however, has tried to characterize Instapundit as being a quasi-moderate, liberal in sheeps clothing type site for daring blame Congressional Republicans because many feel the Republicans deserve to lose.  Rush apparently also read a link from Instapundit to here as well yesterday and paraphrased my blog and continued to generalize Instapundit. He typecast us as being either naive or not thinking about the big picture.

I can't speak for Glenn Reynolds on this part but my views on this do include the "big picture".  First, I am not suggesting conservatives should sit out the election. But I do think that congressional Republicans largely squandered their majority these past few years.  I'm not the only one either. Right Wing News, hardly a liberal, has made the same conclusions.  Given the strength of the economy and the general success of the war on terror, congressional Republicans should be in pretty good shape. But they have made so many missteps (from the border to out of control spending) that it has taken the wind out of the sales of many conservatives.

I don't like some politician thinking that I have to vote for them.  And that's where the gulf really comes in.  I personally do not think that the federal government has anywhere near the kind of power that some people think it does.  One commenter pointed out that Republicans were mad at Bush in 1992 and the result was Bill Clinton.  Did Republicans learn a lesson then and was it worth the price? Well, again, while I'm not a fan of Bill Clinton, the world did not end did it? And moreover, I believe the Republican loss helped send a clear message that conservative views should not be ignored because two years later came the Republican revolution. 

The biggest gulf though is the difference in opinion over how much affect the federal government has over our daily lives.  As someone who actually does pay 7 figures a year in taxes, I am very sensitive to taxes. I don't want them raised and I don't want the Bush tax cuts reversed. It was those tax cuts that provided the funding to open up JoeUser.com as a community (by creating the jobs of the ASP developers who work on the site).  So I would be annoyed if taxes went up.  But I don't think that would happen if the Democrats got a slim majority and even if it did, while annoying, it wouldn't be the end of the world.  I have a very high threshold of what I consider to be "the end of the world" and a slightly less conservative supreme court justice nominee doesn't qualify as one (and even a slight change in the Senate power wouldn't likely have a dramatic affect there). I also don't buy into a slim Democatic majority translating into "cut and run". 2008 will be the deciding year for the War in Iraq in my opinion.

What I really am surprised at seeing is how the hard core right-wing can sound depressingly like left-wing moonbats in the comments section from yesterday. Any deviation from total obedience to "the party" and I'm to be cast off as a Hillary loving liberal. I haven't even mentioned who I'm voting for.  But by holding the view that my vote is not owned automatically by a political party and the zealots come out of the woodwork.  I think that the best thing that could happen for the Republicans would be for them to maintain control but barely. It might wake them up, without as many negative consequences, that they need to pay attention more to their constituents.

The congressional Republicans have, in my opinion, blown some huge opportunities and while I don't want the Democrats to win, if the Republicans lose, they shouldn't blame the voters, they should blame themselves.

Before Rush or anyone starts making sweeping generalizations of individuals or websites, they might want to spend a few minutes looking at the big picture that they are so certain we're not looking at.  They might be surprised.

Update: Here is a link to Instapundit's pre-mortem.

So what exactly could the Republicans do to help win back the support of its base on a wide scale?

Here are a few things:

#1 Promose to bring fiscal responsibility back. Over at Instapundit, you can see Glenn Reynolds Pork busting. A lot of the pork is being done by Republicans. The infamous "bridge to nowhere" is but one example. When I hear things like "The deficit has been cut in half" it makes my skin crawl. Yea, because corporate taxes were up due to companies like ours paying through the nose. It had nothing to do with any sort of budgetary restraint. CUT spending some. Heck, just slow down the rate of increasing on spending and I'd be happy.

#2 Secure the borders. Good job that at the 11th hour house Republicans started to make some headway in actually doing this. Yes, it is a problem that the Republican President favors a quasi-amnesty plan but it took way too long to get this going. But at least they're finally starting to take this more seriously. Pass it before the elections.

#3 Corporate Tax cuts. One thing that would help American companies would be to decrease the taxes corporations have to pay.  As a business owner, I can tell you how obnoxious it is to have my company taxed and then get taxed again when I get paid (C corporation). Heck, I'd be happy with a cap on medicare taxation. Talk about a waste.

#4 Draw a line in the sand on prescription drug coverage. The issue isn't whether every American should have health insurance. The question is whether the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT should be responsible for providing these kinds of services. The answer (from conservatives) should be NO. It is not the role of the federal government to provide health insurance, housing, or food. The Soviet Union (and Cuba) provided those kinds of things. Governments are not effective at doing those sorts of things.

#5 Additional tax cuts.  Eliminate taxes entirely for those who make less than $30,000. It represents a trivial % of what the government takes in anyway. I realize that's not an entirely conservative point of view (i.e. everyone should pay equally but then again, any % based tax system isn't truly equal either).  But any individual in the United States can live on $30,000 a year easily. That's $15 an hour. So we simply don't tax people on the first $30,000.  Then we lower taxes across the board for everyone else.

#6 CUT SPENDING / BALANCE BUDGET. Tax cuts in the long term bring more revenue (up to a point of course).  In the short term, we would still need to cut spending.  The Department of Education is a huge pig of waste. The Teachers Unions do more harm to the education of our children than any other organization I can think of.  We'll get to that next. But in the meantime, make a definitive case to balance the budget and start paying off some of the debt in the near term.

#7 REAL "Progressive" EDUCATION.  Allow people to send their kids to other schools. Make schools compete for funding. In the near term, I can live with the fact that people have to send their kids to public schools (my kids do). But let parents send their kids to other public schools if the school they're child is at doesn't meet their needs. I pay high property taxes which help pay for my local school so I do understand there's some pain in someone paying a lot smaller amount, but I think you'd find most conservatives to be willing to let those who pay less in property taxes still send their children to better schools (as long as locals had first shot at filling available seats) in order to see some competition in our school system.

#8 GET THE FREAKING ENERGY POLICY PASSED.  It's 2006 and we still haven't opened up that tiny patch of ANWR up for exploration despite the fact that it's a desolate wasteland and will increase supply. Create incentives to drill in the gulf of Mexico (Before China and others get there first) and elsewhere.  As individuals, conservation is good. My next home I hope to design so that it's partially off the grid. I'd buy an electric car in a second if I could find a production one (My commute is 6 miles each way). But our government should be focusing on increasing the supply of inexpensive energy.

Feel free to add to the list...

In an episode of The Simpsons, Marge asks Homer "If I died, would you be sad?" and Homer responds "I dunno, woudn't be happy."

That's pretty much how I feel about the Republicans.  If the Republicans lose congress, I won't be happy about it. Not at all.  I think that the Democrats plan for America is a bad plan.  Democrats tend to worry more about intentions rather than results. 

What I am saying is that:

1) IF Democrats do win, it won't be the end of the world. Our life, as we know it, will not come to and end.

2) Republicans in congress and those in the future running for congress will not forget any time soon that they can't ignore the concerns of their constituents.

Yes, Conservatives hold elected officials to a higher standard. So what else is new? But so what? Every day in business I operate with a host of restrictions that others don't operate on.  But in the long run, who really benefits? The guy who's dishonest and lazy or the guy who is scrupulous and hard working?  Show me a successful entrepreneur and I'll show you (nearly always) an honest, hard working person. 

It is, after all, a tenet of conservatism to acknowledge that people are not equal in capability.  The law should be set up so that everyone has an equal opportunity for success but we don't want enforced "equal" results. People should be allowed to go as far as their ability will take them.

So is it really a shock that we would hold our elected officials to higher standards? 

But it's not the same thing as being happy or pleased if the elected officials that we lean more towards are defeated by politicians who share nothing of our political philosophies.

Today on Rush Limbaugh's show, Rush referred indirectly to yesterday's article about the Instapundit vs. Rush fallout.

From listening to the show, Rush clearly seems to think that conservatives, such as myself, are being naive or as he put it, should "expand their horizons" on what the repercussions of a Democratic victory in November would be.

Considerable time was spent on the premise that votes shouldn't be used to "teach a lesson".  Or more to the point, that a vote really can't be used to teach a lesson.  I disagree.  You can bet that if the Republicans lose, especially given how loud the right has been about its dissatisaction with Republicans in congress, that they will take it to hear.

The difference is that many conservatives, myself included, don't think the world will end if Democrats gain control of the house (and even the senate).  We're not like the hysterical left that thinks if its opponents win that the world will be destroyed. 

I don't think we'll see some massive tax increase, I don't think we'll "cut and run" from Iraq, I don't think Bush will be impeached, I don't think we'll lose the war on terrorism.  If the Democrats were about to get a big majority of congress, I might feel differently, but at most, the Democrats would have a tiny majority in both houses with a veto-wielding Republican in the white house.

If congressional Democrats start acting like kooks for all the American people to see, they'll suffer in 2008 when the stakes are much higher. 

And you can also be sure that congressional Republicans won't soon forget what happens in the age of the "new media" if you piss off your base.

So Rush, spare us the patronizing "we've been brainwashed by the 'drive by' media".  It was on-line conservatives that got Trent Lott out after his foolish remarks about Thurmond. It was on-line conservatives that exposed the forged documents on 60-minutes.  We don't get our marching orders from the MSM.  If anything, the marching orders to the MSM increasingly come from the blogsphere. Sites like Instapundit, JoeUser, and tens of thousands of others who in turn express the opinions of ordinary Americans.

We are unhappy with Republicans. That doesn't mean we'll vote for Democrats out of spite, they have their own constiuencies to deal with.  If Republicans lose, it's becauase they didn't earn our vote. And you can bet they will remember that. They will have plenty of statistical research to drive that point home.  And the world won't end.

Update: And no, I won't be "glad" if Republicans lose. I just think if they lose, they brought it on themselves..

Update: Yes, I understand there are lots of Democrats who act like kooks. And yet, when the senate was narrowly under Democratic control prior to 2004 it wasn't the end of the world. IF the Democrats win back the house AND IF they pass bills that Republicans don't find acceptable THEN Bush should use his VETO. IF he does not use it, then that speaks to a totally different problem.

Response: Rush discussed this on the show, here is a response.

Recently Glenn Reynolds, webmaster of Instapundit.com, the world's most popular blog site and a conservative made the argument that if Republicans lose, it's because they deserved it.

Rush Limbaugh today struck back with the charge of "Do we deserve to have our taxes raised? Do we deserve a cut and run policy in Iraq? Do we deserve to have endless congressional investigations?"

The argument is strong but I think overlooks one thing -- we do have a Republican President right? Our taxes aren't going to be raised before 2008.

My view is the same as Glenn Reynolds.  The Republicans blew it. They became complacent and ignored their constituents. If they lose, I do think they lost because they deserved to lose.

Does that mean I agree with those who think we should have higher taxes or that we should abandon Iraq? No. But the Republicans losing the house (and even the senate) doesn't mean that's going to happen. It gives Republicans two years to clean up their act and make their case in 2008.

I say, let the Democrats win the house if that is how it's going to be and let them make the case that we need higher taxes, abandon Iraq to terrorists, etc.  Then in 2008, those issues will come up with a vote by the American people and Bush and the Republicans can demonstrate how they were able to block those policies in the Democratically controlled congress.

But right now, I have little excitement for Republicans. I don't feel they've held the principles they were elected on -- balanced budgets, securing our borders, etc.

Update 10/17: Rush talks more on this issue.

Update 10/19: My response to Rush.

Update 10/20: So now I'm a "Cut and Run" conservative?

Every so often you will hear people loudly and broadly argue that such and such customization feature should be done by the OS maker instead of some "bloated, buggy third party app".

And as if to say "Your wish is our command" Microsoft has not only introduced gadgets into Windows Vista (yay?) but also created a skin site.  I'd show you that skin site but it's down right now. Perhaps you can get to it when you read this: http://gallery.live.com.  They have a developer's area too: MicrosoftGadgets.com.

Now, a couple years ago, mini-applications were the hottest thing. Konfabulator (now Yahoo Widgets) was getting a lot of press. Kapsules had just come out. .Widget was announced. AveDesk was in development and of course DesktopX was growing in popularity too.  But then... well...

Apple came out with Dashboard and then Microsoft announced gadgets would be in the OS.  Yay for users right? I mean finally, FINALLY real good stuff would be part of the OS and users wouldn't have to put up with that "bloated" third party bugfest crap. So..how has it worked out for users? Well, Apple Dashboard was used as a marketing bullet point, put into Tiger and then..well forgotten.  Apple put up a...um, website for Dashboard widgets here. 

But since this stuff is part of the OS, the incentive to keep innovating basically dried up.  Remember how Konfabulator was being updated constantly?  Well, since Yahoo got it, it released 3.0 and then 3.1 and that's about it.  The featured widget on their page is...(wait for it) a media player.  Not that Stardock should get cocky, a quick trip to the DesktopX widget area gives us...more weather widgets.

So what's the problem? The problem is that the OS vendor will never care about a niche as much as the people who live and breath that niche every day.  So when the OS vendor puts in a niche feature like widgets/gadgets, they include enough features to suck out the bulk of the casual users (known as "low hanging fruit" in sales terms) that the incentive to keep innovating almost completely disappears.

It's even worse when the OS vendor puts up some gallery since it takes away traffic.  WinCustomize.com will probably have a MS Gadgets section but talk about a lost opportunity. Microsoft's gallery is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.  It splinters the community up so that you can't quite get critical mass for good stuff to be made and the sites won't ever get the kind of budget or attention that a site that is dedicated to the topic is going to do. 

The net result is that widgets/gadgets, which two years were the HOT item are basically dead, killed by Microsoft and Apple. Innovation has just about stopped. That doesn't mean that Yahoo Widgets or DesktopX and such are "dead". New stuff is being made for them (and I know DesktopX is being updated in a big way still). But it has definitely put a big wrench in the market and I doubt you'll see any new widget/gadget enablers. Which is a real shame.

So next time some user demands that Microsoft (or Apple) toss some niche feature into the OS, point out what has happened to widgets. If someone had said 2 years ago that widgets would basically be dying on the vine, I think most would laugh at that.  And yet here we are, two years later, Yahoo Widgets basically in stasis.  Dashboard in statis.  Avedesk 1.3 (January 2006). The Kapsules site is currently down. DesktopX 3.2 was just released but I can tell you it's future is going to concentrate on creating stand alone gadgets (DesktopX Pro), building desktops, and providing libraries to make Microsoft .gadgets (so that hopefully it can generate more revenue to justify further development).

I submit that the worst thing that can happen to a niche customization community is for the OS vendor to put it in.  What do you think?

Stardock is pleased to announce that it has teamed up with Ironclad Games to publish a new real-time space strategy game called Sins of a Solar Empire.

Sins of a Solar Empire puts the player in command of an interstellar civilization. That part no doubt sounds familiar to Galactic Civilizations fans. But unlike Galactic Civilizations, Sins is real-time.  Players colonize planets, create trade routes, negotiate treaties and build up their military might to send out epic fleets that do battle across many planets.  The game is being designed such that players do no have to baby-sit their units. The unit AI can more than take care of itself allowing players, if they wish, to focus on running their empire.

In terms of what the game play is like, probably the best analogy would be that it plays quite a bit like Homeworld meets Galactic Civilizations meets Total Annihilation. It has a truly epic feel like Galactic Civilizations, has a visual and game play feel like Homeworld but allows the player to queue up commands and build a strong strategy ala Total Annihilation. It's not about how fast you can click, it's about how good of a strategy you can put together.

Players will be able to see this for themselves this Winter in a public beta program.  In a couple weeks, players will be able to start pre-ordering the game. Users who pre-order will be able to participate in the beta.  The release date of the game was intentionally pushed all the way back to August of 2007 so that beta testers could give feedback not just about bugs and such but provide game play suggestions and feedback as well so that there is ample time to incorporate user feedback into the final game.  The goal is to create something truly special that will stand the test of time.

To learn more about the game, you can visit www.sinsofasolarempire.com (or http://sins.stardock.com). Your UserID and Password from GalCiv2.com will work there as well.

Stardock has released a new version of its popular Windows skinning utility, WindowBlinds.  WindowBlinds is a program that enables users to completely change the look and feel of the entire Windows user interface -- title bars, push buttons, scrollbars, the Start bar, and more. 

WindowBlinds 5.1 includes new wallpaper changing functionality allowing users to provide a series of wallpapers that can change by the time of day or other criteria specified by the user.  It also includes months of updates to enable WindowBlinds skins to be more compatible on software that has its own unusual interface controls along with faster performance.  WindowBlinds 5.1 works on Windows XP in both 32-bit and 64-bit versions.

WindowBlinds works by integrating itself seamlessly into Windows XP to add support for thousands of visual styles that are available on the net. Starting with WindowBlinds 5, the program actually can improve overall performance thanks to making use of 3D acceleration on most video cards.  Its engine support alpha blending which allows skins to have smooth edges, glass-effects, and other visual improvements.  It is the only program of its kind that is certified by Microsoft for use on Windows XP.

WindowBlinds is also used by dozens of companies to create their own custom looks for Windows including Blizzard (World of Warcraft skin), Microsoft, Alienware, ExtremeTech, and more.  Users can also create their own skins using Stardock SkinStudio, a free program that provides a host of tools to make skin creation easier.

WindowBlinds 5 recently passed the 11 MILLION download mark on CNET's Download.com and has been the most popular desktop enhancement download on CNET (and elsewhere) for over 50 consecutive weeks.

WindowBlinds 5.1 is available as a free download at http://www.windowblinds.net.  Users can upgrade to the enhanced registered version for $19.95 or they can purchase Object Desktop which provides not just WindowBlinds but over two-dozen other popular desktop enhancement such as IconPackager, DesktopX, ObjectBar, WindowFX, and more.

Download:
https://www.stardock.com/products/windowblinds/downloads.asp

Screenshots:
https://www.stardock.com/products/windowblinds/wb-july06.jpg
https://www.stardock.com/products/windowblinds/wb-aug06.jpg
https://www.stardock.com/products/windowblinds/wb-sept06.jpg
https://www.stardock.com/products/windowblinds/wb-oct06.jpg
https://www.stardock.com/products/windowblinds/wb-oct06a.jpg
https://www.stardock.com/products/windowblinds/wb-nov06.jpg