Today, among many other things, Apple released a new iPod related product - the iPod HiFi. Typically when Apple releases a product, I find myself in a position where I cannot help but ogle at the sheer brilliance of whatever Apple has just released. I also tend to feel incredibly tempted to drop everything and go purchase whatever Apple has unveiled. However, with this iPod HiFi contraption, I feel no need to replace my Bose SoundDock. In fact, there are only two attributes I wish my SoundDock had that the Apple product does.

First is the audio input jack. On the new iPod HiFi Apple has mercifully included an audio input jack on the back of the extruded-rounded-rectangle-thing. Bose, on the other hand, failed to add this little item. Frankly, I cannot understand why, for three hundred dollars, Bose chose not to include some sort of audio input jack on the back (or side, or front for that matter) of their product. Had they included said connector, I could conveniently attach another device and enjoy the mind-blowingly amazing sound quality produced by the deceptively diminutive speaker system.

My second gripe concerns the power brick. Apple has, in typical Apple fashion, hidden the power brick inside of the iPod HiFi. The exposed power brick on the SoundDock bothers me less than the lack of an audio input, but nonetheless, I would much prefer to have an invisible power brick. There is also that ever-present inescapable fact that the SoundDock costs three hundred dollars. For that kind of money no one, not even someone with an MRI machine, should see the power brick.

Granted, the newfangled iPod HiFi does sell for three hundred fifty dollars - fifty dollars more than the SoundDock. Still, an audio input and hidden power brick could not possibly cost so much extra for Bose to add that they could not have included them with the SoundDock. I mean - at three hundred dollars the SoundDock costs as much, or more, than all but one iPod.

So, while I wish Bose had included a few items Apple managed to add to their iPod HiFi, I do not feel the urge to splurge on another piece of white acrylic audio equipment. My SoundDock renders music quite prodigiously, albeit without an audio input or hidden power brick.

The epic tale of vacuousness begins with the Bush Administration's very appropriate approval of a deal turning the control of several major US ports over to the United Arab Emirates (UAE)-based Dubai Ports World, which the UAE government also happens to own. When I heard the Bush people had done something so mind-numbingly intelligent, I found myself a little stupefied. Frankly, I was amazed they did not make a huge fuss over the deal saying that, by turning the control of major ports over to an Arab country, the United States somehow compromised its national security. After all, the Bush people love playing the security card for whatever infinitesimally small political gain it may achieve.

As so often happens, I seem to have jinxed everything by simply thinking those thoughts. Just a few hours later the beginnings of a controversy emerged. Both Republicans and Democrats began to express their concerns that the deal somehow compromised national security. As Representative Peter King (R - NY) said on NBC's Meet the Press today, "[It] was only four and a half, five years ago that they [the government in the UAE] were very close to bin Laden, they were supporting the Taliban. And unless there's been a complete transformation, I have real concerns (link)."

Prior to the outburst of unfounded criticism, no threat to our national security existed - as the often incorrect Bush people correctly realized. After all, everything would still undergo inspection by US officials and the Coast Guard would continue to monitor threats. Of course, this is working under the worst-case-scenario that Dubai Ports World would even consider doing anything to compromise our national security. In all likelihood, the UAE would do nothing of the sort: by ruining their relations with the US they would also deal a heavy blow to their economy.

However, the imbecilic outburst of criticism may have a huge impact on our national security. This outburst of discontent over having a few ports turned over to an Arab country could easily be construed as racist. The US taking a potentially racist stance in its foreign policy, unlike allowing a UAE-based country to manage some of our ports, may compromise our national security. Bin Laden and his cohorts could easily use their impressive public relations machine, which Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld recently called, "highly successful (link)," to incite violence against the Untied States.

It is quite remarkable that when the Bush Administration most deserves to be praised for its actions, its critics tear it apart. For once, the Bush people have genuinely tried to protect our national security. Critics of the policy should stop bickering now, or risk compromising our security more.

After sickness plagued my body Friday and the better part of Saturday, it was a real relief to finally find myself in a position where I could make myself useful. So, as I enjoy it so much, I decided to do some cooking. Having replenished my supply of granola and followed by scone making, I chose to construct palmiers (pictured). However, when they came out of the oven after sixteen wholesome minutes, they looked as if their growth had been stunted. Rather than blowing up into magnificent sinuous golden-brown confections, they puffed up a bit and turned brown. Tasting revealed an overly dense, cake-like texture, as opposed to the normal light, flaky texture.

Frankly, I am baffled as to why the palmiers turned out as they did. For one thing, it is virtually impossible to ruin these comely coffee companions. I simply rolled a sheet of pre-made puff pastry in sugar, diced it with a bench scraper, brushed a little egg wash on top and threw them into a four hundred degree oven.

Oh well. The scones taste terribly terrific.

In a very general sense, I do not watch sport. Just a few weeks ago, for instance, I played the piano for three hours in lieu of watching Super Bowl Extra Lackluster. However, the exception to this general rule are the Olympic games; for one reason or another I find them quite interesting. But, once again, large media conglomerates have prevented me from enjoying something. Unlike television networks in Europe, which now broadcast the Olympics non-stop, commercial-free over multi-channel interactive TV and the internet, US media conglomerates, namely NBC Universal, restrict the way I watch the Olympics.

Perhaps the most maddening aspect of NBC's coverage are the tape delays. The opening ceremonies took place nearly twelve hours before NBC broadcasted them on the west coast of the United States. NBC would likely argue that the schedules of most people necessitate the tape delay, otherwise people could not watch the opening ceremonies. However, NBC has not one, not two, but four cable television networks (five, counting Universal HD). Why could NBC not broadcast the ceremonies live on USA ? Were they afraid of interrupting a Law and Order re-run ?

Another point of contention is the lack of online video. NBC has only posted low-quality highlight reels, and old footage on their goofy nbcolympics.com website. Worse still, NBC expects you to sit through commercials. France2 (that's "France Deux," not "France Two") has multiple live streams of Olympic action in DVD-quality streaming broadband video - without commercials. Undoubtedly, NBC wants people to "tune-in" and watch the games, commercials and all. But I have TiVo. I do not watch commercials.

Hate to break it to you Jeff*, but NBC has some pretty abysmal Olympics coverage. Yet another point in my life where I wish I could receive the BBC.