I have expressed my doubts about Governor Palin on more than one occassion. Her interviews this week and last with CBS News' Katie Couric have only sewn more seeds of doubt in my mind. More than anything, though, I cannot help but express disbelief that the Alaska governor cannot name a single periodical she reads regularly:

Why is she so reluctant to name a magazine? Perhaps she doesn't want to admit she reads Newsweek, whose foreign affairs columnist wrote a scathing article denouncing her this week.

Earlier this evening, as the newly crowned Webmaster of the Bates College Student Government, I sat in on a mostly uneventful meeting of the Student Government's RA, or "Representative Assembly." At one point, however, my attention was piqued by a complaint raised by one representative unhappy with our dining commons' breakfast offerings. He complained that, after he spent many months moaning and groaning, our dinning commons still serves meatless sausages — for the apparently large, or perhaps just influential, vegan population — at breakfast.

I generally object to faux-meat products. If I'm going to cook something vegetarian or vegan food, I don't want to imitate beef or chicken. At the same time, however, I have no problem with vegetarian food or vegan food per se. I frequently skip the questionable corn dogs and fried fish on offer for a heaping plate of chickpea curry and rice.

Nevertheless, I see this representative's question as a brilliant example of one of America's fundamental nutritional problems. People seem to think, or have been brainwashed by large agribusiness, that protein is the only food capable of providing "energy" and the only "real" food. First, if it's energy people want, they should be eating food with lots of sugar, for a quick spike of energy, or, for sustained energy, something with a low glycemic index number, such as whole grains or pasta. Second, most of the protein produced in this country contributes to global warming and the inhumane treatment of animals.

More importantly, though, while there is nothing wrong with protein, people who eat lots of protein tend to substitute protein for other food. In other words, people eat protein rather than whole grains or vegetables. And that's not good.

Americans need to redefine the place of protein in their diets. There's nothing wrong with meatless sausage. (Though I would argue there are better ways for vegans to have protein at breakfast.) But there is a big problem with the perception that we need to consume so much meat; that we need protein at the center of our diets. We don't. It's not healthy. Something needs to change.

Last weekend, I attended Smith College's annual debate tournament, the first of the year for my debate team. Unfortunately, amidst all the debating hubbub, a large quantity of grease managed to find its way onto the collar of my coat. It was annoying, but I figured I would be able to wash the coat and remove the unsightly grime. Not a big deal.

Thus, I checked my coat's pockets for important documents, pens and currency, looked at the care tag and put it into the washing machine. In retrospect, it would have made a lot of sense for me to remove the coat's belt before putting it into the washing machine. But, mostly borne of my strong desire not to stare at a huge grease spot on my coat's collar, I just threw the it into the machine and hoped for the best.

An hour or so later, I removed the coat in question from the washing machine. To my great relief the disgusting gunk was gone. Unfortunately, however, I also noticed that one of the buttons had come off.

While the coat came with an assortment of replacement buttons, I have neither the thread, needle or sewing prowess to replace the long lost button. What's more, even if I had those three missing pieces of the puzzle, my coat's belt is constructed in such a way that the buttons on the belt are sewn to one of the two layers of gaberdine. So, even if I were to attempt the seemingly impossible, my handiwork would look really weird. The telltale signs of stitching would be visible on the back of the belt for one button and not the other. Living with such asymmetry would be unthinkable!

Then I thought about computers. I love computers, gadgets, technology and just about anything related to them, aside perhaps from the toxic electronic waste created by technology's rapid replacement cycle. Anyway, it occurred to me that, when my computer goes south, I can always send it back to the manufacturer to have it repaired. So, I thought, why don't clothing companies do the same thing?

As the cost of manufactured goods continues to fall, thanks to free trade and ever-improving manufacturing technology, companies of all sorts must rely more and more on the services provided with their products to stay in the black. BMW doesn't just sell you a car. They throw in free maintenance and roadside assistance too. Panasonic doesn't just sell you a plasma TV. They throw in a Concierge service, just in case the mess of buttons on the remote is overwhelming.

Especially with the rise of these so-called "fast fashion" chains, such as H&M and Forever 21, who offer designer-"inspired" wares before the designers have finished their final stitching, high-end designer brands — like the one responsible for making my coat — need something to differentiate themselves, aside from tastefully sparse boutiques and steep price tags. After all, it's not just starving artists and penny pinching college students shopping at those stores. I have no doubt that the some of the same people snapping up armfuls of merchandise at H&M's rock-bottom prices will walk three blocks to Saks and do the same.

If some brand decided to launch a complementary "garment support hotline," with complementary repairs, both by mail and in retail stores à la Apple's Genius Bars, they would have my business in a heartbeat.

For whatever reason, I decided to join Twitter, the popular micro-blogging service that allows people to broadcast the mundane aspects of their day-to-day existence to the world. But as much as I love the concept, I have realized that Twitter is more or less useless without more than a few people to follow.

Apparently, my friends are just too cool to use Twitter. Arriving at that realization was really quite comical. I exported my 300 or so contacts from Address Book into my Gmail account so Twitter would be able to access all of their email addresses. Then I clicked on the "continue" button and waited. I could not and cannot believe that, of the 300ish people in my Address Book, only one person has a Twitter account!

Anyway, for those people who have a desire to read about the mundane aspects of my life, I can be found at twitter.com/josephkibe.

Call me crazy. (Many have.) I have neither the intention nor the desire to become a chemistry major. I do, however, desperately want to learn more about the subject. In the short term, that means I would really like to take organic chemistry.

But I can't. Yet.

The chemistry department, as it was relayed to me, will only exempt students from introductory chemistry classes if they have earned a sufficiently high score on the chemistry Advanced Placement test, regardless of a given student's ability to actually do chemistry. In practice, this means I am forced to take an extraordinarily boring introductory chemistry class.

At first, I thought it would not be that painful. I doubt anyone has ever suffered from earning an A in a chemistry class. Now, however, I have come to realize that introductory chemistry may sound the death knell for my career in science.

As I write this, I have just completed my first lab report for the chemistry course's lab portion. It took me somewhere between seven and ten hours to perform the calculations and typeset the lab in LaTeX. The chemistry department has a strict "absolutely everything must be typed" policy, and the prospect of inserting equation after equation in Word, using its clunky equation editor was not appealing.

In most circumstances, spending somewhere between seven and ten hours composing an assignment would not merit any mention, especially here. But this lab report was, in essence, a seven page paper explaining how to convert one type of units into another. Take this particularly snappy passage from my lab report:

This kind of lab undoubtedly has pedagogical value for someone who has little or no experience with chemistry. For someone with a strong background in chemistry, however, this kind of explanation is nothing short of excruciatingly painful. To draw a comparison for those without a background in chemistry, the above excerpt would be akin to a calculus student explaining how to multiply two numbers.

What really depressed me, though, was a quick flip through some of the other chemistry-related documents on my hard drive. Compare what I wrote for my college-level introductory chemistry class to what I was writing two years ago in high school:

It's really quite disheartening.

And, really, I owe this pain to Bates' lack of placement tests. As standardized tests go, the AP tests are easily the best I've taken. They do a reasonably good job of gauging how well students learned the material the AP includes in its curriculum. But they do not, nor are they designed to, provide an accurate gauge of how much a student knows about a specific subject in the broadest terms.

Thus, I have become a supporter of placement tests. While I can only speculate, I have little doubt I would be a much happier person if I could test out of introductory chemistry.

The President of the United States may not command the same salary as Fortune 500 executive, but it would be difficult to argue that the nation's head of the executive branch has any less responsibility. Thus my argument. No corporation would ever hire Governor Palin or Senator McCain* as its CEO, therefore it's laughable to even consider either of them becoming, effectively, the CEO of the United States Federal Government.

Now imagine my surprise when former HP CEO turned senior McCain economic advisor, Carly Fiorina, made these comments on a radio program this morning:

* I can, however, imagine a corporation hiring McCain as either a lobbyist or some kind of political consultant. He would be very, very good at either of those jobs with his CV and Rolodex.

For a few blissful seconds, I thought I had true network connectivity on my iPhone here at Bates. For a few blissful seconds.

A few minutes ago, I accidentally opened the WiFi configuration panel on my iPhone. As it happened, my phone showed not one, but two different wireless access points: Bates — the campus-wide WiFi I have complained about ad nauseam for the last nine months — and BatesGuest, something new. In a moment of chimerical optimism, I connected to the aforementioned network, just to see what would happen. To my astonishment, just a few minutes later I could open Safari and browse the World Wide Web on my iPhone without any perceivable restrictions.

Then I tried to check my email.

I pushed the Home button, tapped Mail and waited for that wonderful new mail ping. Ten seconds passed. Then thirty. Then sixty. Then I knew I wouldn't have my cake and eat it too. Bates ILS, doubtlessly in the name of network security, has restricted devices using the BatesGuest access point to TCP/IP traffic only. No FTP. No IMAP. No ZeroConf.

While I understand most users have an inexpert understanding of network security, this kind of sandbox is ridiculous. Not only am I unable to check my email on my phone, I'm also prevented from using a host of incredibly useful tools that necessitate my phone and computer be on the same subnet.

Take Air Sharing, a promising application that allows users to copy files from their Macs to their iPhones by way of a Bonjour connection. I can't use it to, say, save paper by storing PDF readings on my phone rather than carrying around a printed copy. Or the Apple iTunes Remote application. Not to mention the fantastic applications just waiting for Apple's okay. (Provided they actually make it.)

The college campus has spawned a host of revolutionary innovations. Bates' lack of a computer science department notwithstanding, the school's ruthless IT security policy means the next Facebook or Napster will likely be developed elsewhere.

As much as I object to some of the experimentation that happens in dark corners of the campus, college is meant to be a place for people to experiment. Unlike experimentation in the physical world, however, software permits perfect control. So, while a student could decide to scream "Fire!" during the drama department's next performance to, say, test the boundaries of free speech — bearing in mind our nation's current laws — perfect control of our network means no experimentation whatsoever. And that's unfortunate.

Image courtesy AlaskaPodshow.com

Without a doubt, John McCain's choice to make Governor Sarah Palin his running mate has shaken up the 2008 Race to the Oval Office. But, as I continue to think about the implications of Sarah Palin's nomination, the more worried I become.

Call me an elitist, a snob or whatever. I just don't think she has the qualifications to become the next vice-president, especially given, as Frank Rich pointed out this morning, "if we've learned anything from the G.O.P. convention and its aftermath, it's that the 2008 edition of John McCain is too weak to serve as America's chief executive."

This woman thinks faith in faith, not faith in facts, has a place in our nation's public schools. Not only will that sort of policy make Americans more xenophobic and crazy, it will also condemn those unsuspecting children to unemployment or minimum wage work because they will not have the education or the scientific skill set to become a part of today's economy.

This woman believes climate change is not the result of man's negligence, but rather the will of God. And, consequently, she puts oil extraction, not innovation, at the center of America's energy strategy. What a shame, given the way renewable energy can revitalize our economy, protect our Earth and keep money out of the hands of "evildoers" all at the same time.

Above all else, however, it worries me that Sarah Palin hopes to erode whatever shred of a meritocracy remains in the United States. The New York Times ran a story this morning titled, "Once Elected, Palin Hired Friends and Lashed Foes." The accompanying photo's caption says it all: "The Wasilla City Council, with Sarah Palin, the future governor and vice-presidential nominee, at the center, in a 1998 photograph. Throughout her career, Ms. Palin has pursued vendettas, fired officials who crossed her and blurred the line between government and personal grievance."

Political scientists call this nepotistic, vendetta-driven style of governance neopatrimonialism. I call it stupid. In many ways, it reveals just how many similarities exist between the State of Alaska and some of the world's nastier petrodictatorships. A number of analysts have noted that Alaska's executive (governor) has more power than every other state's executive, save for the governor of Massachusetts. Thus, Alaska's government, flush with tax dollars from oil drillers, can essentially quash any political unrest in the Land of the Midnight Sun by doling out ever larger tax rebates, without confronting the fact that a group of incompetent nitwits has control of the government. It's the same way Hugo Chavez maintains his grip on power.

In her acceptance speech, Governor Palin spoke of her small town compatriots, saying, "I grew up with those people. They're the ones who do some of the hardest work in America, who grow our food, and run our factories, and fight our wars. They love their country in good times and bad, and they're always proud of America." It almost suggests she believes a factory worker with no college degree, no experience in government and umpteen years experience growing corn more merits one of our nation's highest offices than a highly educated Harvard Law grad with years of experience in government and in leadership.

That position is not elitist. It's common sense! It's as if Sarah Palin would be outraged to think an MBA with 20 years of management and computer programming experience was picked over an ex-autoworker with no college degree and limited experience with email to become the next CEO of Google.

The way the GOP has turned this election into a clash of personalities, of patriotism and of values, rather than one that pits the two candidates' qualifications against one another, saddens me.

Some of history's most remarkable leaders have come from the unlikeliest places. Who would have thought a one term Illinois Senator could free millions of people from the bondage of enslavement? Who would have thought a member of the New York political and economic élite would become one of this nation's most zealous advocates for the poor during the Great Depression?

But history has also taught us that bad leadership creates problems. Ulysses Grant undoubtedly put his country first by leading the Union to victory. His lack of vision, judgement and experience, however, has left historians no choice but to call him one of the nation's worst presidents.

As I have mentioned more times than I care to admit, I love my iPhone. It's pretty great. And, over the last two months, I have become even more of an iPhone evangelist thanks to Apple's iPhone SDK, which allows approved third party developers to develop amazing new applications for the iPhone and iPod Touch platforms.

While the vast majority of the applications available on the App Store have absolutely no purpose and merit no attention, other than as examples of how not to program, a few gems make the true potential of the iPhone as a computing platform clear. Super Monkey Ball, for one, takes advantage of the iPhone's accelerometer and relatively powerful 3D graphics capabilities in an amazing way. I'm also a big fan of OmniFocus on the iPhone (and the desktop, for that matter).

But, understandably, Apple has taken measures to ensure the iPhone platform remains safe and malice free for its millions of users all over the world. Unfortunately, these measures will keep some truly fantastic ideas from ever making it into the hands of consumers.

Just today, news broke that a fantastic application will never make it onto users' iPhones. As someone who likes podcasts and owns an iPhone, I have often wondered why I can't download podcasts straight from the cloud to my phone. After all, the iPhone can connect to the Internet via WiFi and over the cellular network. Yet, I have no choice but to download podcasts on my Mac and sync them down to the phone. Apparently, someone else had the same qualm. And that someone developed an application to permit iPhone and iPod Touch users to download and play podcasts right on their devices.

Sadly, however, no one — save perhaps for the developer — will have the opportunity to use the application. Because Apple rejected it.

I respect Apple's right to exercise control over the applications distributed on the iPhone platform. They have the best intentions. Nevertheless, Apple should adjust its policy so far as approving applications goes.

Apple should reject applications only when absolutely necessary. Only, that is to say, if the application violates their agreements with AT&T (e.g., a music store application that used the cellular network to pull music from the cloud) or poses a significant threat to users.

Other applications should, regardless of Apple's opinion of the applications utility or other subjective traits, receive a free pass. Apple has an uncanny ability to predict what will and will not work. They are not, however, as intelligent as the market, which has already exerted a profound influence on the way the App Store works. Many developers have responded to customers' complaints about high prices by lowering the prices of their applications, sometimes significantly.

Apple may suffer from time to time by taking this path, when some idiotic journalist links an equally idiotic application to Apple in error. But Apple stands to gain so much more. By allowing risky, unproven ideas onto the platform, Apple could easily find themselves with the platform running the next great, breakthrough piece of software. That, in turn makes the iPhone an even more compelling product for consumers.

By removing subjective discrimination from the application approval process, everyone wins. Developers have more opportunity to reap the fruits of their labor. Consumers have a richer experience. And Apple hooks even more people with their thoughtfully designed, brilliantly engineered products.

Image courtesy 416style

While The New York Times Magazine's piece on Senator Obama's economic policies quelled my remaining doubts with regard to his positions on economic issues, I feel like the Senator has lost steam in the last two or three weeks. His campaign has gone from one that enraptured voters and appealed to voters with a sense of vision, to something much more insipid.

Just today, the campaign released two new television commercials to counteract the Sarah Palin effect on the media's coverage of the campaign. Neither one caught my attention. The first, "Real Change," features the Junior Senator from Illinois explaining his views on a variety of issues. It's not awful, but it's not inspiring, interesting or particularly captivating.

The second, "Still," lambasts Senator McCain for his lack of technological literacy and facile understanding of economic issues. Unlike "Real Change," the second advertisement looks unfinished and unpolished. A 16-year-old with a MacBook and a copy of Final Cut Pro could have made a more polished looking advertisement. And, while it cannot quite match the latest McCain ad in terms of negativity and ad hominem attacks, "Still," doesn't strike me as particularly positive or forward looking. (Incidentally, I feel compelled to point out that YouTube's search suggestions put John Mayer before John McCain.)

Senator Obama needs to shake up the race. He needs to take our attention away from Governor Palin and Senator McCain. A new pair of iffy campaign commercials will not cut it. We need the Barack Obama who inspires, not the Barack Obama trying to beguile Middle America with specific policy prescriptions. As much as those voters claim they want to hear specifics, hear more than inspiring rhetoric, it is not the dull, Barack Obama — who, it seems, spends hours repeating the mundane details of his healthcare proposal or tax plan — that drove droves to the polls in the Democratic primary to make him the Democrat's nominee.

Like many of my peers, I felt drawn to the Senator by his inspiring rhetoric and his perhaps chimerical vision of an America once again at its acme. He represented someone who, even if I disagreed with some of his policies, seemed to posses the willpower to unstick the gears of government and remove whatever negative connotation we have come to associate with the word bureaucrat. In this case, change is not the solution, but rather the problem.

I've just moved in to my dorm for the 2008-2009 school year here at Bates. By and large, I like the room assigned to me by the housing office. I have a single in the fancy new yet-to-be-named dormitory. Given the building's youth, the walls remain blissfully whole, the baseboard does not crawl with dust, and the furniture does not look dated or overused. For the most part, it's quite nice.

Unfortunately, however, one of the building's greatest virtues is also its greatest vice.

This new dormitory, following Bates' obsession with environmentalism, has a number of features that make it very energy efficient. The lights in the bathrooms dim automatically after motion sensors detect a certain level of inactivity. A fancy ventilation system cools and heats the building with great efficiency. And the windows have a metallic coating to keep heat out in the summer and keep heat in during the winter.

But the windows' metallic coating keeps out more than just heat. It also reflects the microwaves cell phone's use to send and receive phone calls. Thus, no matter where I stand inside, I have absolutely, positively zero reception on my trusty iPhone. Apparently, this has posed a problem to big businesses as well. On the one hand, they want to sell themselves as environmentally responsible by improving the energy efficiency of their offices. On the other, however, cell phones and their derivatives, are essential to business in the new millennium.

The solution, according to what I've read, is to install special repeaters, leased from the cell carriers, inside buildings to ensure phones work.

But it makes more sense, at least in a building like mine with great WiFi reception inside, to simply give cell phones the ability to make calls over the Internet using a WiFi chipset. T-Mobile already offers a service along those lines, however, users must install a special WiFi access point and use a specific phone designed for WiFi-GSM hand-offs. Carriers could still bill customers for minutes talked over WiFi. I would not object to that. I do, however, object to having absolutely no cell reception inside.