I downloaded this blogging editor from the Firefox website.

Like many add-ons, it was easy to obtain–I simply clicked on the link and it installed itself (after Firefox restarted).

That was easy, right?  Not exactly.  I ran into a problem when I tried to configure it to work with my blog.  I entered the setup information, but it wouldn’t log in.  I tried again, and again, and again.  I searched through the software website but still couldn’t figure out what was wrong.  Finally, I searched the Movable Type forum, where I discovered that I had to use the API password, which is different than the general Movable Type password.

Finally, with that change, success.  It’s handy being able to blog in the same window as your browser.  You can drag down items from your browser window and add them to your blog entry.  Hopefully, I pick up a few other tricks and streamline the blogging process.

I’m interested by this question in the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC poll:

If Hillary Clinton was elected president, some people say this would be a problem because it would mean at least twenty-four years of having a member of the Clinton family or the Bush family as president. Is this a serious consideration for you in voting for president, one of many considerations, not much of a consideration, or not a consideration for you at all?
Serious consideration …………………12
One of many considerations ………….13
Not much of a consideration ………….20
Not a consideration at all ……………..54
Not sure ………………………………..1

I’m among the 12% that thinks this is a “serious consideration”–so much so that this is one of the reasons I’ve been unexcited about the Clinton candidacy.
I don’t have anything against Ms. Clinton per se. She seems like a well-qualified candidate whose policy positions are largely in line with my own. Undoubtedly I would vote for her in the general election.
But as I envision a Clinton presidency, there’s several unappealing images that keep coming up. Among them:
(1) The media circus. Imagine the press free-for-all with Bill and Hillary back in the White House. I don’t have any confidence that the press corps could control themselves from doing trite and personal stories. It would be four years of cleavagesque chatter.
(2) Right wing attack machine. It’s true that rightists will assail any Democratic president. But I suspect their attacks would be even more ferocious against Ms. Clinton. She’s a divisive target, and they’ve got 15 years worth of history to dig up.
(3) Same old insiders. I don’t know who would run the machinery in a Clinton White House, but I’m sure there would be many of the same faces as Clinton I. Do we really want the same small group of people running the country? How about some diversity in perspective?
Bottom line: in a nation of 300 million, I just don’t understand why we’ve continued to turn to the same families to run the executive branch. There’s many capable leaders out there. We need fresh blood.

Surfing about I came across a unique blog, Paleo-Future: A look into the future that never was. It examines what people in the past thought the future would bring.
There’s a number of interesting entries to browse through. Among them is one with 1900-era postcards depicting what life would be like in 2000. Basically, the futurists who created these depictions took existing technology and gave it enhanced capabilities. Thus the trains, boats, airships, cameras, etcetera all resemble how they looked in 1900, but could do more things. Oh yes, and horse-drawn carriages can travel over water.
Two of the postcards are particularly pertinent today: (1) the police’s X-ray surveillance machine (a Department of Homeland Security forerunner) and (2) the card portraying “Summer Holidays” at the North Pole. Apparently someone was almost 100 years ahead of Al Gore.
Take a look.

The U.S. House has been working on an energy bill which, for the time being, does not strengthen automobile fuel economy standards. Apparently the House leadership ditched those provisions in an effort to keep oil/automobile-manufacturer friendly Democrats on board with the bill.
Meanwhile, I don’t think it’s a coincidence that we saw this headline earlier in the week:

“U.S. Automakers Market Share Lowest Ever”
The Detroit automakers’ share of the U.S. market dropped below 50 percent in July for the first time in history, according to an analyst who tracks industry numbers.

I suspect this trend will only worsen so long as (1) American auto manufacturers continue to hitch their financial stars to big, gas-guzzling SUV wagons while (2) oil prices continue to climb (these may get much worse in the next few years).
So Congress now faces a choice: it can (1) embrace the status quo, as American vehicle manufacturers continue their slow decline building inefficient vehicles, or it can (2) push the manufacturers to look forward and confront the coming energy shortage, and in the process hopefully remain competitive.
I hope it chooses (2).
UPDATE: Michael Vickerman discusses why Congress has failed to adopt sound energy policy.

This is odd:

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) plans to review the Senate testimony of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel A. Alito to determine if their reversal of several long-standing opinions conflicts with promises they made to senators to win confirmation.
. . .
Specter, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, who served as chairman during the hearings, said he wants to examine whether Roberts and Alito have “lived up” to their assurances that they would respect legal precedents.

Apparently, Senator Specter is surprised by the rulings of these two justices. I’m not sure why, as this is the direction the rightist base has been clamoring the Court to take for years. I would have been more surprised if Roberts and Alito had voted differently.
Anyway, the damage has been done. Specter should have thought about this before he voted for the justices’ lifetime appointment. Reviewing their testimony isn’t going to any good now.
So why go though this exercise? Allegedly, to improve the process:

Judicial independence is “so important,” Specter said, but an examination could help with future nominations. “I have done a lot of analyzing and have come to the conclusion that these nominees answer just as many questions as they have to.”

Unless nominees are required to start answering questions about hot issues before the court, I’m unconvinced much can be done to make these confirmation hearings informative. As they stand now, hearings are a bump that only derail nominations in three situations:
(1) If they uncover an undisclosed bad act,
(1) If they reveal controversial statements the nominee has made, or
(2) If they demonstrate that the nominee is totally incompetent (see Harriet Miers).
What hearings do not do (if the nominee is careful) is weed out nominees based on their testimony regarding judicial philosophy. Nominees can dodge almost all land mines on that front by refusing to comment on existing cases before the Court.
So Senator Specter can wring his hands about confirmation testimony if he wants. But he should really give more weight to the nominee’s record and less weight to what they say in the hearings.