The New York Times reports speculation that Israel wanted to take its overpowering revenge against Hamas in the Gaza Strip while the Bush Regime still holds sway in the United States.

Uncertain how supportive the incoming regime of President-Elect Barack Obama is going to be of its dramatic overreactions to provocation by its neighbors, Israel knew it could count on Bush and his cronies, who have been far more pro-Israel than any U.S. administration in history. While Obama has made statements mostly supportive of the Israelis in their conflict with neighbors in the Middle East, he has also been one to wish to discuss and explore non-violent solutions to problems and disagreements. Israel and the pro-Israeli lobby in the U.S. -- one of the most powerful and successful around -- have to know that they will see at the very least a reduction in the degree to which the United States will turn a blind eye to difficult-to-justify Israeli decisions to use massive force to retaliate against Hamas and other similar foes.

I for one hope that the new Obama Administration will make concerted efforts to bring peace to the troubled Middle East. And I believe that there can be no peace there that doesn't allow for some compromise and for some allowance that the Palestinians and their leaders cannot always be wrong and the Israelis always right. Things just don't work that way in the real world.

I can't recall seeing a Web site this poorly designed. I couldn't resist sharing my experience.

We have Digital Comcast. I wanted to check out the movies available without having to go through all of their onscreen menus, so I went to their site and made my way to their search page for OnDemand. After trying a couple of unsuccessful searches, I noticed that they had a link on that page to the new movie "Tropic Thunder". I thought it would be interesting to see when it was on even though I may not actually watch it.

So I clicked on the link. It took me to a search results page where they had run a pre-packaged search for me that produced 40 search results. As far as I could tell, none of them was the movie. So I did a filter by "OnDemand," which reduced the list to 15. And the movie, "Tropic Thunder" is not to be seen.

As far as I can tell, the movie isn't showing on OnDemand despite the fact that on the main OnDemand page of their own site, they have a listing for it and a link that allegedly takes you to it. That's just freaking stupid.

Even when you do find a movie on their site that you think you'd like to check out, you very often find out the movie isn't available until later in the month or next month. Classic example of a site that is designed to meet some corporate marketing objective and the heck with the user's reason for being there

In the immediately preceding post, from yesterday, I discussed the credibility of Wikipedia and its recent ability to raise over $6 million in donations and grants. This morning I ran across an article on Silicon Alley Insider titled "Who the Hell Writes Wikipedia Anyway?"

It is intriguing to see the answer to the title question. It turns out that the vast majority of the content of the site is in the hands of a few hundred fanatics who know founder Jimmy Wales and whom he knows. Not people who were his friends, but those who have become his professional colleagues.

If you're intrigued by the Wikipedia phenomenon, you'll enjoy Henry Blodget's article.

Well, isn't this interesting? Wikipedia went out to raise $6 milliion in a PBS-style donations-only campaign and today exceeded its goal, raising $6.2 million.

This feat comes at a time when I am studying the issue of reputation ranking and filtering on the Web. I see this as being a critical issue that could become the bottleneck that stalls the Web's otherwise phenomenal growth. As more and more information flows through the Web, it becomes increasingly difficult to filter the wheat from the chaff, the nuggets from the nutjobs. The amount of disinformation peddled on the Web during the just concluded U.S. Presidential election was so effective that it is inevitable that the amount and ugliness quotient of this crap is going to increase.

Wikipedia has done amazing things. I won't even attempt to repeat their statistics here; they're available everywhere anyway. They have out-done every encyclopedia ever published in terms of sheer volume, both of topics covered and number of contributors. Surely more people use Wikipedia every day than consult all of the world's printed encyclopedias combined. (I don't know that's true, but I'd be truly stunned if it weren't.)

The fact that Wikipedia has accomplished this as a non-profit is one thing. But when you consider that there are no real constraints on content of the user-edited encyclopedia -- and that credibility is therefore impossible to guarantee -- you have an intriguing phenomenon on your hands. In August 2007, Wired magazine did a fairly thorough hatchet job on Wikipedia by pointing out who was editing some of the content on the site. It turned out that corporate editors were cutting critical content. So was the CIA.

And yet when asked to show their support -- their confidence on some level -- ordinary users cough up $4 million in five months. (Granted that only 125,000 users bellied up to the bar as it were, the average contribution was $32). The balance of the $6.2 million came from major gifts and foundations. Obviously somebody has confidence in the contents of Wikipedia, at least enough not to want to see it go away.

The San Francisco 49ers have a new head coach in Mike Singletary. Yippee!

The San Francisco 49ers are looking for a new offensive coordinator. Again. For the eighth time in as many years. Booooooo!

Singletary apparently wants to move the 49ers from being a powerfully diverse and interesting team that has lived and died by the forward pass into a rushing-based team built around Frank Gore and ball possession. As a result, he terminated Martz, one of the most creative and large-yardage-chunk driven offensive guys in the NFL. So whoever the new QB is -- and my guess is we won't know that until the opening game of the 2009 season -- he'll be learning a new plan in addition to trying to master his position.

This musical chairs at the OC spot is the largest single reason the Niners suck. They drafted a strong, powerful, confident and eminently teachable quarterback named Alex Smith and then proceeded to destroy his career by forcing him to learn a new offensive playbook every year. It seems likely now that Smith will not be a Niner next year, which is probably good for him and bad for the team. Shaun Hill stepped in the second half of the just-finished season and did a credible job but he's not a playoff-capable NFL signal caller.

Conventional wisdom says rushing teams get to the playoffs more than passing teams. I'm not so sure. This year, only half of the top 10 passing teams in the league made it to the playoffs, but only one more team in the top 10 passing made it. Seems to me you have to look at other stats for an explanation.

Singletary's offensive game plan may be sound in terms of the W-L record, but it begs a really important question: Will 49ers fans want to watch smash-mouth football? Is it better to be boring winners or exciting losers? The West Coast Offense isn't always successful. But neither is a boring running game.

The United Nations today declared that "things have reached crisis proportions" in the Gaza Strip where it says Israeli airstrikes are occurring once every 20 minutes day and night.

Meanwhile, the United States, its eyes fixed firmly on global reality, called for peaceful talks in Sri Lanka...yeah, Sri Lanka, not in the Mideast. Yeesh. Way to go, Bushies!

My buddy Tony Seton said today that, maybe Israel should try a carrot instead of a stick. As much as I like the idea, I'm not sure any carrot -- including opening part of the Gaza Strip to free movement where the people would essentially renounce Hamas -- has a prayer. This is by all accounts the most densely populated part of our fragile planet. And it's damned small. Dividing it up would be tricky at best.

It should be clear to Americans that a big factor in the enormously increased violence of the Israeli reaction to missiles flying out of southern Gaza is the upcoming national elections. Israelis are not uniformly conservative and pro-war (they'd probably prefer the euphemism "pro-self-defense") but a significant majority seem to be. I have a number of Jewish friends in this country who are amazingly consistent progressives on every single issue except Israel. I've never understood it and I expect I never will but it's a big part fo the landscape of reality we have to deal with in that troubled part of the world where I suspect this doesn't feel much like a new year.

Part of the adventure we call life is its unpredictability. While I don't know what 2009 holds in store for me -- and wouldn't want to know even if it were possible -- I am excited about its prospects personally, politically and economically. I certainly don't expect a trouble-free ride; what kind of fun would that be? But I'm confident of far more good than bad and secure in the absolute knowledge that everything that happens to me happens for my best and highest good. It may sometimes take a while -- a loooooooong while -- for the good to become known.

So no predictions, no resolutions, just hope and confidence.

Tonight I became the 6,426th person to take the vow of nonviolence in my thoughts, my speech and my action. Deepak Chopra is a guiding light of this new movement.

Please consider taking the vow as well, adding it to your blog, and passing it along to your like-minded friends and relatives. When we reach the tipping point, non-violence will become the rule rather than the exception.

My friend Tobi Lytle sent this along. I gain a greater appreciation for Robin Williams every time I see him do another standup. This one is over the top.

A moderate Republican is like a Volvo with a gun rack. Hysterical!

Apple Computer's shares took a small hit this afternoon when Gizmodo reported a rumor about CEO Steve Jobs' allegedly declining health. More than any other company I can think of, Apple is identified with its leader, so the link between concerns over his health and the health of the company are understandable.

They are not, however, either inevitable or accurate. I'm certain that Apple is more than Jobs. I'm certain that their product mix is brilliant and solid. I'm confident that if I were still in the market, I'd be buying Apple right now. But Apple Computer, Inc., needs to get out from behind the "Steve Jobs' health is a private issue" bullshit line they spout when the issue comes up. That means:

1. Steve Jobs' health is decidedly not a private matter. You can't be the very image of the company as Jobs has always chosen and pressed to be and at the same time be entitled to privacy on any matter that affects your tenure in the leadership role. No way, Jose.
2. The company needs to articulate its succession plan and start giving the heir apparent some face time.
3. Investors need to chill. Jobs is a survivor of pancreatic cancer. That's good news but it's not a 100% healthy outcome. Pancreatic cancer is one of the most invidious forms of the disease and beating it takes a lot out of the patient. Even if he is in very good health considering that, the phrase "considering that" carries a certain amount of baggage. Deal with it.

It's hard to imagine a personal computer industry without a strong Apple in it. I don't think that's because I have deep feelings for the company; I think it's part of the reality of the scene.