This is truly amazing. Flock is a technology preview web browser based on the most advanced full release web browser out there: Mozilla Firefox. Flock is a product that focuses on community collaboration, blogging, and search.

The way it makes Bookmarks work is simply genius. Del.icio.us is a bookmark sharing technology that lets users add little tags to their favorites. Similar to GMail's labeling technology, this eliminates the need for having folders, and you can simply search your bookmarks by your tags. The fun thing about tabs is that you can apply multiple tags to the same favorite. This is kind of like making a playlist on your iTunes. You can take the same song, and put it into many different playlists without having to make a different physical copy of the song for every playlist. This is also fun because you can access it from anywhere in the web, although it does take some time to build up.

Blogging simple as heck. I am posting this blog, right now, using Flock's blogging component. I don't have to go to blogger.com, log in, choose the blog I want, post. That's all done with one click and one setup of the account. Piece of cake.

Firefox already makes searching the web easy as heck. But the genius of Flock is it makes browser history searchable. It's as easy as starting to type something in the search field. History pages are indexed and stored so finding something in your history is blindingly fast, effortless, and easy. To make your life easy, frequently visited and recently added pages (to favorites) can always be accessed from the favorites menu.

All these things having been said, this IS a technology preview. And it has a long way to go to catch up to its parent, Firefox. If you are not the type who likes to tinker with in-testing, sometimes unstable, alpha level software, don't even think about trying Flock. I find the learning curb a bit steep, not eveything is as instinctive as Firefox. They have work to do, and they will. For now, if you are totally into Firefox and really want to check out this new generation of the Internet, check out Flock. But if you like a hassle free, uninterrupted web experience on a solid platform, stick with your Firefox.

Technorati Tags: flock, blog

Wow. I was incredibly, and not pleasantly, surprised at Kos' support of Prop 77. Basically, he wants to vote for it because (1) It is "reform" and gets rid of jerrymandering, and (2) by not supporting this, Democrats are going to be shooting themselves in the foot wheen reform measures come up in other states whose jerrymandering favors Republicans. Kos, for the first time, I think is missing the big issue. It's the separation of powers! Let me break this up in a few parts: Separation and shift of power, 77 will bring more politics into the process instead of taking it out, and stopping the whinning about incumbent protection. SEPARATION AND SHIFT OF POWERS The big issue here is a principle, not a party. The principle is called separation of powers. The California Constitution - as most other state Constitutions - puts the power to draw legislative and Congressional districts in the hands of a legislative body rather than unelected judges. That power of drawing districts is given to the legislative branch of government, not the judicial branch. What you are doing with Prop 77 is shifting the ballance of power from the legislative branch to the judicial branch. Sure, the legislative leaders have a role to play still, but the shift in power still occurs. We ought not be shifting delicate balances of powers willy nilly. Why we believe unelected judges - who have zero direct accountability to the people - will do a better job than elected legislators is beyond me. Judges are there to interpret the Constitution and the laws, not to draw districts. Whatever the flaws of the legislature, at the moment, at least two stages of public debate ensues - in the Assembly and in the State Senate. They are the people most responsive to the calls of their constituents. And, as is done all the time, the plan that the legislature approves can always be taken to court and if it's unfair or violates the California Constitution, California courts can void it, and enforce a new plan in place of it. There is ALREADY judicial oversight of this process. The power of the legislature is not unchecked. 77 MEANS MORE POLITICS IN THE PROCESS, NOT LESS SO Furthermore, there is absolutely no guarantee that Prop 77 will do anything to end gerrymandering. It's a 3 judge panel - which ensures that one party will have a majority on that panel. Oh and the only condition for the judges is that they must be *party loyalists*, i.e. never have changed parties since becoming a judge! Don't you just love it? And do you really think that when the judges draw the districts, and it goes to voters to approve (as it will if 77 passes) the ordinary voters are really going to take the time and decide how fair that plan really is? Can you really expect that? What do you think is going to happen? Instead of debate over these plans, there will be 30-second ad blitz from the pro and con sides to confuse the hell out of people. Politics is by no means taken out of this with Prop 77, in fact, it can be argued that more politics is injected in this manner. Oh and if the voters do reject the plan the judges draw up, guess what? The plan that voters just rejected is still good and in place for that election!!!! Am I the only one that sees something wrong with that? STOP WHINNING ABOUT INCUMBENT PROTECTION And it is pure crap to whine about incumbent protection. The problem is the other party usually doesn't go through the effort to put up a candidate. If they do, even these districts can be competitive. Take the AD 21 race last November, for example. Apparently it was drawn to protect Democrats. But Democratic candidate Ira Ruskin - who I wholeheartedly supported - faced a tough challenge from Republican millionire Steve Poizner. Ira, in the end, with the help of grassroots organization - much of it due to the Santa Clara and San Mateo County DFA groups - won, with a 51-48 margin. Then, take Ohio's 2nd District and Paul Hackett. The reddest district in Ohio, they called it. Well, Paul Hackett almost won. I suggest that instead of whining about incumbent protection, you draw battle plans to take out the powerful incumbents that work against us, and that part of that plan be your candidates. I am not saying there can't be reform measures put on the ballot that really make competitive districs, such as enforcing more requirements on the legislature itself when it draws these districts. But Prop 77 is a mockery of a proposition that might well result in chaos instead of anything productive. The power to draw the districts, in however restricted a form, must be left in the hands of the people's representatives, not unelected judges. It's not a matter of who wins and who loses as a result of redistricting. This is a question of Constitutional shift of power, and there is nothing to merit something that monumental. Let me tell you this: If I lived in Ohio, and Ohio's liberal supported redistricting measure were shifting the balance of power, I'd vote NO on that too.

I suppose that after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the California marriage equality bill, it is kind of a semi-legitimate question, asking why anyone would care. And I don't just mean straight people, but also LGBT Californians. Why would anyone care? I mean, it's not like same-sex families in California don't already have some of the most generous recognition of any state. The advances we have made in getting closer to equality under the law has been amazing. Same-sex domestic partners are now entitled to all the state rights and responsibilities that married couples are, except for filing joint tax returns. So what is the whoopla all about? So we can file joint tax returns? Allow me to say why I care. When it comes to civil rights legislations, it is about much more than legalese or technicalities. It is about humanity and human dignity. It is about being able to hold my head up high and say that I am no less as a human being than anyone else. It is about this simple fact being recognized into the laws of a just society. Benefits and legal papers matter. Being able to visit a partner in the hospital is invaluable. Being able to share insurence from the employer matters. But what matters more is dignity. When the law says on behalf of a society that two people who are in love and are willing commit to each other for the rest of their lives cannot marry simply because they happen to be of the same gender, it says something about the values of the society. It says that our relationships with our loved ones are somehow less - and less worthy of recognition - than heterosexual people. It says that somehow we are less dignified as human beings - individuals and couples - than other members of society. It says that as a society we assign dignity and moral worth not on the basis of the content of one's character, but based upon the gender makeup of our families and who we fall in love with. It says that our love and commitments are not as good as, as valuable as, or as worthy of protection as that of others. Fundamentally this is about values. As a society, do we value equality or discrimination? Do we value justice or bigotry? Do we, as a society, value human dignity for every single person or not? Do we value love and commitment? If weare a just society, as we believe we ulmitately - albeing very imperfectly - are, then the answers of these questions are easy. Dignity, justice, love, commitment and equality wins over bigotry, discrimination and demonization. I would be naive to ignore the other impacts of equal marriage rights such as vast advancement of LGBT rights accross the country if California - the largest, most populous, and most diverse - state granted equal marrigae, such as a force for changing discriminatory federal policies towards immigration, the military, and in more than 1,000 areas of the federal laws that discriminated on the basis of love. But all of it has a higher moral purpose. A purpose of human dignity, respect, and equal justice under the law, all founding principles of a great society.

I usually roll my eyes when people say there is no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats, and let it go at that. But lately, I have been getting a little more annoyed, let's call it mentally ballistic. You know why? Because of something that recently happened in California, my home state. Our state legislature, for the first time ever in the United States, passed - without a mandate from the courts - a bill legalizing marriage equality for all Californians. AB849 gave same-sex couples the right to a civil marriage, just like the law already does for opposite-sex couples. In doing that, the California State Assembly and the California State Senate spoke out in favor of equality, in favor of our families, in favor of love, and in favor of marriage. That was a hard won victory for not just those of us who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, queer, or any of these other denominations, but it was a victory for all Californians. It was a victory that recognized our relationships are no less valuable, no less loving, and no less deserving of recognition than those of our straight counterparts. I watched the vote on the Assembly floor, and the Senate floor. It was breathtaking, and we made history. But then, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger decided to draw his pen, put it on paper, and veto this historic legislation. By doing so, he shattered the hopes and dreams of millions of Californians, millions of families who have a gay son, daughter, mother, father, cousin, or other family members. With the stroke of one pen, Schwarzenegger said that gay Californians do not deserve the same recognition of their relationship as does his own marriage. The emotions have been raw and mixed. Jubilious when the bill passed - in each house of the legislature with the minimum of votes required - and sad when Mr. Schwarzenegger announced his veto. Proud that California became the first state in the union to do this by legislative action, ashamed that our own governor does not think much of our families. Encouraged by the courage of our legislature, hurt by the bigotry of our governor. Hope and joy of a new day in history, and dispair that the Golden State lost a golden opportunity. The history we made will never be erased no matter what Mr. Schwarzenegger did, but the wound that he left will take a long time to heal. So, what does these raw emotions, matters of heart have to do with political parties, you ask? A lot. It truly is your heart that makes you an American, and indeed, a human being. And it is also the heart of a party that history must judge. Consider this. In the California State Assembly, the bill garnered 41 votes in favor, and 35 against (80 seats total). All 41 voting in favor were Democrats, and all 32 Republicans voted against it. In the State Senate, it passed by a 21-15 margin (total of 40 seats). Again, all 21 Senators voting in favor were Democrats, and all of the Senate's 15 Republicans voted "no." Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger who vetoed the bill? Yes, a Republican. Phil Angelides, the Democratic candidate for governor who is also thestate Treasurer, urged Schwarzenegger to make history by signing the bill into law. So let's make this a little clearer. The bill that made history by affording equal justice under the law and the bill that afforded equal human dignity to all families passed with entirely Democratic votes, and had a Democratic governor been in office, that bill would be the law of the State of California today. So the difference between the two political parties today is that of heart. Equal justice under the law, and recognition of love and commitment is the heart of the Democratic party. Bigotry, hatred and discrimination are at the heart of today's Republican party. That's the difference.