25 years on

It’s 25 years ago since the Apple Macintosh was officially launched by Steve Jobs, two days after the screening of Ridley Scott’s famous commercial. ReadWriteWeb has a nice photo gallery of every model. I’ve owned most of them — and still have a couple of the original Macs, plus the first iMac (in tangerine!) and a 1991 Powerbook 100. Sadly, I gave away the Apple ][ that I had in 1978. Otherwise I’d have the makings of a small museum.

I vividly remember the first time I used a Macintosh — and wrote about it in my book on the history of the Internet. The relevant passage comes in the chapter on the deep origins of the Web when I was writing about the work of Bill Atkinson (who invented HyperCard).

In an age of bitmapped screens and Graphical User Interfaces, we have become blasé about drawing and painting packages. But many of us will never forget our first encounter with Atkinson’s baby. In my own case, it happened at a workshop for academics known to be interested in personal computing which was organised by Apple UK at the University Arms hotel in Cambridge.

The venue was a stuffy conference suite ringed with tables covered in green baize. On each table stood an astonishing little machine with a nine-inch screen and a detached keyboard. Compared with the clunky, three-box design which then represented the industry’s idea of what a personal computer should look like, these elegant little machines seemed, well, just gorgeous. I couldn’t wait to get my hands on one.

After an initial spiel by the Apple crowd, we were let loose on the machines. They had been set up, for some unfathomable reason, displaying a picture of a fish. It was, in fact, a MacPaint file. I remember staring at the image, marvelling at the way the scales and fins seemed as clear as if they had been etched on the screen. After a time I picked up courage, clicked on the ‘lassoo’ tool and selected a fin with it. The lassoo suddenly began to shimmer. I held down the mouse button and moved the rodent gently. The fin began to move across the screen!

Then I pulled down the Edit menu, and selected Cut. The fin disappeared. Finally I closed the file, confirmed the decision in the dialog box, and reloaded the fish from disk. As the image reappeared I experienced what James Joyce would call an epiphany: I remember thinking, this is the way it has to be. I felt what Douglas Adams later described as “that kind of roaring, tingling, floating sensation” which characterised his first experience of MacPaint. In the blink of an eye — the time it took to retrieve the fish from disk — all the DECwriter teletypes and dumb terminals and character-based displays which had been essential parts of my computing experience were consigned to the scrapyard. I had suddenly seen the point — and the potential — of computer graphics.

Here’s the video of Jobs’s keynote.

Isn’t YouTube wonderful.

A service announcement

From an email in my inbox this morning:

Dear World:

We, the United States of America, a top quality supplier of the ideals of liberty and democracy, would like to apologize for our 2001-2008 interruption in service. The technical fault that led to this eight-year service outage has been located, and a decision was taken in early November to completely replace the software responsible. The new software became fully functional on January 20, 2009. Early tests of the newly installed program indicate that we are again operating correctly. We apologize for any inconvenience caused by the outage. We look forward to resuming full service and hope to continue improvements in the years to come. We thank you for your patience and understanding.

Sincerely,

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Thanks to Hap.

Frost/Nixon. Or the triumph of vacuity over evil?

Kitty Muggeridge once memorably observed that David Frost, the eponymous hero of Frost/Nixon, that he had “risen without trace”. People remember the gibe because it seems to capture the essence of the Frost phenomenon — the fact that he rose to great prominence in the world of broadcast television without ever appearing to have any real substance. As someone said in another context, “there’s no there there”.

Mrs Muggeridge’s crack came to mind a few weeks ago when watching the preview of Frost/Nixon, which went on general release in the UK yesterday. Based on a screenplay by Peter Morgan (who wrote the stage play of the same title which played at the Donmar Warehouse to rave reviews), it tells the story of how Frost — then a puffball chat-show host — negotiates an exclusive deal for a series of four two-hour TV interviews with Richard Nixon after the latter’s resignation following revelations about his involvement in the cover-up of the Watergate burglary. If Nixon had not resigned when he did, he would have been impeached by Congress. He was clearly guilty of what in the Uk would be called conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, and he ought to have gone to gaol. But he was (scandalously) granted an unconditional pardon by his successor, the genial but dim-witted Gerald Ford.

For those who were serious about politics (and for a large segment of the US electorate) Nixon’s escape from justice was an outrage, made worse by the fact that the culprit failed to admit either guilt or remorse. Frost — then languishing as the host of wacky, down-market freak-cum-celebrity chat-shows for the Australian market — seemed immune to such emotions: what obsessed him was the idea that landing an exclusive deal with Nixon offered the possibility of hitting the media jackpot. (There’s a sequence showing him thoughtfully watching the footage of Nixon’s final hours in the White House and then saying to an assistant “get me the numbers on this” — meaning the audience figures.) But to help him prepare for the ordeal, he hired a team which included John Birt (then a successful current affairs producer, later a controversial Director-General of the BBC), together with a grizzled political journalist and a young academic whose prime aim in life was to put Nixon behind bars.

For Nixon and his entourage, glowering resentfully in his Californian retreat at San Clemente, the prospect of an extended interview with a guy who had never done serious political interrogation offered a way for Nixon to get over his side of the story. (His advisers would never have allowed him to submit to interrogation by hard-boiled US newsmen).

Thus both sides came to the encounter with divergent expectations. The dramatic drive of the film derives from the fact that for most of the time Nixon ran rings around Frost, who was out of his depth and indeed for much of the time seemed slightly detached what was going on. (Some of the detachment was understandable — he was frantically trying to put together the finance needed to fund the series. But part of it was testosterone-driven — he was screwing a gorgeous brunette he had picked up on the transatlantic flight.) But in the end he was pressured by his back-up team to pull himself together and eventually extracted from Nixon an extraordinary sequence in which the former president expressed something close to remorse and extressed expressed the view that whatever the President of the United States does cannot, by definition, be illegal (a doctrine later embraced enthusiastically by the Cheney/Bush regime). So, in the end, the tension implicit in the plot — will Nixon be allowed to get away with it? — is resolved.

In an interview after the preview, Peter Morgan was asked whether he had taken any liberties with the facts of the story. He replied that he had exercised dramatic licence in two areas. Firstly, he had invented a late-night telephone call in which a drunk or doped (it’s not clear which) Nixon telephones Frost; this plays a pivotal role in the plot because it makes Frost realise that he will become a global laughing stock unless he can pull a substantial rabbit out of the hat in the final interview. The second exercise of dramatic licence came from putting Nixon’s dramatic admissions in the last interview, whereas in fact they came earlier in the four-day marathon. But neither of these liberties seemed unreasonable to me. Nixon was well-known for late-night incoherent phone calls. And the critical admissions were made, even if they had come earlier in the original narrative.

The film has a couple of distinguished performances. Michael Sheen gives a very good rendition of Frost’s unique blend of superficial plausibility and subterranean vacuity. Deep down, you feel, the man is shallow. In that context it’s worth remembering that Sheen’s last memorable role was as Tony Blair in The Queen (also written by Peter Morgan). Could it be, one wonders, that the two men have something important in common? I mentioned this at dinner last night to a journalist who had just returned from a Middle-Eastern tour which had included attending a press conference given by Blair. It all sounded, my guest said, very plausible and impressive. But when he got back to his hotel room and began to type a report about what Blair had said he found himself stuck. Why? Because actually there turned out to be little substance in the ex-Prime Minister’s remarks; it was “all fluff”. There was “no there there”, as it were.

The other memorable performance is by Frank Langella as Nixon. Although he doesn’t look quite right in the role (he’s physically bulkier than Nixon), he’s about the right age, and that matters. And he really gets inside the strange perverted psyche of his subject to give a performance that, while not diminishing one’s dislike of Nixon, at least gives an insight into how he came to be the man he was. (The ‘invented’ phone call is partly a rant by Nixon about the way he — like Frost — has always been an outsider, always patronised by the Ivy League crowd.)

I found Frost/Nixon both riveting and thought-provoking. The trailer is here, if you’re interested. It’s had five Oscar nominations.

Coming soon: Obama’s first mistake?

The most satisfactory sight yesterday was that of Dick Cheney, looking for all the world like Dr Strangelove, being wheeled off the scene in a wheelchair. The only problem is that he was then helped into a limousine rather than a police van. Much as I enjoyed Obama’s stern denunciation of the Cheney/Rove/Bush perversion of the presidency and their abuse of the Constitution, I had the sinking feeling that he is going to grant the bastards the kind of unconditional pardon that Gerald Ford gave to Richard Nixon. And that would be his first big mistake.

The omens are not promising. Last Sunday he was asked whether he would seek an investigation of possible crimes by the Bush administration. “I don’t believe that anybody is above the law,” he responded, but “we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards.”

Oh yeah? As Paul Krugman put it in the New York Times:

I’m sorry, but if we don’t have an inquest into what happened during the Bush years — and nearly everyone has taken Mr. Obama’s remarks to mean that we won’t — this means that those who hold power are indeed above the law because they don’t face any consequences if they abuse their power.

Let’s be clear what we’re talking about here. It’s not just torture and illegal wiretapping, whose perpetrators claim, however implausibly, that they were patriots acting to defend the nation’s security. The fact is that the Bush administration’s abuses extended from environmental policy to voting rights. And most of the abuses involved using the power of government to reward political friends and punish political enemies.

Yesterday, Obama swore on Lincoln’s bible to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” And, says Krugman, that’s not a conditional oath to be honored only when it’s convenient.

“To protect and defend the Constitution, a president must do more than obey the Constitution himself; he must hold those who violate the Constitution accountable. So Mr. Obama should reconsider his apparent decision to let the previous administration get away with crime. Consequences aside, that’s not a decision he has the right to make.”

Mark Anderson is even more incensed.

Who cares what Obama decides to do about Bush? Excuse me, but I just could not care less. When criminals break the law, we don’t ask candidates-to-be if we should prosecute. I would suggest that ANY comments by the Obama team indicating a lack of will to prosecute would, of itself, be worth examining as being in some way accessory.

In other words, Obama: on this subject, please shut up. We are not interested in your first big mistake: not prosecuting the most evil and dangerous villains ever to misuse power in the U.S. government.

Therefore, regardless of the Obama political calculations, we should be resolved, as we have in past similar situations (Iran Contra, Watergate) to put these crimininals to trial.

There are so many crimes, it seems almost impossible to list them; I certainly won’t try to here, but will leave it to experts in each department and field to do so. Krugman says he has counted six different departments wherein crimes were committed; that seems too small a number, but it does not matter.

Here is a simple question: who is responsible for nearly a million civilian deaths in a faked war? There was never, ever a need for an Iraq war; and that statement will stand the test of history. Given its truth, we should not be talking about the few thousand GI deaths as the cost of the war, but should recognize that the United States, without cause or any particular aggression on Iraq’s part, and without any proven concern for its own safety, did cause the deaths of between 600,000 and 1,000,000 civilians in that country.

Let’s see now, is Dick Cheney ready to stand up and pay for this? Exactly how, Mr. Cheney, are you planning on doing that?

As Cheney was wheeled away I’m afraid my composure slipped and I uttered a phrase much beloved of my mother (a fanatical catholic): “May he rot in hell”. I take that back. I merely want him to rot in gaol.

On this day…

… in 1924, Lenin died at the age of 54. Just thought you’d like to know. My favourite saying of his is “those who make revolutions by halves are digging their own graves”.

On this day…

… in 1981, Iran released 52 Americans held hostage for 444 days, minutes after the presidency had passed from Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan. In effect, by humiliating Carter, the Iranians ensured Reagan’s election, and with it ensured the dominance of neocon ideology for the next three decades.