One rather large factor we overlooked in adopting Symfony, however, was its documentation. At first glance, the example-driven approach they take seems sufficient. Rather than invest effort in documenting all framework components at their lowest level of complexity, they chose to aggregate components and document them through a sample application, from start to finish. Even after only a month or so of use, this approach has fallen far short of what a good framework needs in terms of documentation, and more pointedly what Symfony deserves.

Most frameworks that I’ve worked with choose to document components at the simplest level, building examples around say specific function calls like $sf_user->setFlash(), outlining the complete list of ways such methods can be called, and providing tips for their use. This works well because it makes few assumptions about how any one developer is going to use this piece of the framework. Other popular SDKs and frameworks, from Zend to .NET, take this approach. It should, after all, be the end-developer’s job as a good programmer to stitch components together. High-level examples that do so for us have only limited use beyond a beginner level and, when the only form of documentation, and an anemic one at that, lead to much time spent searching through API docs (generated from short code comments) and around Google for answers, often to questions about simple usage.

To the latter point about searching Google, a lack of framework-provided documentation may not be a problem if developer community contributions fill that gap, and that contributed content is easy to find. That’s just not the case with Symfony. Most answers to searches on Google, in my experience, either refer to deprecated documentation on the Symfony site, or blog and forum posts, which require additional time to abstract away proper usage from the specific implementation of the original author (if their questions are even useful and timely to begin with). In the best possible scenario, this is a matter of SEO, which should make solving this even easier. But documentation discovery now is abysmal.

With Symfony 2.0 on the horizon, slated for release some time in 2010, I really hope they change their documentation story–I’ve even e-mailed the release manager for 1.3/1.4 requesting as much. It’ll be a rather large undertaking as there’s quite a bit of functionality, to the framework’s credit. But if this issue isn’t resolved, I could see it preventing adoption by anyone with realistic documentation expectations looking for a mature PHP framework.

Taken in the context of Goldman Sachs’ history, I don’t believe it’s possible to argue they were simply bookies. They knew what they were doing–they were in it for short-term profits, to get out before the melon hit the sidewalk, as RollingStone put it. That’s sleazy and, if not currently illegal, should be made so immediately. At the very least, GS and all those responsible should be stripped of their profits, because right now they’ve made off with billions of tax payer dollars, meanwhile the gulf between the rich and poor continues to grow. In the larger context, Mr. Zakaria, GS and other culpable firms are swindlers and robbers, not innocent victims of financial complexity.

I’m so looking forward to making this blog live up to its name. I strayed from my technology roots in favor of politics and now it’s time to blend the two together more. The tone will change, probably for the nerdier. Should be fun…stay tuned.

Another theory, championed by Stephen Skowronek, takes a more institutional approach to the presidency and looks instead at the different layers of power a president inherits upon entering office and how those layers interact with one another over time. The three layers or patterns Skowronek proposes are persistent patterns–allowable presidential actions as defined in the Constitution; emergent patterns–those dictated by the organizational structure surrounding the presidency; and recurrent patterns, which primarily encompass political coalitions such as parties and how they form and break apart. Each of these layers finds itself in a different position for an incumbent based on the former president’s actions resulting in differentiated performance.

What emerges from this second theory is a complex web of presidential actions and the reality of an executive’s decisions having long-term implications for the office of the president and the nation as a whole. George Washington’s choices, so this theory argues, would have resonated down the line of presidential succession via one of the aforementioned patterns and had a real impact on modern-day presidential opportunities. No president can be evaluated in isolation; consideration must be given to the impact of those that served before.

However, though each president finds himself laden with the judgments of his predecessor, he nevertheless flexes his power within the boundaries of these pattern to accomplish his political goals. After all, political actors are primarily, according to rational-choice theory, self-interested people. This boundary-pushing itself, while assuredly divisive, serves a beneficial role in a democratic society. We couldn’t be living in a better time in history to observe this.

George W. Bush’s presidency was unquestionably divisive. Though the nation remains divided over whether torturing terrorists is allowable, or whether a trickle-down economic policy is a superior one, I think one point we can all agree on is the previous administration succeeded in pushing the boundaries of our democracy in a host of new directions. For better or worse, this enabled our country to consider and debate whether or not we wish to weave these changes into our national fabric. In a governmental system such as ours where gridlock and cycling are inherent (see Arrow’s Paradox or Riker’s disequilibrium of majority rule) a disruptive force is required at times to advance the national dialogue. Our history is rife with examples, such as Jackson and the Bank Wars, Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation and FDR’s New Deal.

What results from this is an abstract conversation between our country and the presidency where the latter proposes or chases new frontiers while the former discusses the merits of them. This may seem suboptimal at any given moment (the Iraq war comes to mind), but in the long run, a president cannot escape the judgment passed by the citizens of his nation. Nor, for that matter, can citizens escape the benefit of a political actor who often pushes the nation to contemplate its sense of self.

I stole the title for this post from Skowronek’s book The Politics Presidents Make.

Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution grants Congress the right to establish their own procedural rules. Combine this with self-interest and you can imagine a framework would evolve that maximizes positive perception while minimizing costs of legislative decisions. There are specific tactics legislators employ to prevent their constituents from discovering the true, almost always negative, effects of a policy decision. The goal of any of these tactics is to reduce the traceability back to a particular legislator to avoid electoral accountability. What my paper focuses on is how citizens could use the Internet to maximize traceability.

Thanks to the ridiculous pace of technological development, there are now far more effective ways of protecting your data than a USB or jump drive. In addition, these technologies offer a higher level of convenience and anywhere-access to your data, even when you’re not on your own computer. One member of this new class of software is Windows Live Mesh. If you haven’t heard of it or discovered its magic, you’re missing out. Wait, wait…before you click back mumbling “Microsoft shill…”, hear me out. Live Mesh is a software+service tool available for PC and Mac that syncs files between all the devices added to your “mesh”. All you need is a Windows Live ID and you’re ready to go. Installing the software is simple, and configuring which folders sync where is all but brainless.

I use Live Mesh to keep my OneNote notebooks and course documents in sync across my main laptop and netbook, which I use to take notes in class. It’s so useful to go home and have all my materials available on my other computer without having to do a thing. Even when you can’t install the desktop software, say on a lab computer where you don’t have adequate permissions, there’s a web interface that lets you access all your sync’d files (you can disable this if you prefer not to store your documents in the cloud).

The service is currently in beta, but trust me when I say it’s not going anywhere. If you’re a student, the days of bulky USB key chains and e-mailing papers to yourself are over; this service will show its value immediately. For everyone else, give it a try–there are plenty of potential uses for this technology outside academia. It’s free, what’ve you got to lose?

Some may take issue with this sort of invocation claiming it’s at worst a gross politicization of a tragedy or at best simply unnecessary. My intent, however, is to highlight what I found to be legitimate and logical inconsistencies and their implications, and to share what influenced my judgment with others. It’s up to the individual to decide if this falls in the realm of reality or conspiracy theory, but I will say that impossible doesn’t necessarily follow improbable or unbelievable. Our world’s history is rife with government abuse, especially of its own citizens or property for political purposes.

These documentaries call to attention the real possibility–one with precedent in our country, even–that our government committed, or was complicit in, such an act eight years ago. True, the past is just that, but we need to learn from it so atrocities like 9/11 don’t happen again; and if they do, so those responsible are identified and held accountable.