Bits Blog: Not Ready for a Smartwatch? Try Bluetooth Earmuffs

If you’re going to carry a handbag or wear earmuffs to keep away the cold this winter, why not add headphones or Bluetooth so you can listen to music and talk on your phone, too?

Bluetooth HD earmuffs made by 180s, an activewear company, will debut for $80 at department and outdoor stores this fall. They hide Bluetooth wireless technology, a microphone and hi-def speakers, not to mention wicking away moisture and retaining body heat.

The earmuffs join handbags already on the market that also hide technology, like a clutch from Rebecca Minkoff that opens to reveal Bluetooth-connected speakers, and bags from a Kickstarter start-up called Everpurse that wirelessly charge smartphones.

Wearable technology seems to be the tech world’s hot new thing, from Google Glass to the Samsung Galaxy Gear smartwatch, unveiled Wednesday. But part of the resistance to devices like these is that they involve wearing an unsightly computer on your body, not to mention remembering yet another gadget before leaving the house.

“This is a feature that changes the way we interact, the way we express and the way we capture,” Pranav Mistry, the head of research at Samsung Research America, said at the introduction of the smartwatch in Berlin.

But many people aren’t ready for all that change. So clothing designers are taking a cue from technology companies and incorporating wearable tech into existing accessories. They aren’t as useful as an Internet-connected device with a screen, but they are an easier transition.

These items could turn out to be a bridge, guiding consumers from a world in which technology is a machine sitting on a desk or tucked in a bag to one in which technology is an accessory we wear on our bodies.

“The future of wearable technology addresses the need for people to stay connected to all of their devices no matter what they are wearing, where they are going or what kind of weather they are facing,” said Jim Kenney, chief executive of 180s, which also makes products like gloves that allow people to use a touch screen phone.

In the meantime, as we wire up our earmuffs and clutches, apps could make Internet-connected glasses and wristbands useful enough that more people want to wear them. After all, there was a time when smartphones were only for early adopters.

Tech companies know they need to hide wearable technology in accessories that look less like computers and more like things we would wear anyway. Google is experimenting with including Glass on real, fashionable glasses frames. And Apple hired Paul Deneve, the former chief executive of the Yves Saint Laurent Group, who is likely to bring some fashion smarts to future wearable tech.

10 Questions for Tom Cole

Representative Tom Cole, a Republican, has brought the pragmatism of a former political operative to his work representing Oklahoma’s Fourth Congressional District. He served as a bridge between the two parties during last year’s fiscal negotiations, when he urged fellow Republicans to accept higher taxes on the wealthiest Americans. He continues to advocate a compromise budget deal to avoid a government shutdown or a debt crisis, and he maintains a good relationship with the White House.

But Mr. Cole, whose district includes the massive Tinker Air Force Base, leans strongly against President Obama’s request to authorize military force against Syria. During a day of meetings with constituents, he sat down with John Harwood of The Times and CNBC in Midwest City, Okla. What follows is a condensed and edited transcript of their conversation.

Q.

What about the argument that a vote no on using force is a vote for Assad, for Iran, and to weaken American leadership?

A.

Well, I don’t buy the argument. First of all, you know, that’s probably something a president should have taken into consideration when he made that decision, and I think largely without consulting with Congress, to go out on that limb. Number one, the nature of the war is pretty messy, to say the least. It’s a civil war, it’s a proxy war between regional powers, and it’s a religious war. Is there any direct security threat to the United States here? No, there’s really not. Is there a long-term interest in Syria? Probably not. In the region, yes, but within the country, no. Third, has this been going on a while? Yes, we know this isn’t the first use.

We have no international justification at this point. The U.N. hasn’t asked us to act. NATO has not taken a formal position. The Arab League is sort of â€" is both divided and certainly leading from behind, to put it nicely.

If you’re the Iranians looking at this, it’s not going to appear very decisive. We’re not trying to bring down the regime. It’s not going to be an overwhelming military force. I have a hard time asking men and women to go into harm’s way to make a political statement.

Q.

So when your Republican colleague John McCain says a no vote from Congress would be a catastrophe, you say what?

A.

I disagree. I’m not afraid to vote for it, I just simply don’t think it’s in the American interest. I supported the president on the Afghanistan surge. I’ve supported him on continuing aid to Egypt. It’s not particularly popular around here, but I think it’s the right thing to do. I supported him on the N.S.A. vote only last month, you know, when most of his own party in the House did not. But I’m not going to vote for something that I think is a bad idea simply because the president of United States, you know, announced that that’s what he wanted to do.

Q.

In a case like this that involves intelligence assessments, very complex foreign-policy calculations, what is the role of the reaction of your constituents who maybe don’t pay close attention?

A.

It matters a great deal, because at the end of the day, this is not a treaty or foreign-policy move. This is a direct application of force, and it puts young men and women in harm’s way. I’ve got the largest air depot in United States, maybe the world, sitting right across the street. And believe me, if we’re in serious conflict, they’re going to be deployed.

People around here take this stuff very seriously. We’ve had our National Guard deployed three times in combat situations, the last time in Afghanistan. They lost 20 people. They’re willing to sacrifice, they’re proud to sacrifice, they are extraordinarily pleased to host the American military. But they also love the men and women in uniform, and they think long and hard before using them.

Q.

Why, in a district that is so military-oriented, are you sensing such negative reaction?

A.

I don’t think, honestly, the president has yet made the case. He’s been good enough to come to Congress. I give him credit for that, because he knew it was going to be a tough sell, but I don’t think it’s been particularly well handled. There should have been a lot more discussion and consultation when the president lay down a red line, which had not existed, really, before in American foreign policy.

It’s sort of putting us in the position in Congress of cashing a check that he wrote whether we wanted to or not. The fact that the president, on the night before he announced this, surprises his own staff at 7 o’clock in the evening â€" this is the announcement the next day at 1 p.m.? Does that sound like well-thought-through, closely considered policy? I don’t think it is. And it’s not the right way to think about these things, in my opinion, or to execute them.

Q.

How big is the isolationist wing within the Republican Party? Are you part of it?

A.

I’m for a pretty robust foreign policy. Frankly, I would consider myself much more of a national security, international point of view. I’m not for having a small military. I’m not for abandoning our treaty obligations. I think foreign aid is a legitimate tool for foreign policy. So I don’t think I would put myself in any sort of isolationist wing.

I think some [Republicans], after a decade, are wary of this sort of thing. I think they would be wary regardless of who’s president.

Q.

Do you expect, in the end, a majority of the House to vote with the president?

A.

I don’t know. I would say he certainly has a good chance to win this. I think he will win in the Senate. He’s got the majority of his own party there. The House is going to be a tougher sell. The president’s going to need, I think, a substantial Democratic majority â€" that’s where his support should begin. I don’t think we should look at this as an R and D situation, but having lived through this during the Bush presidency, the core of your support when you’re going to make a decision of this consequence starts in your party.

On our side, I think there’s considerable resistance to this. The speaker and leader, they’re not breaking arms and legs, and I think that’s appropriate. Where they will count is, people respect them both. But at the end of the day, I don’t think any of that stuff matters very much to my constituents. I think they’re pretty well informed about this, and they will probably be better informed over the next week. It may change some minds, but so far I don’t sense that, and my staff doesn’t sense that. I haven’t seen a case compelling enough to make me say I’m going to ignore the public opinion of my own district.

Q.

You had, over the break, some number of your colleagues who talked with their constituents about impeaching the president.

A.

I forgive politicians a lot at town hall meetings. Everybody can be inartful in their language. It certainly comes up in my town hall meetings. I don’t think it’s helpful to engage in that sort of thing. I think you have to be honest with people about both political realities and the consequences of engaging in action like that. So I just try to stay away from that because it’s not going to happen and, in my opinion, wouldn’t be the appropriate thing to do. I have very strong differences with the president on a variety of issues, but also I find places where we’ve been able to work together. That’s the way the system is supposed to work.

I can’t tell you how unpopular Obamacare is. I can’t tell you how strongly, in an oil and gas state, people feel about things like fracking, or what they would consider the trashing of the domestic energy industry. I can’t tell you how hostile people are about the E.P.A., and regulation, and what they would consider overregulation in general. This is a very pro-military state; he’s been interested in cutting the military. This is a very pro-energy state; he has a different take on energy than we do. About the only part of our economy where he’s really well liked is on Indian affairs, which is a big part of our economy and our culture.

Q.

What effect will the debate on Syria have on the fiscal fights that we’re looking at this fall?

A.

It may, strangely enough, be helpful, because it’s not going to be a partisan debate. It’s not going to be our team versus their team. Maybe some relationships will be built, and some cooperation and some friendship developed in a common cause. When you work with somebody on a contentious issue that is normally on the other side, you begin to understand them. So I don’t think it’ll make things more difficult. This debate will happen quickly and be over one way or the other. But if there is some cooperation that’s built, and some camaraderie, that can only help as we move toward things like the end of the fiscal year and the debt ceiling.

We’ve got to come to a larger agreement here. We can’t just simply be operating in the manner where every few months we’re looking at either shutting down the government or having cuts that are across the board and not well inspired. So whatever it takes to give the two sides the window to sit down and discuss, I’m for doing. I have some hope there because, by the way, we did that in March. We didn’t shut down the government. So hopefully people are beginning to think that’s really not a very good tool to use, or weapon to use, in these kind of disputes.

Q.

You’ve talked about sensing a growing divide within your district between business-oriented Republicans who want to make a deal, and the grassroots activists who are more ready to fight and risk things like a government shutdown to end Obamacare.

Q.

The difference is a tactical one, but it’s an important one. Tactically, business groups tend to think, look, if you shut down government, you’re putting people out of work; you’re disrupting everything. It seems like you’re throwing a temper tantrum because you didn’t get your way. We’ll go to work, win some more elections, bargain, make the changes you can, but don’t disrupt the economy.

At a town hall meeting, people are angry about this. They think it was forced down their throats. He’s gotten the votes, and he did win the election, and that’s hard for them to understand. At an Oklahoma town hall meeting it’s sort of, “What in the world’s wrong with the rest of the country and they can’t see this?” And I’m sure, you know, California looks that way at Oklahoma. But there is a great frustration.

One of the elected representatives here, we were talking about this and I said, “Give me a list of the 14 Democratic senators that are going to join with the 46 Republican senators to actually pass a repeal. And then give me the seven that are going to sign on after voting against the repeal to override the president’s veto.”

It’s just not going to work. And at some point, you know, people are going to start asking, why in the world did you put 15,000 families without a paycheck at Tinker Air Force Base? Why in the world did you shut down a veterans center? I’ve got four of them. A lot of these guys are in their 80s or 90s and did everything the country ever asked them to do. I’m going to make sure they don’t have a hot meal or a roof over their head, somebody to help them? I think not. In this case you’re actually putting the gun to your own head. You’re basically saying, do what I want or I’ll shoot.

Q.

In one of your town halls, a constituent said the chained Consumer Price Index on Social Security would hurt a lot of people â€" “Instead of putting chains on us, why don’t you put the chains on the spending?” Is the White House right in thinking that when push comes to shove, Republicans are not going to be willing to cut those programs because so many people feel that way?

Q.

I don’t think they really understand where most of the spending’s at. We’ve cut discretionary spending three years in a row. That’s the first time that’s happened since the 1940s. If we could just do it by discretionary spending, believe me, we would do it. But it’s simply not enough. It’s not a big enough piece of the pie, and it’s not a big enough driver of the debt.

I’ve actually had this discussion with the White House. And one of them made the point, look, I’ve seen these guys at Tea Party rallies, “Keep your hands off my Social Security and Medicare.” And I said, “First of all, you’ve got to test us. We said we’re willing to do it. Test us.” I think actually this is an area where the Republican conference is quite courageous and very brave, and willing to do what it says it’s going to do.

You’ve got to make some reforms. They can be gradual, they can be over time. There’s some common ground in both the Ryan and Obama budgets to work from. Paul Ryan likes to call it: maybe not the grand bargain, but a down payment. And I think that is possible. The country’s getting frustrated that they don’t see adults willing to work across party lines.