Things About My iPad That Drive Me Crazy

I’m on record stating my admiration for my new iPad. But there are a few things about it that drive me crazy. They’re extremely frustrating because they’re no brainers to fix, and I bump into them nearly every day.

So, some questions for Apple:

1. Why the goofy USB cable? You couldn’t use a standard micro-USB cable like just about everyone else on the planet? I have to carry around another cable in my computer bag, that always gets lost among everything else that’s in there. Dumb.
2. Why can’t the iPad share my computer’s network connection through this USB cable? In Android phone parlance, we call this “wired tethering”. The fact that this tiny thing is missing from the iPad is infuriating, and insulting to the users.
3. Why is the toolbar for the Mail app at the top? It should be at the bottom. I get a lot of mail. But I delete most of it after glancing at it. So my finger is generally poised over the Trash button. But then my arm blocks the reading pane. I thought you guys were supposed to be great at UIs?
4. Speaking of this app, why plain text for mails? I understand that on a phone, but the iPad has a nice big roomy screen. Why not some styling capabilities?
5. And why do I have to click on a link to find out where it goes? Outlook shows me the actual URL for any link before I click on it. So if I suspect it’s a phishing link, I can look to check before I click.
6. Who designed the App Store, and have you fired this person yet? Seriously, this should be lesson one in “How not to design an e-commerce app”. Specifically:
1. The searching is awful. It searches the entire store, not by category. There’s no keyword search, so if I’m looking for, say, RSS readers, and I type “RSS reader” into the search, I’m going to miss most of them. Why? The search only searches for names. I have to know the name of the product I’m searching for before searching. UGH!
2. In the Android Marketplace, if I buy an app, I have 30 minutes to return it for a full refund. No such luck with the App store. I must’ve checked out 20 different RSS readers and Twitter clients (once I figured out their names with Bing research). Almost all of them cost money, and I had to buy every single one. And most of them I knew within 30 seconds of starting them up that I wasn’t interested. But still I was out my $2, $3, and in one case $10 for each of them. Thanks so much.
3. Also, this isn’t your problem, but the apps in the Android marketplace are generally cheaper (a huge percentage of them are free), get more frequent updates, and are higher quality.
7. Why can’t I set an order of preference for WiFi access points? I have two at work, a public and a private. So, the information is stored on my iPad on how to connect to each. I always want to connect to the private net unless it’s down for some reason. But the iPad just apparently joins whichever one it sees first. More often than not this is the public one. I had to make the iPad forget how to connect to the public to get this working. One day I’m going to need to reconnect to it though, and I hope I can find the passkey again.
8. Why is it so expensive? Just like most of your products, it costs too much. I love FaceTime. It’s a wonderful app for video calls and the iPad’s size is so much nicer for something like this than a cell phone. I’d love to buy iPads for my parents and my wife’s parents so that they can video call our daughters.  But your price point puts that out of the question. I could almost talk myself into the $299 for an iPad 1, although that’s still probably $100 higher than I’m willing to go. But the iPad 1 doesn’t have cameras. No FaceTime. Grrr.

Scott Brown Jumps Off The Path To Prosperity

So, Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) has decided to vote No on Congressman Paul Ryan’s (R-WI-01) Path to Prosperity. I’m not surprised or even disappointed in that. I predicted events like this back in January, 2009.

But don’t start believing that Brown is the answer to everything. He’s not. In a few years, if he’s still around, many will be complaining about what a RINO he is. Well, guess what? If you want a Republican elected in MA, or ME, or NY, s/he’s probably going to be a RINO. Even Rudy Giuliani (R-NY) qualifies at least on social issues.

What does disappoint me are his reasons.

First, I fear that as health inflation rises, the cost of private plans will outgrow the government premium support— and the elderly will be forced to pay ever higher deductibles and co-pays. Protecting those who have been counting on the current system their entire adult lives should be the key principle of reform.

Ryan agrees. That’s why his plan makes no changes for people over 55.

Second, Medicare has already taken significant cuts to help pay for Obama’s health care plan. The president and Congress cut a half trillion dollars to the private side of Medicare — meaning seniors are at risk of losing their Medicare Advantage coverage.

Again, Ryan agrees. In fact, he’s stated unequivocally that the only people that want to cut Medicare are Democrats, and that they’ve already done so with ObamaCare. Also, as I said above, his plan makes no changes for people over 55. So seniors are at no more risk of losing anything with the Ryan plan than without.

What’s important is that we get started now and, where appropriate, phase changes in over time. This phase-in should be another principle of reform: give our future seniors enough years to adjust to the “new normal.”

Ryan agrees. In fact, this is exactly what his plan does.

I have made boosting jobs, reducing spending and repairing our economy my top priorities in the Senate. I plan on continuing to work with people of goodwill - in either party - to solve the very real problems we face. Our country is on an unsustainable fiscal path.

Still in 100% agreement with Ryan here.

And he closes with:

This is not the time for finger-pointing or the usual blame game. For every reckless decision - on both sides of the aisle - that led us to this point where we are $14 trillion in debt, we now will have to make a hard decision to help get the country on the right track.

That track must lead to a sound financial future — where we protect and provide for the elderly while also promoting fiscal responsibility.

Does he realize that he’s pretty much quoted Paul Ryan in every thing he’s said here?

Look, I can handle voting against the plan. I never thought he’d be a solid conservative anyway. But, when you claim that you can’t vote for it because what you’re looking for is something exactly like the plan, then you either haven’t read the plan or you’re lying.

Neither of the above is acceptable. And that’s what surprises, disappoints, and angers me.

The Path to Prosperity (Episode 2)

I keep saying this. The GOP needs to adopt President Barack Obama’s plan. Hit back twice as hard. Point out that it’s the Democrats that want to kill Medicare. Congressman Paul Ryan (R-MN-01) wants to save it.

Watch this video. Then pass it on.

 

The panel he discusses is called IPAB. Read about it here.

Under the law, spending cuts recommended by the presidentially appointed panel would take effect automatically unless Congress voted to block or change them. In general, federal courts could not review actions to carry out the board’s recommendations. The impact of the board’s decisions could be magnified because private insurers often use Medicare rates as a guide or a benchmark in paying doctors, hospitals and other providers.

Even without the “death panels” connotation, this arrangement should offend anyone who believes in accountable government.  The Constitution provides checks and balances between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, but provides Congress with most of those checks due to its nature as the “people’s branch” of government.  Placing an unelected panel in charge of spending decisions that Congress only can veto — and doing that through the executive branch rather than the legislative branch — offends the very nature of separation of powers.  The Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse, not the President, and the IPAB turns that on its head.

Furthermore, Obama’s promise does push the IPAB further into “death panel” territory because of the nature of its mandate.  It’s not an Independent Accountant Advisory Board, looking for bad fiscal practices to clean up.  The IPAB exists to determine what kind of health services Medicare should and should not provide as a way to save money.  That inevitably means that significant numbers of people on Medicare won’t get the care they desire, and thanks to the single-payer system and the fact that the government has already taken the money for those premiums, most of those will have little choice but to suffer more and die more quickly as a result.  Obama’s pledge to strengthen their power to make those cuts makes the issue even more urgent.

Yes, death panels are back, but with a fancy sounding name.

ObamaCare is truly evil. Doing nothing about the problems we face is just as evil. As I said yesterday, Democrats are going to keep ignoring the problem until it starts affecting their constituents, and then they’re going to look for someone to blame. Facing the problem and doing something about it is not in their DNA. Fortunately for us, it is in Paul Ryan’s DNA.

Bias In Journalism Regarding Israel

When I was growing up, my parents always watched the evening news. And there were always stories about Israel. And many of them started with the phrase “In the Israel occupied territories…” or something similar. This is an example of subtle bias on the narrative.

Why “occupied territories”? Why insert that charged term into the story? It immediately makes Israel look like they’re in the wrong. And as a young child and adolescent, that’s exactly what I naively assumed. I know better now, but only because I taught myself on this subject, not because I learned the truth from the news.

Calling these lands “occupied territories” is like calling California an “occupied territory”. These lands are spoils of war. And these wars were not act of imperialistic aggression by Israel, but wars of defense. They were attacked in 1948 by the Arabs, and again in 1967. Israel successfully defended itself and claimed some of the land from its attackers so that it would be harder to attack Israel again. This is what happens in wars. This is not occupation.

So, when you hear liberals cry about “returning to the 1967 borders” for Israel, they’re pushing that “occupied territories” narrative once again, and they want to pretend either that a) these wars never happened, or worse b) that Israel was somehow the aggressor in them. Neither is true on any level. When you attack someone and you lose, you have to pay the price. Ask the Germans and the Japanese about that.

I’m just glad that I’ve bothered to keep learning about history and world events over the years, so that I now know that the MSM spin was factually incorrect and established a biased narrative in a supposedly objective news piece. I harp on MSM bias all the time, but it’s not always obvious. Many times it’s subtle like this. That’s why it’s important to always follow up. Teach yourself. Don’t accept anything blindly. That’s why I try to litter my posts with links so that you can do just that. Don’t accept my word for anything. I’m biased too. Find out for yourself.

And when someone says to you “Israel occupied territories”, fight back with the truth.

This Is What Leadership Looks Like

 

Official prepared version of speech here.

The Obligatory ‘Daniels Is Out’ Post

Well, I talked about Pawlenty and Cain. You didn’t think I was going to skip Mitch did you?

Governor Mitch Daniels (R-IN) made it official this weekend. He’s not running for President. From his statement:

The answer is that I will not be a candidate. What could have been a complicated decision was in the end very simple: on matters affecting us all, our family constitution gives a veto to the women’s caucus, and there is no override provision. Simply put, I find myself caught between two duties. I love my country; I love my family more.

I am deeply concerned, for the first time in my life, about the future of our Republic. In the next few years Americans will decide two basic sets of questions: Who’s in charge here? Should the public sector protect and promote the private sector or dominate and direct it? Does the government work for the people or vice versa?

I was never a fan of Daniels as a Presidential candidate. I documented some of the reasons in an earlier post. But I also think that the MSM would have tied him to President George W. Bush (R-USA) (Dems still like to run against Bush—they plan on doing it again in 2012), and would have pointed out that his record as a fiscal hawk is severely tarnished by his tenure at the OMB under Bush.

And, there’s the marriage, divorce, re-marriage issue. No, I’m not going to go into the details. If you’ve been following, you know. If not, find out someplace else. This isn’t a gossip blog.

I did think that he would likely have been the de facto frontrunner had he entered, as I mentioned earlier. Right now, I think that role falls to Pawlenty, who clearly has some momentum. Former Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) can still shake up the race, but I think the window is starting to close on that. Pawlenty and Cain and others are starting to hit their stride in the campaign now. Palin, even with her rabid supporters, will have to play catch up, if she doesn’t officially enter soon. I figure she has until the end of June to make it official. After that, she moves to a spoiler role.

The Obligatory ‘Cain Is In’ Post

Yes, yes, I know. Three days old on this one. Like I said, I’ve been busy.

Herman Cain (R-Godfather’s Pizza) officially announced his candidacy for the Presidency on Sunday. I’ve been a fan of Can for years. He occasionally subs for Neal Boortz on Boortz’s talk show. He’s a very smart man, and a true conservative. And he’s for the FairTax. I think. He’s been a little squishy on that lately.

Anyway, here’s the vid:

 

BTW, here’s the vid of how Cain originally gained national fame. He was taking on then President Bill Clinton regarding HilaryCare in 1994:

 

Cain is a good man. And he’s been getting lots of grass roots attention since the first debate, as well. Many people think he won. He didn’t. His foreign policy answers were not just bad, but awful. He has to improve there, substantially. And, despite the love that the grass roots has for “outsiders”, I’m not convinced that the general public is ready to vote for a man for President who has never won an election of any kind before.

Finally, I think he’s going to face ridicule from the MSM on Palin-like levels. Liberals hate it when women and blacks speak out against Democratic socialism. Those who do must be destroyed. And they will do their best to do so.

Perhaps the months ahead will change my mind, but for now I just don’t see him as a serious contender. He has momentum right now, though. We’ll see what he can do with it.

The Obligatory ‘Pawlenty Is In’ Post

Yes, I know it’s a couple days old. Sue me. I’ve been busy.

Former Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) officially announced on Monday that he’s running for President.

Here’s the vid, and it’s very good:

My twitter feed is full of Pawlenty love these days, from the right wing punditocracy. I said earlier that I thought he won the first debate, so that’s not surprising to me. He clearly knows that like Daniels, he has to overcome being labeled as “boring” and has been working to do so. He’s been spirited, combative, and truthful.

This last week he has campaigned in Iowa against ethanol subsidies and in Florida for Medicare and Social Security reform. Gutsy calls. And showing that he understands the problems and wants to make sure all of America understands the problems. President Bill Clinton (D-USA) used to give one campaign speech in one state, and then say completely the opposite in another. He was working the crowd that was with him at the time. And he was very good at it. Instead, Pawlenty is doing just the opposite. He’s telling the truth, where it most needs to be heard.

I have my share of concerns about him. We’ve previously discussed his issues with cap & trade, but it’s not just that. There are indications of “big government conservatism” all through his record as MN Governor. Has he seen the light? Or is he just reacting to the Tea Party momentum? Hard to say.

But at this point, I would not be surprised at all for him to be the GOP nominee. Still a year and more away, but until (and possibly even after) former Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) officially enters the race, he’s the leader of the anti-Mitt crowd.

She’s Going To Run

And by “she”, you know who I mean. Premiering in Iowa next month, “Undefeated”, a movie produced by former Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) which tells her story. It will tell about her rise in AK politics, her governorship, her run with Senator John McCain (R-AZ), and her surprise resignation.

After Iowa?

Bannon intends to premiere the film in Iowa late next month before expanding the release to New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada. After the initial rollout in the four early voting states, the filmmaker will eventually release it to somewhere between 50 and 100 markets nationwide.

Wow, the first four primary states. What a coincidence.

There’s home video footage, interviews with associates, interviews with noted conservatives, and video of the Governor herself.

Divided into three acts, the film makes the case that despite the now cliched label, Palin was indeed a maverick who confronted the powerful forces lined up against her to achieve wide-ranging success in a short period of time. The second part of the film's message is just as clear, if more subjective: that Sarah Palin is the only conservative leader who can both build on the legacy of the Reagan Revolution and bring the ideals of the tea party movement to the Oval Office.

[…]

The film's third act puts a positive spin on Palin's 2008 vice presidential run, reminding viewers of her initially valuable impact on the McCain campaign by showing the Gallup poll trend lines that had the Republican ticket taking its first lead over the Democrats before the collapse of Lehman Brothers on Sept. 15.

It also gives an extended treatment to Palin's speech at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn., her finest hour politically.

You don’t work to get a movie like this made, and then premiere it in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada, unless you’re running for President.

In the words of Mrs. Palin, “Game On!”

Democratic Strategy? Abdication

For the better part of the last two years, indeed, for the better part of President Barack Obama’s (D-USA) administration, the game plan of the Democrats has been simple: abdication of responsibility.

The Democrats apparently believe that the best political policy is to do nothing, and to blame the Republicans when things go wrong, or attack the Republicans when they actually attempt to do something.

Don’t believe me? Let’s look at a few examples, shall we?

A search of “Obama blames Bush” on Bing is a good place to start. 96,000 results. You see, nothing bad that happens to Obama is his fault. It’s always Bush’s. He’s abdicated complete responsibility for anything bad in his administration.

Then there’s Obama’s signature piece of legislation, the so called Affordable Health Care Act. Despite campaigning about it for over a year, and consistently saying “my plan does” and “my plan does not”, he never offered up a single plan. Instead he abdicated that responsibility to Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA-08). They in turn abdicated that responsibility to any and every special interest that could claim to have any interest in socialized health care.

Then, after it was written, Congressman John Conyers (D-MI-14), voiced the opinion of all Democrats when he laughed at the idea of actually reading it.

“I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill,’” said Conyers.

“What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”

Senator Tom Carper (D-DE) had essentially the same statement.

So, once again, Democrats abdicated their congressional responsibility of actually reading the legislation before passing it. And they thought it was funny that anyone would even suggest that they read it.

In a similar exchange, Madame Pelosi couldn’t care less whether the bill was constitutional.

CNSNews.com: “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?

Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?"

Want more abdication? I’m still in 2010. How about Democrats in congress avoiding their constituents?

A New York Times article is reporting that the leaders of the Democrat party urged members of congress not to engage in any town hall meetings during the latest break so that legislators wouldn’t have to face the voters in what could be a heated argument on the issues.

Democrats heeded the advice of party leaders and tried to avoid unscripted question-and-answer sessions

Instead of actually facing their constituents, the following is what the Democrat leadership proposed:

hold events in controlled settings — a bank or credit union, for example — or tour local businesses or participate in community service projects

Of course you remember that 2010 was an election year. And that Democrats received a “shellacking”. The Democrats, however, did everything they could to limit the shellacking. They even avoided not only passing a budget, but writing one. This is the one Constitutionally mandated duty of the House of Representatives. And yet, somehow, Madame Pelosi and her party couldn’t find time to write one.

But, 2011 has brought us new, unbelievable levels of abdication of responsibility.

Democrat lawmakers in Wisconsin and Indiana decided that rather than do the jobs they were elected to do, and are paid to do, it would be better to leave the state in an attempt to shutdown the government. Give the Democrats in Washington, D.C. some credit. They at least still show up for work. For now.

As I have indicated numerous times on this blog, we are facing an impending economic crisis. Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI-01) has offered up his Path to Prosperity to head off this crisis. Democrats response? You guessed it. Abdicate. Do nothing. Demonize the opposition.

See, the Democrats aren’t completely stupid. They know the crisis is coming. But they’re caught between a rock and a hard place.  Their core constituency will abandon them if they attempt the serious entitlement reforms necessary to stave off the crisis. Their only other option is to raise taxes on every single person in America by about 30-50%. They know if they do that that the GOP will likely claim veto proof majorities in both chambers of Congress. And they know that there will be an even louder cry to repeal ObamaCare if they admit there’s a financial problem. The Democrats need for power is far greater than their need to preserve the United States. Plus, they figure that when the end comes, there will be someone else to blame it on. So, we have Nancy Pelosi saying:

It is a flag we’ve planted that we will protect and defend. We have a plan. It’s called Medicare.

No, Ms. Pelosi, Medicare is the reason we need a plan. It’s not a plan. But she knows the Democrats can’t create a plan of their own. They only thing they can do is attack anyone who does.

Senator Reid is on board with Pelosi to the bitter end:

“There’s no need to have a Democratic budget, in my opinion,” Reid told the Los Angeles Times last week. “It would be foolish for us to do a budget at this stage.” Instead, Reid wants to wait to see if the deficit-reduction meetings led by Vice President Biden bear any fruit. Before that, Reid wanted to wait for the Gang of Six — now nearly defunct — to come up with something.

Sessions was appalled when he read Reid’s words. “It was a fundamental statement that they’re playing politics,” Sessions said. “They don’t think it’s politically smart to produce a budget. They’d rather produce nothing and attack Paul Ryan and the Republicans and think they’re going to gain politically by avoiding their fundamental statutory responsibility. It’s pretty breathtaking to me.”

Reid isn’t alone. The chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Kent Conrad, is also happy to not produce a budget. Last week, he told reporters that he planned to “defer” work on a 2012 budget indefinitely.

As the above article notes, it has been, as of 5/24/2011, 755 days since the Senate Democrats passed a budget. Abdicate and attack. It’s the Democrat way:

At Reid’s instigation, the Senate will engage this week in a meaningless faux debate over the budget. Reid wants the Senate to vote on the House-passed GOP/Ryan budget, so that Reid and fellow Democrats can accuse Republicans of voting to kill Medicare. In return, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell will likely force a vote on President Obama’s proposed budget from a few months ago that did virtually nothing to reduce the deficit, so Republicans can accuse Democrats of ignoring the fiscal crisis.

[…]

The most amazing thing about all this, to Republicans, is that Reid’s abdication of responsibility has attracted so little attention. In a country drowning in debt, where’s the outrage?

Well, I’m outraged. But, I’m not surprised that the issue isn’t attracting much attention. If the last 2 1/2 years have taught the Democrats anything, it’s that abdicating responsibility is their best play.