Tuesday, December 29, 2009
New Tech in the House @pogoplug
This just showed up in time for something to do this weekend. Supposed to get more snow so probably not going anywhere anyway. Kudos to PogoPlug fulfillment in getting it here so quickly over the holiday break.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Obamacare to require super-majority for changes
If this isn't enough to jack your jaws.
In an amendment to the Senate healthcare bill, the Democrats have slipped in a piece that will require a super-majority (two-thirds) to make a change to any regulation imposed on doctors and patients by the Medicare Advisory Boards, the so-called "Death Panels".
See article at Red State Blog here: http://bit.ly/5LULRL
They're locking this in people. Its not only getting jammed down your throat, its not going to come out.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
B-Day of the Bill of Rights
On this date in 1791, Virginia's ratification of the first ten amendments to the Constitution met the requirement for the three-fourths majority and the amendments became law. Driven by a concern of an overly powerful federal government, the first ten amendments articulated specific rights of all Americans. A quick summary of these amendments that became known as the Bill of Rights.
1. Freedom of speech, assembly, religion and the press
2. Right to keep and bear arms
3. No forcible quartering of soldiers during peacetime
4. Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure
5. Right to a grand jury for capital crimes and due process; Protection from double jeopardy, self-incrimination and public confiscation of private property without just compensation
6. Right to a speedy trial by jury and competent defense
7. Right to trial by jury for monetary cases above $20
8. Protection against "excessive" bail or fines and "cruel and unusual" punishment
9. Rights not enumerated are "retained by the people"
10. Rights not given to the federal government nor prohibited by the Constitution to the state governments, "are reserved to the States... or to the people".
Somewhere the government's power to mandate everyone buy health insurance seems to be missing...
Monday, December 7, 2009
New Tech in the House
This weekend I broke down and bought a new laptop. I'll spare you the un-boxing experience.
I was looking to replace a six year old machine that - to say the least - had got to be a bit long in the tooth. It was having a hard time just running XP and a light weight browser such as Chrome. The battery was shot and it needed to be tethered to the wall outlet for any use at all. I don't travel that much and most of my "real" work is done on a desktop with plenty of juice. The laptop was for those times when I was away from the desktop, even if it was just in the living room watching tv and wanting to catch up on e-mail, do some browsing, light weight word processing and spreadsheets, maybe some basic photo editing.
Initially I looked at some of the netbooks from HP and Acer. All of these seemed to be cut from the same template - Atom processor, 1 GB memory, 160 GB hard drive, 10.1" screen size, etc. While the machines were attractive for their small size and portability, the minimal specs began to concern me as I thought more about it. I didn't expect to do too much more on this machine, but I didn't want it to become too bogged down too soon as Windows became bigger with more updates and applications got fatter. Also the small size struck me as.... small. While its very portable, the keyboard seemed cramped and I wondered how functional it would be for extended periods of time. And the small screen size was a bit much for my old eyes.
This Toshiba seemed to fit the bill for me near perfectly. The size is a nice compromise between the netbooks portability and the size of the bigger laptops. The keyboard is very functional (for a laptop - its still not a desktop keyboard). The Celeron is no dual-core processor, but combined with the 2GB of memory makes for a snappy experience. Windows 7 is running nicely and the connection to the household wifi could not have been simpler.
What is really impressing me is the battery life. Toshiba bills it as 8-9 hours and it looks like they ain't fibbin'. I'm still on my first charge and have used the machine quite a bit over the last 24 hours, just putting it in "sleep" mode when I close the lid between sessions. This was a deal maker for me as I really like the idea of going all day with just a laptop and not a laptop and power cord w/brick. Grab the thing, stuff it in my bag and go. No waiting on shut down or boot up.
And the $450 price tag was just sweet.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Thoughts on Obama's Afghan Strategy
This morning the news networks are all reporting and analyzing President Obama's speech from last night on his strategy for Afghanistan and his decision to send more troops to that war. After listening to the speech and reading the text, a couple things struck me about his strategy and what appears to be his thoughts driving it.
About a third of the way into his speech, President Obama made the statement "... I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan." In the very next sentence, he then says "After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home".
There are a couple things about these two statements that make me wonder just how committed President Obama is to this struggle.
- It took him more than three months to come to this conclusion after the general he had appointed to the war gave his report on what was needed to win this war.
- He is sending only 3/4 of the number of troops (actually that number is half the 60,000 that was indicated as optimal) that his general said was needed to succeed.
- What happened to our vital national interest after 18 months? At that point is the effort in Afghanistan not so vital anymore?
Are the compromises in troop levels and deployment duration based on politics, trying to walk a fine line between the anti-war far left and the general population that is more in favor of winning this war?
I have a number of problems with setting a definite timeline for pulling out of Afghanistan, particularly one that appears to be much too brief.
- Afghanistan is a tremendously difficult theater to wage a war. The area has been the target of invading armies for thousands of years and history shows that there is little success. Could the US and its allies be successful in winning this conflict in spite of the terrain and weather? I think so, but not with a tight timeline to fight as well.
- The argument that the timeline imposes an incentive for the Afghan government to take responsibility for their own security is a straw argument. This part of the world is so fractured there is no real centralized government that could impose security and keep the Taliban and Al-Qaida out of the country - at least not within an 18 month time line.
- And like it or not, specifying a time frame just tells our enemies when we are leaving and how long they just have to hole up and wait us out. Al-Qaida has shown they are perfectly happy to take the long view and not be in a hurry to strike any time soon if they can do so down the road with more effect.
My big concern is that the United States is going to send an inadequate number of troops to Afghanistan and deploy them for an inadequate period of time. There will be casualties - people will be killed - and it will be for naught because this president does not have the will to win this war. Our troops will come home and Al-Qaida will strike America again - and then the whole process will start over again with more dead Americans and more troops asked to sacrifice.
Mr. President - either fight this war to win, regardless of how long it takes, or get our troops out of there now and accept the consequences. Otherwise you are simply killing our troops without accomplishing anything.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Help Wanted, No Private Sector Experience Required
Help Wanted, No Private Sector Experience Required A friend sends along the following chart from a J.P. Morgan research report. It examines the prior private sector experience of the cabinet officials since 1900 that one might expect a president to turn to in seeking advice about helping the economy. It includes secretaries of State, Commerce, Treasury, Agriculture, Interior, Labor, Transportation, Energy, and Housing & Urban Development, and excludes Postmaster General, Navy, War, Health, Education & Welfare, Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security—432 cabinet members in all.
When one considers that public sector employment has ranged since the 1950s at between 15 percent and 19 percent of the population, the makeup of the current cabinet—over 90 percent of its prior experience was in the public sector—is remarkable. And Obama thinks he can run a car company, banks, insurance companies and the health care industry. |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
