My Voting Philosophy & Thoughts on the GOP


April 27, 2012

This is a follow-up to my last post, entitled “What should my political role be?“. That post got similar responses from all who weighed in, which basically boils down to “please keep doing what you’re doing, except please please vote for the GOP nominee for President in the general election – pretty please!”

Before I get to what weighs on my decision of who to actually vote for in November, let me just say that I don’t see the GOP improving in the foreseeable future. Now would have been the time for me to be proven wrong, and I most certainly wasn’t. Had I been asked to put money on which presidential candidate would get the nomination a year ago, I would have put that money on Romney. The GOP is just too predictable.

How is that? I think in the end it boils down to this: given a handful of candidates, there always seems to be a strong “moderate”. Then there are a bunch of Conservatives, some good and some bad. All the Conservative grassroots pick a candidate to get behind and push their guy (or gal). Even if 80% of the grassroots are Conservative, there are always enough Conservative candidates to split that 80% into small enough groups that the strong “moderate” has little trouble winning with the votes from the remaining 20%.

There are ways to change things, but they all seem to be unpalatable to the rank-and-file in the GOP. The first would be to take a strategy that smaller parties are much more willing to do: hold their nominees to their party’s platform and ideals. If a particular candidate is 51% Conservative and 49% Liberal, the GOP is all too willing to crown him with a political nomination. The rank-and-file will fight for hours on end over exactly what words to use in the platform, getting very passionate about the most minute details in semantics – yet when it comes time to nominate a candidate, they are all too quick to throw the whole thing out and vote for the guy who can abandon that platform the quickest and go after the Democratic vote (and they’ll point out all day long how Reagan won because he got a lot of votes from Democrats). But if the GOP can’t hold their candidates to the very platform they fight so hard to craft “just perfectly”, what’s the point of having a platform at all?

Another way to go about getting a more Conservative candidate would require that Conservatives all line up behind the same guy. It sure is nice to have eight or ten people to choose from when lining up behind a candidate a year before the general election, but it tends to split the votes that will hand the nomination to the best candidate seven or nine ways, leaving an easy path for arguably the worst candidate every time. There almost needs to be sub-conventions before conventions (and actually the Ron Paul campaign has been good at this*). Get everyone who is like-minded behind the same guy so the vote doesn’t get split up and diluted too much.

As long as that continues to be the case that the Conservative vote is split and the “moderate” gets the nomination, my own voting philosophy will continue to be employed when I go to vote. It’s quite simple actually: I always vote for the guy who best matches my own values. In smaller, more local races, that’s usually the Republican, since there are often only two choices and the other is the Democrat. In larger races like that for Senate or Governor, there may be a few more choices, but the Republican may still be the best match for me. In 2008 that wasn’t the case in Minnesota’s Senate race. Norm Coleman was the Republican, and proved himself over the preceding 6 years to be a guy I often couldn’t stomach. He was too willing to get in bed with the Democrats on issues like the environment or national sovereignty. I voted for the Constitution party candidate that year because there was such a candidate.

Actually, if you look at it the right way, we’re at a better place now than we were in January when the Primary/Caucus process began. All but two candidates have dropped out. We have Mitt Romney, who has won over the squishy-middle as should have been expected, and we have Ron Paul, the candidate that personifies the GOP platform and historical Conservatism. If those who have yet to have a primary in their state would stop and consider both candidates, and vote for the guy who really is closer to their own position on the most issues, I think they’d vote Ron Paul if they were really honest with themselves and the process. Likewise, if those delegates to the national convention that are pledged to candidates that have dropped out did the same, I believe there is still time to vote for a Conservative candidate (one with an actual track record of Conservative votes in office). Unfortunately, that is unlikely to happen, and the “moderate” is headed toward getting the nomination. In fact, he’s already campaigning as though he has the nomination sewn up.

My Voting Philosophy

As a Ron Paul supporter, and a guy who (Ron Paul or no Ron Paul) has voted Constitution Party for the last three Presidential elections, I get a lot of heat from Republicans who want me to vote their guy. That was what my whole last post was about, and I won’t go into it all again. One of the points of criticism that is often offered for Ron Paul supporters who won’t swear allegiance to the GOP in November even if Mitt Romney is the candidate is that the top candidate often brings people to the polls to vote for candidates further down the line. Maybe, but I’m not the guy to criticize in that regard. I’m much more likely to vote Republican for local office than most voters, and I always go to the polls. If you’re worried about the candidate for my state legislative district winning, beating me up over the head about my vote isn’t going to help, he probably already has it. Same goes for the US Congressional race, and several other races on my ballot.

I just don’t see myself voting GOP for that top spot. I also don’t see that it matters much. Minnesota hasn’t sent GOP electors to the Electoral College since 1972, and probably won’t in 2012. In fact, most of the time if everyone who votes Libertarian or Constitution were to vote GOP instead, Minnesota’s electors would still likely be Democrats.

So those who are worried about how my vote affects other candidates running for office need to either rest easy or find another argument for why I should hold my nose and vote for a terrible candidate just because he has the Republican nomination.


*Those involved in organizing the Paul campaign often hold gatherings ahead of conventions to all pick good candidates to run for party positions. That way, even if they don’t have a strong majority at the convention, they can capitalize on the fact that everyone else is too disorganized to capture more votes. The “slates” with the candidates chosen in advanced is handed out to all of their delegates at the convention, and their people often end up winning in the end.


Posted at 1:05 pm in: Politics

What should my political role be?


April 18, 2012

I have a serious question for my Republican friends. Before I set up the question, let me give a little background about me and my political views.

I am 34 years old, and I grew up in a staunchly Democratic household. Both of my parents grew up in staunchly Democratic households. I was first old enough to vote in the 1996 election (actually 1995, and I did turn out that year for a school referendum). I voted for Bill Clinton’s re-election, though don’t fault me given the background I just laid out.

In 1998 I first decided to start considering my vote a little more carefully than “who would my parents vote for?” and voted for Jesse Ventura for governor. It turns out that even though I sought to vote independently of my parents, they both voted Ventura too. I was not aligned with the Democrats, but hadn’t come to the point of being comfortable with the Republicans yet either.

In 1999 I was soundly saved by the Lord Jesus Christ. One of the first prayers I prayed after my conversion was for the Lord to show me how He views the world and to bring me into alignment with it. That prayer is still being answered to this day, though one of the first things to change in me was my understanding of politics. Far be it from me to say that Jesus is a Republican, I’ll never go that far, but I could see everything detestable about what Democrats stand for (abortion, the legalized theft that is the social program system, etc.) By the time the next election came around, I was not only firmly Conservative, I was substantially to the Right of most Republicans, where I remain to this day.

Since my conversion, I have voted Republican most of the time in non-Presidential races, and I voted Constitution Party for President in 2000, 2004, and 2008.

Also since my conversion, I have been given the riot act from countless Republicans about my views on Presidential candidates. I’ve been told that I MUST vote Republican for a whole host of reasons. I may not like the candidate, but the Democrat will always be worse. I’ve never been much of a pragmatist in elections, and these conversations drive me as crazy as my vote drives these Republicans crazy, if not more.

I’ve been told numerous times by many Republicans that if I don’t like the candidates that are nominated, I need to get involved in the process early and do what I can to get candidates nominated that I can feel comfortable voting for. Had I heeded such advice from the beginning, I likely would have been caucusing for Alan Keyes in 2000 and 2004.

In 2008, I did what all those Republican friends had been begging me to do, I identified the candidate I liked and I got involved in the caucus process to lend him my support. I had been aware of, and to some degree familiar with Ron Paul for many years, and it was natural that I would support him. I went to precinct caucuses, got elected to my BPOU, where I got elected as a Delegate to my Congressional District and to the State.

Despite the way my fellow Ron Paul supporters were treated in 2008, I repeated the process in 2010 in order to be a part of selecting a candidate for Governor. I didn’t know the candidates well, as I tend not to follow state politics nearly as closely as I follow national politics. However, I had made a lot of connections two years prior in the process and befriended a lot of people who were out in 2008 to support Ron Paul. I knew that their political views were more in line with my own, and believed I could trust their judgment on a Gubernatorial candidate. To a man, they were all behind Tom Emmer, and I threw my support behind Emmer. Despite the fact that he lost, I have no regrets.

2012 rolled around and I got into the mix again. I was unhappy with my experience four years prior, and was tempted to forget the whole thing, but ultimately decided to give my fellow Republicans another shot. I had made many connections in 2008, and met a lot of people. Most of which were friendly toward me and seemed happy to have me in the process. However, when my support for Ron Paul would come up in conversation, defensive walls would immediately go up. There were, and are, strong stereotypes of Ron Paul supporters, many of which are unfair – based on a very small minority of fellow Paul supporters. In addition, I left Rochester and the state GOP convention with a very nasty taste in my mouth. The way Paul supporters, and even Ron Paul himself, were treated it was clear that we were not wanted in the party, that the tent was big but not big enough for us. The fact that Ron Paul came to the convention and wasn’t even allowed past the lobby was incredibly disrespectful, and I didn’t think any Presidential candidate should have been treated that way. Had Mitt Romney, Tom Toncredo, Sam Brownback, Duncan Hunter, Rudy Giuliani, or Fred Thompson stayed in the race until that point and showed up at the convention, I would have expected them to be able to speak. The fact that Ron Paul had to go around to the back of the building and speak in the park was disgusting. The fact that Barb Davis White, candidate for US House in my own 5th District was completely thrown under the bus by the MN GOP after speaking along with Ron Paul in the park was disgusting as well.

Nevertheless, I got over my anger and came back two more times to participate in the process.

Now we’re at a pivot point. Last weekend, three Congressional Districts held their conventions and Ron Paul supporters got their people elected to all of the National Delegate and Alternate positions in all three of the CDs. A lot of Non-Ron Paul Republicans are upset. So my question is this: Do you want my participation in the GOP? I was told I should get involved and do what I could to get my guy nominated. I did that. Now that my guy is winning Delegates, which is what gets people nominated, I’m hearing a lot of Republicans saying that I should get out of the party. A lot of Republicans are saying that Ron Paul is “a Libertarian, not a Republican” and that Libertarians aren’t welcome in the GOP. A lot of Republicans don’t feel my contribution to the process is good enough because I’m not spending 20 hours a week knocking on doors, cold-calling potential voters, or passing out campaign literature. (Sorry, I have a growing family of small children – all 5 and younger – and don’t really even have time to be doing what I am doing.)

If you, GOPer, want me to go back to staying out of your way, and voting Constitution Party for President, I will be happy to do so. If you want me to stay involved in the process, and put in the work to make my voice heard in 2014 when we’re looking for a candidate to unseat Mark Dayton, I will be happy to do so. What I am not happy to do is to get involved, but echo your voice. If my role in the GOP is to be a yes-man, check in with you on which candidates to support and what work to do for your precious party, count me out!


Posted at 8:43 am in: Politics

HTPC: The Software


March 5, 2012

Just a few days ago, I published a post about my family’s new Home Theater PC. That post focussed on the hardware I used to put together the machine. Today I’ll discuss the software.

First and foremost is Windows 7. I use Windows Media Center (WMC) as my DVR software, and WMC is built into most versions of Windows 7, and has been in Windows since the latter days of XP. WMC is a great DVR package that works very well. I’ve read articles that put it on par with Tivo for the best DVR interfaces. I think that’s not an exaggeration, it is a good interface. This isn’t meant to be a detailed “how-to”, but rather will describe how I went about setting up my system. I tend to learn best by doing, and don’t read through manuals before I start, so this is meant to help give pointers on things that aren’t obvious to a first-time user. It’s also meant to give an idea how easy (or hard, depending on your perspective) WMC is to configure and use.
(more…)


Posted at 9:03 pm in: Computers/Internet

Raspberry Pi


I’m very excited about the Raspberry Pi, a small computer, about the size of a credit card, that sells for just $35 and has a lot of power. It has an ARM processor running at 700MHz, 256MB RAM, runs off of an SD Card, has a pair of USB ports, an Ethernet (network) port, an HDMI port for video, an RCA port (also for video), an audio jack, and is powered from a micro-USB port. In other words, you power this thing off the same cable you probably use to charge your cell phone. The hardware is comparable to a mid-range Android phone, it’s only drawback is it doesn’t have enough RAM to actually run the Android OS.

Raspberry Pi was developed by a UK based non-profit and is intended to provide a very cheap, but powerful platform, not only for enthusiasts, but for educational uses as well. The $35 model is their ‘B’ model. The ‘A’ model will be $25, and will come with similar specs, but lack the Ethernet port and have only one USB port.

The Raspberry Pi was first released last week, and sold out their first lot of 10,000 units rather quickly. I just placed a pre-order for a unit from their next lot, and look forward to getting mine in the coming weeks.

What Does it Do?

The possible uses for this capable little machine are endless. I have plans for several already, and haven’t even gotten my first one yet, so I expect more ideas to come to me. The first one will probably get an installation of Debian, which is already available for download (and installing to an SD card on another machine as I type this). My plan is to connect a rather large hard drive to it, probably either 1.5TB or 2TB, and leave it at my parents’ house so that I can back up files to it that I want preserved should disaster strike at home and everything in the house be destroyed. The idea is to connect via the internet and back up automatically. I already do this with my brother-in-law in North Dakota, but need something a little closer to home so I can access it more easily when things go wrong and need my attention.

Another use I have plans for is to load up OpenELEC, which is XBMC (which originally was an acronym for ‘XBox Media Center’, but now is just XBMC since the XBox was replaced with the XBox 360 and became obsolete). OpenELEC is a minimal operating system designed just to get XBMC running and nothing else. The idea with this machine is to hook it up to an older TV via the RCA port for a cheap & easy media center.

Some day I also hope to find time to start learning some serious programming skills as well. I can foresee using a Raspberry Pi as a platform for programming some home automation projects. One idea I would love to pursue, but have no concrete plans to work on yet, is a controller for my home irrigation system. The one I have now, made by Rain Bird, turns my sprinklers on and off at set times, and has a rain sensor to prevent it from coming on if it has rained recently. It would be nice to have a predictive system that could watch the weather forecast and not turn on if, say, there is a 60% or more chance of rain later in the day. My system costs about $5 to run every time it’s turned on, and runs every-other day, for a cost of about $75/month on my water bill from May to mid-October. In addition, it would be nice to be able to control it remotely with a smart-phone app, or maybe even email or SMS message.

I’m excited about the possibilities. I can foresee having these little wonders scattered all over my house, running various tasks, automating things, and just making life fun.


Posted at 10:07 am in: Computers/Internet

HTPC: The Build


March 3, 2012

I’m currently in the latter stages of transitioning my family away from cable/satellite for our TV service toward just using over-the-air, along with the internet. I’ve been a DirecTV customer since the summer of 2001, and the service, along with the bill, has been a part of life for over a decade for me. Our family income has remained steady through the economic downturn, and we are fairing well. However, we don’t take that for granted, and still take a look at our expenses from time to time and look for ways of cutting unnecessary expenses. It has come time that we are not only comfortable with losing our satellite service, we look forward to it. Our service costs about $100/month, which gets us: the “Choice Xtra” package, HD service, an HD-DVR, equipment protection, and a second receiver (a first-generation Tivo I bought shortly after getting DirecTV service back in 2001). That $100/month does NOT get us any movie channels, sports packages, or receivers beyond the two mentioned. We have two HDTVs, and I hooked them both up to the same receiver about two years ago. The one where the receiver is located is hooked up via HDMI, and the one upstairs in the family room is hooked up via Component cables that I ran through the ceiling and walls (five coax cables with RCA connections on each end). We control it through RF remote controls.

No more, we’re moving away from that and towards an extra $100 in our pockets every month.

This first post on our setup is dedicated to sharing the hardware that I used to build our system. We currently have a brand-new HTPC that I build in recent weeks hooked up in our entertainment room to the same TV that has the DirecTV receiver. We also have an older laptop hooked up to the other HDTV. The laptop is a Dual-Core Pentium machine running Windows 7 Pro – 32-bit. This machine acts only as a viewer, the new HTPC is doing the work of recording. We also have an X-Box 360 that can work as an extender, but it is hooked up to the same TV as the laptop, so it doesn’t get used much for watching TV (for reasons I may get into later).

Here is the hardware that makes up my HTPC:

The case

Some time ago, when the idea of an HTPC was first born, I found the nMEDIAPC Red Wood case at Newegg. It is simply a beautiful case. It looks like an old radio, and looks great on the shelf nest to the TV. I could have gone with a simple black box meant to go in an entertainment center with the audio receiver, DVD/Blu-Ray player, and other equipment, but the price on this one was similar to those simpler cases and was too cool to pass up. It’s slightly more complicated than your average case, since it’s made mostly from wood, but nothing too complicated.

I also sprang for the LCD display, a $40 add-on. The cool-factor is really there, though I can’t say it’s perfect. The driver on it often locks up, causing it to display a blue bar across the top row of the display, and the blue color of the display makes it difficult to read from more than 4-5 feet away. I have 20/20 vision and have a hard time reading it from the couch, about 8-10 feet away. That said, it is cool enough that I would spring for it again if I were to start over knowing what I know now.

The case was $90, and the LCD panel added an additional $40 for a total of $130.
(more…)


Simple Shell Script to Log Your Public IP Address


February 24, 2012

I’ve been using Linux for over a decade. In fact, the original blog that this one forked off from was hosted on a linux machine in my bedroom. However, I am still, after a decade, a bit of a novice.

So for the sake of Googlers out there that might be looking to do what I was looking to do, here’s how to make a simple script that will check your public IP address and add it to a log. (A couple friends more knowledgable in Linux helped me with this when Google wasn’t giving me the results I needed).

First, create a shell script and put the following in it:

#!/bin/sh

IP=`curl http://automation.whatismyip.com/n09230945.asp`
DATE=`date`

echo "$IP - $DATE" >> iplog.txt

I put mine in my home folder. The log file will be created the first time you run it, and will be in the same folder as the script.

To run this every morning at 1:00am, create a file in the /etc/cron.d folder and put this in it:

0 1 * * * andy sh /home/andy/ipcheck.sh

Of course you’ll want to change “andy” to your username, “/home/andy/ipcheck.sh” to the path and filename of your script.

Why would you want to do this? Who knows, but I did because I was curious to see how often the dynamic IP address for my home network changes. It doesn’t change often (if ever), but the only way to really know is to log it.


Posted at 3:33 pm in: Computers/Internet

Snapshot: GOP Candidates


October 19, 2011

The GOP Primary season continues to roll on. Last night was the latest “debate” hosted by CNN in Las Vegas. I haven’t been terribly impressed with the candidates so far, and my opinion isn’t getting any better. Here’s how I view each candidate as of today:

Herman Cain

Cain is the current front-runner. He recently passed Mitt Romney in the polls (which I don’t put a lot of trust in, but it’s all we have). When I first heard of Herman Cain, I liked him. I was very cautiously optimistic about the guy. I liked what I saw, but I hadn’t seen much. That has changed dramatically as I’ve learned who he is.

He’s pushing his “9-9-9 Plan”, which replaces the Federal tax code with a 9% individual income tax, a 9% corporate income tax, and a 9% national sales tax. It sounds pretty good to me, but it isn’t the best plan on the table. It does nothing to address spending at all, and claims to be “revenue neutral,” meaning that the Feds would bring in as much under his plan as comes in now.

I like that it flattens the tax, giving everyone a stake in the Federal budget. I think that is very important to really addressing spending down the road. People love adding programs upon programs, just as long as someone else ends up paying for it. If everyone’s taxes went up with every new program, people would think twice about supporting endless programs.

To be fair to Herman Cain, the other candidates were not so fair when addressing his plan. There are things wrong with it, but juxtaposing it to state taxes is unfair. Romney said that Nevadans don’t want to pay a 9% National sales tax on top of their state sales tax. Well, actually, if they paid less in federal sales tax, they actually might come out ahead. Cain was right that they were comparing apples to oranges, and they are only being fair if they propose either eliminating all Federal taxes, or (somehow) eliminating all state taxes. That’s not what any of them are proposing though.

What originally changed my mind about Cain was his history on the Federal Reserve Board. I believe the Fed to be one of the most corrupt institutions in the world. I’m very much in favor of abolishing it. I don’t see Cain allowing a Fed ban, or even an audit, through without a veto.

Cain also said something a couple months ago regarding the second amendment that didn’t sit well with me. He was against gun control at the Federal level, but said it was okay for the states to enact whatever gun control measures they wanted, up to and including an outright ban on the keeping or bearing of arms.

The fact that he supported TARP in late 2008 doesn’t help either, or that he has said that he doesn’t regret his view, nor has he changed it.

Mitt Romney

I never liked Mitt Romney, and I don’t see that changing. He’s from the Northeast, and as “Conservative” as he would like people to believe he is, anyone living west of Ohio and/or south of Virginia can see right through it. “Conservative” in Massachusetts is still Liberal anywhere else.

Romney’s religion has been an issue, as much as people would like to brush it aside. While I would love to see a Reformed, Evangelical, Born-Again, Trinitarian Christian become President, it isn’t a deal-breaker for me. However, I can’t vote for a Mormon any more than I can vote for someone from any of numerous theological systems. And the more dedicated they are to their Mormonism, the less likely I am to vote for them. Romney, as far as I know, is a Temple Mormon, which is about as devoted as it gets. I won’t get too detailed into why I feel this way, but just to suggest looking into Mormon “prophecy” regarding America. Mormons believe that America will teeter on the edge of collapse, and a Mormon will save America and institute a Mormon theocracy. I’m not a proponent of a theocracy of any sort, including one that perfectly matches my own theological views. (I do believe that some day, Jesus Himself will rule the entire world, but that’s another story – He’s ruling, not a human proxy.)

As to whether Mormonims is a cult, theologically that’s technically correct. It may be a loaded term, conjuring up images of David Koresh, or that sect that committed suicide in San Diego to join an alien spacecraft a few years ago, but it’s still technically correct. Mormonism is quite a bit more main-stream sociologically, and so it is not a cult in sociological terms. They are not Christian under the strictest definitions of the word. Christianity is monotheistic, whereas Mormonism is polytheistic. James White, a Christian expert on Mormonism calls it “the most polytheistic religion the world has ever seen.” Christianity is Trinitarian; God is One being in three persons (it’s been said it’s “one what in three who’s”.) Mormonism sees Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three separate beings entirely. I could go on, but this isn’t a treatise on Mormonism, but an opinion on nine political candidates.

Back to politics, I think that having a view that global warming is a real problem, and it’s cause by humanity is one view that disqualifies someone from my vote. I also think that being a proponent of a health care system that even vaguely resembles Obamacare, even at the state level, disqualifies someone from my vote. The fact that Romney fits both should be enough to have him run out of the GOP with pitchforks. The fact that he’s even considered a “frontrunner” says a lot about the GOP, and I don’t think it’s good.

Newt Gingrich

Newt says a lot of things that sound really good to a Conservative. Being in the gray zone between Conservative and Libertarian, as I am, he even sounds, on the surface, fairly reasonable. At the very least, he sounds a lot better than the status quo.

My issue with Newt Gingrich is that my gut tells me he would forget all of it the day after he’s sworn into office.

Rick Perry

Perry’s involvement with various Christian groups is troubling to me. I didn’t follow “The Response” very closely, but what little I know of it strikes me as not something I’d involve myself in. Perry apparently (though I don’t know this for sure) has connections to the New Apostolic Reformation, which is a dangerous and heretical sect of Christianity that I can’t even remotely support. They are bent on world domination, albeit under the guise of Christianity.

I have to be honest though, I don’t know enough about Perry to be certain. Don’t go quoting me on the issue.

Perry has enough baggage that is clear to disqualify him from my vote anyway. His comments a few weeks ago about not having a heart if you don’t want the government subsidizing the college education of illegal immigrants rubbed me as badly as most in the GOP. His campaign has faltered ever since, and I don’t see it recovering. (Despite what he says, in state tuition is a subsidy. If there is no subsidy, there is no reason to charge more for non-residents of the state.)

One thing I want to say on Perry’s behalf is that I don’t hold his former status as a Democrat against him. I once considered myself a Democrat as well. I even voted for Bill Clinton’s re-election in 1996, the first election for which I was old enough to vote. If his conversion to Christianity is recent, as in within the last 20 years, it may explain his move to the Right as well as anything. That is why I moved from Liberal to Libertarian.

Rick Santorum

Who is he? He has said a few things at debates that I’ve liked, and a few I thought he was way off on. I can’t remember what though. He’s an also-ran.

Ron Paul

I’ve already stated I’m a Libertarian-Conservative. Thus Ron Paul is an almost perfect-fit for my political views. I worked hard in 2008 to work my way up through the Caucus process in Minnesota to send delegates to the National GOP Convention that would vote for Ron Paul’s nomination. I plan on doing the same thing this time around. Frankly, Paul is the only candidate that I could vote for in November 2012 without any hesitation. I differ with him on a few small things, but so minor it’s insignificant.

I do get very annoyed with Republicans over their views on Ron Paul. Many will say they are for this or that, and line up closely, or even perfectly, with Ron Paul, but disregard him for specious reasons. What’s worse, Republicans will lecture me about how no candidate is perfect and I should support this candidate or that, but then will turn around and dismiss Paul for much more minor reasons than I dismiss their particular favorite candidate.

I like his views on military bases. Why are we in Germany, Italy, Japan, and countless other places? The one place we have a foreign base that I don’t think we should pull out of is South Korea. The only reason for that is, as I understand it, South Korea pays us to be there. That being said, if they are willing to cover the costs of our troops being in their country, why not transfer their security to a mercenary force? Why not let them hire our soldiers after they are discharged from our military?

Michele Bachmann

Overall I like Michele. I think sometimes she has put her foot in her mouth, or that her mouth moves faster than her brain, but I still like her. I do the same thing at times (though I’m not running for President). She is the only candidate that I would consider myself “on the fence” about. If Ron Paul gets the nomination, I’ll vote for him in 2012. If Michele Bachmann gets it, I’ll strongly consider voting for her in 2012. If anyone else gets the nomination, I’ll probably vote for the Constitution Party candidate as I have in the last three Presidential elections.

I think Bachmann’s biggest weakness, in my opinion, is her support of the Patriot Act. Bachmann is a lot like Paul on many issues, which is why I like her. However, where they differ, she tends to be for bigger government. She likes bigger government in areas that Republicans in general like bigger government, but that’s bigger government none-the-less.

I’m not a fan of Bachmann’s views on Iran. She seems to want another war, which I don’t think this country needs. If we were to go to war with Iran, let Iran drag us into it.

Gary Johnson

Is he still in the race? He wasn’t at the debates last night. If he is, I wouldn’t support him. He and Ron Paul are similar, both being Libertarians, but where they differ, Johnson disqualifies himself from my vote. Ron Paul understands the government’s role in enforcing Natural Law, whereas Johnson takes a more pure Libertarian view that “if it doesn’t hurt anyone else, who are we to stop it.” In reality, it does hurt others, such as his view that abortion should be legal. Paul at least understands the rights of the unborn, though having delivered over 4,000 babies likely plays an understandable role in that view.

John Huntsman

I think he’s still running. He prided himself in not being at the debates. I think he compared them to a circus sideshow, don’t quote me on that.

Huntsman is a Mormon. See Mitt Romney for my views there. Though I haven’t heard anything about the sincerity of his Mormon faith, whether he is a Temple Mormon, “Jack Mormon,” or somewhere in between.

Huntsman was governor of Utah, and Ambassador to China under both Bush (43) and Obama. He seems to agree where they agree (which is far more than most people will acknowledge.) I dislike Obama as President, and I also disliked Bush. I can’t see Huntsman as the Conservative hero that I’ve been looking for.


Posted at 9:55 pm in: Politics

Saving Social Security


July 28, 2011

There is a lot of talk about government programs these days, especially entitlement programs, in light of the crippling debt that Washington is heaping on us all and the programs they intend to spend that money on.

I can’t remember a time in my life when I actually believed that Social Security would survive long enough for me to start cashing checks. Even before my political views shifted dramatically from Democrat tool to Libertarian-Conservative Constitutionalist, I knew that money taken from my paychecks to fund Social Security would never be seen again.

Considering my current political views, and my respect for both the Constitution (interpreted literally and in line with authorial intent) and the long-forgotten concept of Natural Law, I would actually support the complete eradication of all entitlement programs, especially at the Federal level. I’m open to shifting them to the states, and allowing people to vote first at the ballot box and then with their feet whether they want such programs or not.

That said, I hold no illusions that my wishes will be fulfilled in the national political arena. Even with the rise of the Tea Party, and a strong chorus of calls for fiscal responsibility and minimalism in government, few seem to be willing to address the sacred cow of Social Security in any meaningful way. However, I’d like to offer my view on how to save this program so that there might be a slim chance I could get my money back when I hit retirement age. Whether or not you like my ideas here, there is no question that serious changes need to be made before the program not only dries up, but sucks our nation into serious economic turmoil in the process.

Sustainable Contribution Base

The relationship between who pays into Social Security and who receives benefits needs some serious work. Surprisingly though, it is the one program that seems to tie recipients to contributors. Currently there is a cap on how much income will be taxed for Social Security. I don’t recall the exact figure, but somewhere just north of $100k, income stops being taxed for Social Security. This is the one element of the program I think actually makes sense. There is an underlying presumption that everyone will receive Social Security, despite the acknowledgment that our wealthier Seniors have little need of it. Talk of taxing every dollar while applying a sort of means-test to decide who receives benefits gets into wealth-redistribution territory, which is pure tyranny at every level. No man, no matter how “successful” should be obligated to work for the benefit of another unwillingly, which is exactly what redistributionist programs require. This is where I lean on Natural Law, and encourage the reader to learn what you can about Natural Law.

One major reason Social Security is unsustainable, and is speeding toward insolvency, is that when the program was created, there were nearly 16 people paying into the program for every person receiving benefits. Today that number is closer to two. That means that a typical married couple is paying into a program to support one of their four parents. It is left to their kids to support the other three, while trying to support themselves in the process. In past generations, it was much more reasonable for kids and grandkids to support their elderly parents and grandparents because birth-rates were much higher. Life expectancy was also much lower. Most people didn’t expect to live to see 65 years of age, when they would become eligible for Social Security. Today they are living well into their 70′s. And when you had four or six kids, who each had four to six kids of their own, you’d have a couple dozen people pitching in to make sure your needs were met in old age. Today we are in the position where most people have made caring for the elderly a low priority because “that’s what Social Security is for”, and there are fewer of us to do it.

As a result, the age of eligibility absolutely needs to be adjusted – dramatically. Assuming that life expectancy will continue to rise (just for the sake of prudence), I would tie the age of eligibility to life expectancy in percentage terms. For example, life expectancy averages 75 years, and we set eligibility at 95%, new Social Security recipients would be eligible at age 71 and 3 months. This would give them 3 years and 8 months, on average, of benefits. This doesn’t seem like much, but keep in mind that when the program started, most people didn’t expect to live to see anything. Also keep in mind that Social Security is little more than a guaranteed welfare program, and the only requirement is to keep breathing for a specified length of time. Welfare has a lifetime cap of five years, not much more than my proposal.

Choice

As with any other government program, Social Security is crumbling for lack of choice. Just like government schools, you’re stuck with it, you have to pay in, and have no say in where the money goes. The only saving grace is that you’re free to supplement Social Security through an IRA, 401(K), or other retirement account. You can put all your change in a jar for 60 years and retire on it if you want to. Sticking with the government school analogy, this is like going to private school in the evenings, after getting let out of the government school; that’s probably where the meaningful portion is going to come from.

Because any word of making any change to Social Security, besides sending out bigger checks, is met with the strongest of resistance, even among the so-called Conservative, I’m willing to be careful with how a system of choice is offered.

I propose that anyone anyone age 50 or older be given a few options. The first option, which should satisfy the staunchest of Social Security lovers, is to continue with business as usual. If they haven’t retired yet, they can continue to pay into the system as usual, and get the checks they expect when they expect them.

The second option would be a lump-sum payout. If the person is retired, they could receive a tax-free payout equivalent to everything they’ve paid in over the course of their lives. If retired, they could do what they wish with the money. If not yet retired, they could put it into any investment they like under the umbrella of a Roth IRA, where it would never be taxed. This option would probably be disregarded by lower and middle class retirees, who have been counting on Social Security to pay their bills in retirement. However, for many wealthy and prudent retirees that saved all their lives, not expecting to receive anything, this is a great option. They get back what they paid in, without being a greater burden on the system. I say that because most people receive back what they paid in within just a few years of retirement, and the remainder of their lives continue collecting long after their own contribution is exhausted.

The next group would be the 30-49 crowd. This group would also be given options. However, the options given to this group would have more serious consequences, no bail-outs for making bad choices.

The first option would be to move to an optional state-run system. This would shift an unconstitutional program away from a Federal government that has no Constitutional authority to run such a program to the states, which have a 10th amendment option to offer such a program. Should this option be chosen, the state would decide the specifics of the program, but could not guarantee a payout greater than that equal to a lifetime of total contributions plus a reasonable, market-determined rate of interest. The contributions could be used by states to provide necessary services, such as building roads or other service that requires a lump-sum initial cost, but offers long-term use.

The second option would be similar to the 50+ crowd’s option of taking a lump-sum payout. However, it wouldn’t be a lump-sum. It would be would be paid directly into a tax-free retirement account, phased in over a pre-specified number of years, probably around 10. The phasing allows the money they have been credited to be used to help pay for the retirees that opt to stay in the current system. I personally prefer this option because it puts the burden back on the backs of future retirees. You will invest your money better than anyone else, especially if there is no hope of a bailout if you are wrong. You will weigh risk vs. reward and make a choice that best suits your needs. If you lose everything, you’ll have to work later in life.

For anyone who is 29 or younger, there is no choice. Their contributions to date would be transfered over a similar pre-specified number of years into a private investment vehicle.

In addition to reforming the system in terms of how accounts are structured, I would open up the options of where to put the money. For example, if real-estate, on average, appreciates over time (current economic situation notwithstanding), I would allow people to buy homes with their IRA money. Many people already spend a lifetime investing in bigger and bigger home, figuring that at retirement they can drastically downsize and live off the equity. Under the current system, you can borrow from your IRA to buy a home, but you are required to “pay yourself back.” I would certainly retain the option, but wouldn’t require that the money be paid back into your account. It’s your money, your retirement, and your problem if you screw it up.

Conclusion

Regardless of whether my idea would work or not, things will change sooner or later. The option isn’t if, it’s how and when. I’m of the mind that the sooner it happens, the better. That gets us out before we dig a deeper hole, and gives us more time to iron out the details and resolve inevitable problems that will arise.

As with any program, private is always better. People will make better decisions with their own money than government bureaucrats will. Also, the gut tendency by many to want a safety net must be resisted. It certainly eases the conscience to help people out who make bad choices, but all that does is introduce a moral hazard that will encourage bad decisions to be made in the first place. Don’t get me wrong, I would never forbid anyone from helping a friend or loved-one, that is their choice (and risk) to make. I would not, however, require anyone by force of law, to bail out the irresponsible. Those who make bad choices (like blowing their money on a high-rolling trip to Las Vegas) will provide the example to others that such behavior is not acceptable to society at large, and won’t be subsidized via public bailouts.


Posted at 5:09 pm in: In My Opinion,Politics

Google+


July 17, 2011

It’s only been out a few weeks, but Google+ is exploding in popularity. For the time being, it’s an invite-only service, but invitations are relatively easy to come by. I got mine from Sarafina Kernberger when I saw a tweet that was retweeted by Revision 3 (her employer) that she had invites to give out.

Before I get into my thoughts on this new social media service, I want to say I love when Google rolls out a new service by invitation only. It’s how I started on GMail, and now Google+ is just as nice for me. There really is only one reason I like it, I have such a common name that it’s almost impossible to get an account with it on most services. I need to use a handle, or screen name. That just got more difficult for me in the last month or so. I have been “Echo Zoe” (sometimes with the space, often times without) for about 8 years. However, now I am growing Echo Zoe as a ministry, and am in the process of incorporating it as a non-profit. Because of this, I feel the need to begin separating Echo Zoe from myself as an “alter-ego”. I got my name on GMail, something that wouldn’t have been possible without the invitation system. (Though don’t bother emailing me there, I was so glad to get it, but I don’t use it much, and I would be surprised if I check it more than once or twice a year.) As for Google+, to be accurate, everyone just gets a long user number, but another service cropped up to create short names. I got gplus.to/andyolson! Again, something that wouldn’t be possible if the system had just been opened directly to all comers from the start.

That said here are my thoughts:

On one hand, I really like it. It’s a neat, clean system. It’s easy to use. I see it as a cross between Facebook and Twitter, taking the best features of each, and adding a few more.

Because it’s, in many ways, a cross between Twitter and Facebook, a lot of people are saying it’s going to kill one or the other. Most see it as a Facebook killer, I’m not so sure.

Facebook

The similarities to Facebook are the most obvious. You have a stream, which is a lot like the wall on Facebook. You can post links, pictures, and videos. You can comment. You can “like”, though Google brands this feature “+1″. You can share something someone else has posted. The profile page is a lot like Facebook, with a lot of the same information.

Google ups the ante with “Circles” though. This is a feature that could have saved me a few “defriends” if Facebook had it. A circle is a group. Anyone can be in a circle, and can be in multiple circles. In fact, to get connected, they have to be in at least one circle. If it’s someone you don’t personally know, the “following” circle is among the defaults in the account and fits the bill perfectly.

That raises a point where the two are different. You can put anyone in your circles. You don’t request someone be added to your friends and wait for them to confirm. You just add them to a circle (or several), and they will get a notification that they’ve been added by you, which allows them to add you if they so choose. Of course, to keep trouble-makers at bay, anyone can be blocked.

Commenting is another big similarity. Huge discussions can be started with a single post. This isn’t something I do a lot of in Facebook, but it is very popular on both services.

Fortunately what Google+ lacks, and I hope they never institute, is apps. There are few things more annoying than a feed that is cluttered with Farmville posts and requests to join Mafia Wars.

Twitter

The similarities with Twitter are numerous. As already mentioned, you can follow anyone, whether or not you know them, or they follow you back. In fact, similar to twitter, the experience is best if you follow some people you don’t personally know. For example, I’ve been a technology buff for a long time, so I naturally follow people like Leo Laporte and Patrick Norton (of This Week in Tech and Revision 3 respectively). I follow politics, so I will follow political junkies in Google+. I also enjoy podcasting, so I follow people who are in the podcasting business (people who podcast about podcasting.) There are many other people involved in many other areas of interest worth following.

Also similar to Twitter, is the feed. Though that is admittedly a lot like Facebook too.

Where Google+ excels above Twitter is, first and foremost, the lack of post size limits. At times, I find the 140 character limit to be a strength, but usually it isn’t. Having to abbreviate a short thought because it isn’t short enough is a sizable annoyance. Adding a link to that thought makes it even harder. It makes me wonder how long link shortening services like bit.ly and is.gd will last when Twitter goes by the wayside. Twitter will probably be around a while, but probably not in it’s current form.

Another similarity is that the whole world can see your Google+ page. You can decide to keep posts and information tight, and only allow certain people to see it, but you can also post things that anyone can see. Go ahead, click the link above and take a look at my page, even if you’re not on Google+, you should be able to see some of what I’ve posted.

The Threat

As I mentioned before, many people see Google+ as a threat to Facebook. There are some who see it as a threat to Twitter. I think each has it’s purpose and it’s users, but would guess that it’s a bigger threat to Twitter than Facebook. Facebook has always been, in my opinion, a never-ending online high school reunion. Its purpose and its user base is for people who know the people they’re connected to. People network on Facebook, and add others they want to get to know, but this has always been something that Facebook has, at best, tolerated. They have never really encouraged it. You also see this in the constant backlash over privacy. People go beyond what Facebook was made for, and people they don’t know learn more about them than they wanted them to know. (Not a consequence that should shock them, in my opinion.) Google+ lets you decide who sees what. You decide while you’re filling out your profile who can see the information you enter, and are asked every time you post who you’d like to see what you’re posting. If it’s something that is safe for the world to see, the whole world can see it. I’ll be on Facebook for the foreseeable future. It has its purpose and I don’t see it changing. There are a lot of people on Facebook that I don’t see creating Google+ accounts; grandmothers, aunts, friends from high school.

Twitter has more to worry about. Like Google+, it was never intended to be such a tight-nit community. It was always expected that people would follow others they don’t personally know. It was always great for networking with others with similar interests. That can be annoying in that people will follow others hoping only to get follow-backs (something I tried, but gave up.) People will do the same on Google+ as the user base grows, and it will annoy me just as much there. The 140 character limit is the biggest thing that threatens Twitter, as I mentioned before.

Final Thoughts

I’m on Facebook, Twitter, and now Google+. I will probably be on all three until they cease to exist. Each has it’s strengths and weaknesses. Of the three, I think Google+ has the most potential, but each will maintain a niche. Facebook is great for keeping in touch with friends and family. There are people I have no idea how to contact, except through Facebook. Twitter is a great mobile platform, and it’s post size limit makes it a great platform for keeping up with news and things that interest you. I like that I can follow 150 people (or more) and be able to see everything they have to offer throughout the day. It’s not hard to blast through several hours of activity in a few minutes. It’s a great pointer to bigger things on the web. Google+ is great for following interesting people like you would on Twitter, with the freedom of Facebook.

I didn’t get into some of the unique features of Google+ that make it so popular, like hangouts. This is primarily because I haven’t been on long enough to try them out. I also don’t have the connections yet to give them a try. I am interested though. The ability to have a video conference with 10 people in it sounds really cool.


iPad 2: My latest gadget


March 3, 2011
Preface

The following is going to bore 99% of the population. These are my personal thoughts on a new device, along with the background of how I got to where I am today in regard to my views on the iPad 2. I’ve labeled the various sections with heading titles in case you’re only interested in part, but for the most part, this is an old-school web-log post.

Background

Yesterday marked the official announcement of Apple’s second generation iPad. It was a typical Apple event, on the more subdued side, since the iPad 2 is a relatively minor upgrade to the original. It’s being called “evolutionary rather than revolutionary.”

When the original came out, I didn’t see the appeal. It looked like a giant iPod. In a way, it is.

At the time that the original iPad came out, I was using a plane-jane old-fashioned cell phone. Remember this kind? It made phone calls, and that was about all. You could peck out text messages if you wanted, but it was clunky and annoying to try, so I rarely ever did. My phone would play MP3 files, but it was too much of a process to load them on the phone, and difficult to get it to turn off when I decided to stop listening, so I didn’t really use that feature either. The only extra feature that really got any use was the crappy camera – in a pinch.

Then I got an Android phone and everything changed. Now making calls is a secondary feature of the phone. I’ve heard people complain about the calling features of smart phones – just about all of them (iPhone, Android, Blackberry), but mine works just fine as far as I’m concerned. I just find that I spend more time reading Twitter on my phone than talking on it.

At the time that I got the phone, my second child was about 8 months old. Our standard procedure for going to bed at night would be for my wife to feed him, and then take our oldest to bed and leave me to put number two to sleep. I’d get him relaxed and then either take out my Kindle and read for a while, or more recently, catch up on Twitter & Facebook, or surf the web. It was nice to have a device that allowed me to read websites or social media in bed. It didn’t take long though, and I started seeing the utility of an iPad. Now I really want one.

When it comes to technology and gadgets, I’m very much a technophile. I love gadgets, computers, and electronic toys. I am not, however, an early adopter – not by a long shot. I would love to be one, but I just can’t afford it. As it is, it drives my wife crazy at times, wanting this gadget and that one. She never forgets the gadget I really wanted and rarely used either, and weighs every new gadget that I want against that one. Really, it was one gadget. I got a PocketPC shortly after we were married. I had had two Palm Pilots before I met her, and didn’t use either one all that much, but thought the PocketPC would be different. It was a huge step up, with a color screen and a processor fast enough to play movies. I just found that I had my wallet in one pocket, and my cell phone in the other, and didn’t have room to carry another device. I also had problems keeping it charged sufficiently, and often found that even when I did make an effort to use it, it didn’t have a charge.

In the early days of smart phones, the PocketPC phone, I saw no desire to have one device to do everything. What if I listened to too much music or watched too many videos and the battery died, and then I needed to make an important call? I wanted my iPod, PocketPC, and phone to be separate devices. Now I have been thoroughly won over to the one-device movement. Yes, I do occasionally use it too much for things other than calls and find that I need to charge it to use the phone, but it isn’t the end of the world. Since it’s a phone, it goes everywhere with me, and it gets used. No more do I find that I need to look something up and my device is at home, or want to take a few notes or add to a shopping list on a device in a drawer in my office.

So why the iPad? Well, mostly I have been so happy with my Android phone, except for the small screen size. It’s the perfect device when I’m sitting in a doctor’s office waiting room, need to look up an address or phone number on the go, or kill a little time reading Twitter or playing Angry Birds. It’s an excellent device that I use every day and love. However, the screen size makes it less than ideal for web surfing in bed, reading books in PDF form, or other tasks that demand a larger screen. My Kindle does a bang-up job for reading ebooks, and will continue to be my ebook reader of choice long into the future. With a sleeping baby on me, I often have only one hand to read with, and the Kindle is perfect. It isn’t too heavy or bulky, and I can flip the page with a knuckle, making one-handed reading easy. As much as I’m sold on an iPad, I don’t see it as a better option than the Kindle for books. It may be back lit, eliminating the need to have a light on, but it’s heavier, and really needs two hands, especially during page turns.

I’ve been sold. I see the utility, and want one. However, I knew the second generation would be coming out soon, and thought it made sense to wait for it. The rumors, which all seemed to be true in the end, were that it was a minor upgrade, but still enough to warrant a short wait.

The iPad 2 itself: my preliminary thoughts

Everyone I’ve ever talked to who has an iPad has said they love it. I haven’t heard a single person regret buying theirs, or even express mixed or neutral feelings. High levels of satisfaction are pretty consistent.

I’m glad I waited though. Even though the second generation is a minor upgrade to the original, the second generation of anything typically is enough of an improvement to the original to be worth the wait. If I had a first-gen iPad, I would be happy with it, and not feel the need to sell it so I could finance the purchase of on upgrade – but that’s something you just can’t know until it’s too late.

Cameras? On what’s new, I’m really happy to see the addition of cameras. I don’t currently have, or use, an iPad, but I can see the need for cameras. The rear facing camera is a bit odd to me. It makes sense on a pocket-sized device like a phone to have a high-rez camera on the back, and a lower-rez camera on the front. Being able to use the phone screen the same way you’d use a point-and-shoot camera screen for photos with the rear camera – and having the front-facing camera for video chats makes a lot of sense. But really, are people going to be shooting photos or videos with their iPad? Maybe in a really big pinch – like “don’t have a primary camera, and my phone battery is dead” situation, but how often does that happen?

Colors? Black is fine with me. Remember when all iPods were white? Then in the 5th generation or so (the original one that did video), they came out with a black one. That was all the rage – a BLACK iPod! Now everything is black and the craze is white. I don’t get it. I always liked the black. I’ll be getting a black iPad 2 for sure.

The cases? Lame if you ask me. It’s held on with magnets and will sleep the iPad automatically when you put it on or wake it when you take it off. Neat, but not worth $40 ($70 for leather). I think I’ll be skipping that. The only feature of the new case that impressed me was the microfiber lining that is supposed to reduce the smudging on the screen, but I think you can buy a microfiber cloth for $1-2. I’m much more interested in a folio-style case. I want something that completely encloses the iPad when it’s not in use, and doesn’t tell the whole world that you’re carrying an iPad. If I go to a meeting with it (like a Signet Ring Ministry meeting or Civil Air Patrol – I’m not a businessman at the moment, so meetings are rare for me), I want it to look just like any old folio that would have a pad of paper in it. It would be nice if it even had a zipper on it to really close it up. When I walk into a restaurant, where most of the meetings I attend are held, I don’t want to broadcast to everyone there “wait until my back is turned so you can rob me.”

Memory? I’ll take the big boy, thank you! If there is one thing I don’t like about Apple products, it’s the lack of an external memory slot. Almost every cell phone on the market has a micro-SD slot. Most computers these days have SD card slots. A lot of portable MP3 players have SD slots. Apple clearly makes a lot of their profit from the upgrades, and don’t want you buying a 16GB iPad and sliding in another 16GB of memory in an SD card slot, which you can buy for about $10 if you look around. They’d rather charge you $100 for that extra memory. $200 if you’re a customer like me that wants to (somewhat) future-proof.

Because I’m not an early adopter, and don’t have a bottomless bucket of money to always have the latest-and-greatest, I buy gadgets and use them as long as I can. If I buy an iPad 2, I probably won’t replace it until the iPad 6 is out. That is, unless there is a really good reason to upgrade, a feature that will be so nice that it really makes sense. I’ll be getting the one with the most memory so I can have room to grow. I’ve got a 5th-gen iPod with 60GB in it, and it works fine for my MP3 needs. In fact, my phone does me just fine with 18GB (2 usable internal and 16 in an micro-SD card) considering most of what I listen to is podcasts, and it can pull them down on-demand.

WiFi only or 3G? $130 is a bit much for 3G if you ask me. I see no need for it. I think 3G is a bit slow too, it really was dumb of Apple to not put in 4G antennas in the iPad 2. Then again, they seem to stay behind the curve on wireless data speeds. The original iPhone was 2G, and Steve Jobs brushed off 3G as a needless luxury. The iPhone 4 could have had 4G, especially the new Verizon version, but it doesn’t. This was a dumb move, if you ask me.

It’s moot for me though in the end. I don’t see the point in paying for yet another data plan for yet another device. I already have a cable modem and a 4G cell phone, another plan would be pushing absurd. I don’t see needing internet while out and about, but if I do, I can turn on hotspot on my phone and use that, currently at no extra charge. Worst case scenario, T-Mobile decides to start charging me an extra $15/month for that feature on an as-needed basis (add it for a month, take it off when the month is over). I can probably root my phone for free though.

The biggest reason to get a 3G would be for GPS. The Wifi model has only assisted GPS. It works on Wifi signals. That would be somewhat useless in a car, or an airplane (I am a private pilot). However, that is also not worth $130 extra. I don’t foresee using GPS on my iPad, but if I’m wrong and change my mind, I’ll just buy a dongle for the dock adapter that will add GPS to my device. It costs less too!

Apps? This is where I’m going in relatively blind. There are a bunch of apps that I have on my Android phone that also have iPhone/iPod/iPad versions that I’ll start with. There are a few more that I’ve found on the iTunes App store that I’ll add to my initial load-up, but only usage can dictate what I’ll end up with. Of the two that were being pushed by Apple yesterday: iMovie and Garage Band, I don’t see using either. iMovie might be fun to play with, but I have my doubts that’s is as powerful as the version on the Mac. I don’t see using Garage Band at all. Perhaps, if possible, I can use the iPad as a back-up to my Edirol Digital Audio Recorder for recording podcasts, but the Edirol is a solid device made for that kind of thing , so the iPad won’t be replacing it.

Why iPad?

I have an Android phone, and really love it. It has almost all of the same apps as the iPhone, there were only 3 at the time that I bought it unavailable on Android, and two of them now have Android versions just a few months later. The new Android pads look really cool. The Motorola Xoom is getting a lot of buzz, and looks cool. There is a Toshiba version that was at CES that looked cool too, and should be out around June, if I understand correctly. Since I love Android so much, why did I decide on the iPad? Well, I tend to like to be able to play in all the playgrounds, not just the one in my neighborhood. In the computer world, I have a Windows 7 machine, a Windows 7 laptop, a Mac Mini running Snow Leopard (originally Tiger, but upgraded a few times), and at least three computers running Linux (a MAME arcade machine that’s also a general file server, another file server dedicated to video, and a third that runs Asterisk – my phone system). I like the flexibility of knowing that I can run anything I want.

I also want to take a stab at developing apps. Being able to create apps for both iOS and Android would be really nice. (I just fear I’ll have to get some device that runs the same OS as the new Windows Phone 7, though hopefully NOT a phone). If I get into it, I may need to get an iPod touch just so I can test apps on the smaller screen, but that’s too hypothetical at this time to spend the money.

Third, the apps. One one hand I really hate that Apple has a tight leash on what they permit to go onto people’s devices. I hate to abuse a much over-abused word, but it strikes me as fascist. However, the apps are there. There aren’t many pad-specific Android apps yet, and I don’t want a device that is just scaling up phone apps. If the leash gets to be a problem on the iPad, I’m not afraid to Jail Break the thing.

So, over 2500 words in, I should probably bring this to a close. I’m very excited to get my hands on a cool new device. I got the blessing from the misses, and need to buy quickly before it’s rescinded. She’s calling it a Father’s Day present, which is fine with me. I see it as getting not only the iPad, but an extra three months of use out of it, which is better than waiting until June!

I just wish Apple would allow me to order it now, even if it doesn’t go on sale for another week. They don’t have to send it to me until their release date, but why won’t they take my money yet?


Older Posts »