Tolerance & Civility

It doesn't get any clearer than this. Remember, Olberman works for Sunday Night Football. For those of you who don't realize, that means NFL games. He seems to have a special kind of hatred for Michelle Malkin.

Ignorance is Blitz

What an awesome week for proud and blustery displays of ignorance! The commissioner of the NFL doesn't know what Rush has said, but he knows he doesn't like it. Columnist Jonathan "I hate Bush" Chait doesn't know what's in the Baucus health care bill but supports it wholeheartedly. We have a president who repeatedly displays his total lack of historical knowledge to the point where one wonders if he is even curious about what actually has transpired in the world prior to his miraculous appearance on the political stage.

This willful blindness to facts infects the fourth estate to the point they are acting with absurdity: Fact-checking Saturday Night Live within days of running fake quotes from Rush Limbaugh. The trend was clear in last years campaign for President when the media en masse took no interest in Obama's past. Only when stories broke through from the Internet (Reverend Wright, for example) did the MSM even acknowledge Obama had a past, and friends that populate it.

When it comes to health care, many in the "mainstream" media love to repeat phrases that say, in essence, that the USA is the only first-world country that doesn't provide universal health care. Well, that must mean the rest of the world is full of examples of exactly how this experiment has played out. Germany has been trying to make it work for well over 100 years. But the networks would rather show you posters with Hitler mustaches on Obama than real-life examples of how government care works in practice. It would be unreal, but it fits a pattern of decay over the last few decades, as journalism gives way to analysis, which gives way to simple propaganda and featherbedding.

We have majorities in Congress proudly admitting they have not and will not read the bills that purport to change almost 20% of our economy and fundamentally alter forever the relationship between the individual and their government. They are proud of their ignorance, and heated in their condemnation of those who cry, "Wait a minute. Think this through." To the point where white SEIU union thugs beat up a black protester and the media turns away: "Nothing to see here. Move along." Unbelievable? Believe it.

Look for yourself upon this mess. Google it. Bing it. But don't rely on the media to tell you the facts. Those days are over.

For years I have noted in my experience, people who are the most vociferous critics of the Bible or Rush Limbaugh are the very ones who 99% of the time have spent time with neither. Ignorance allows them to state with conviction, "Rush is a racist!" Or that, "The Bible supports slavery." And now we have, "Rush supports slavery." So this blitz Rush experienced this week is the latest tsunami of misinformation fed to the public by race hustlers and malcontents, happily beamed into the households of America by "legitimate" news networks. In the meantime, the White House declares war on Fox news -- and sees that cable network's ratings fly through the roof.

NFL Made a Stupid Mistake

This week Roger Goodell showed he doesn't have the sense to run the NFL. He wimped out when he should have been strong. He let sportswriters and hatemongers (and yes I know that those groups overlap quite a bit) inform his opinion instead of using common sense.

I love the NFL and am a big fan of talk radio. I've listened to Rush for years, but have a wide range of other radio personalities to compare his performance to as well, like Jim Rome, Tom Lykis, Hugh Hewitt, Tammy Bruce, Art Bell, Michael Medved, Dennis Miller and lots of others. None of those guys or gals has displayed the consistent passion for the game of football and for the good sportsmanship the best of the players show than Rush Limbaugh. Not even Jim Rome. Rush is an enthusiastic fan, has demonstrated knowledge of the game and would have been the biggest booster the League has ever had.

Instead, Roger Goodell, commissioner of the National Football League, torpedoed that opportunity by saying Rush wasn't welcome in their little club, because he made divisive statements.

That's a load of crap. It's a phrase made up of weasel words and devoid of substance. To paraphrase a famous saying, "Divisive is in the ear of the hearer." The commissioner didn't cite anything specific or say Rush was racist, so we really don't know Roger the Most Sensitive's definition of divisive. But in 40 years of enjoying NFL games, news conferences, and commentary I can state with 100% certainty I have heard some pretty "divisive" things. It is a league that thrives on controversy and where there is controversy you can bet there is "divisiveness" of some sort. At least I think so.

The main problem then id the fact that Rush was being smeared as a racist for things he did not ever say, and then for things people interpreted as racist. Both are wrong, in my opinion. It is heinous if Goodell based his "unwelcome" statement on the lies that unscrupulous journalists spread about Limbaugh. I don't fault players who spoke out, because like many young people they don't actually watch the news, they hear about it on Twitter or from their friends. I'm sure there's a lot of urban mythology about Rush being racist. But Goodell should have checked with NFL players, current and former, who actually know Rush Limbaugh. Or at the very least checked the record.

Rush has been broadcasting for over 20 years, more than 15,000 hours of commentary, and most of the last few years is on record in transcript and podcast form. He sometimes says outrageous things, but he is clearly an equal-opportunity jester, puncturing the egos of liberals of every color and calling out good and bad behavior of athletes of all races. I can't believe anyone could listen to him for any length of time and truly hold the informed opinion that Rush is a racist. How could a racist introduce Americans to Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell as guest hosts? Why would a racist want any part of a team likely to be 70% African American?

Take the example of calling Obama a "halfricanAmerican" for example. I can't think of any way the contraction of "half African American" could be offensive. Obama is half African American. I know. He said so a million times during last years campaign. But that's one of the prime example cited by Hillary Clinton's media lapdog website.

Finally, on Donovan McNabb there was so little offensive in Rush's statements on ESPN that people had to interpret it, and embellish it to mean what they wanted it to. People have argued about the value of quarterbacks since before Sammy Baugh, so I can't believe it was Limbaugh questioning McNabb's contribution to the "eggles" as he calls them. So it boils down to the opinion Rush expressed that the media was invested in and eager for a black quarterback to succeed. Watch ESPN from the Doug Williams days on. Try and make the argument that counter's Limbaugh's based on their cheerleading for African Americans. You can't do it. They are constantly highlighting the success of black coaches couched in the "NFL trying to change its image" storyline. Why?

Because it is the NFL that has had the real problem on race, not Rush. Rush refuses to give anyone a pass because of their race, and that is what bugs Roger Goodell. It reminds him that there is a colorblind majority out there. Maybe it shames him. Maybe it should, but it shouldn't cause him to react in a knee-jerk fashion and throw a black flag on Rush.

The NFL made a stupid mistake this week. And it looks like they made a stupid mistake when the elevated Goodell to commissioner.

The President has a Math Problem

One thing Obama said in his ginormous health care reform speech stuck in my mind. Without getting into who is lying, or misrepresenting, or generally not playing nice on health care, I can say for certain that the President is WAY off on his math.

At one point he said -- and I know it's accurate because I bipped back the TiVo twice to make sure and asked my wife if he really said it and Jake Tapper heard it too -- that if we can "slow the growth of health care costs by just one-tenth of one percent each year, it will actually reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the long term."

Wow, he must be thinking REALLY long-term! Let's solve for X shall we?

One-tenth of one per cent of X equals $4 trillion or

.01 * X = $4,000,000,000,000

X = $400,000,000,000,000

Therefore the amount of growth in healthcare costs is $400 trillion, although we don't know the rate because he provided no time component (how much of what by when). But just accepting his number, it takes a whole lot of per cent of anything to equal a trillion...or four. The growth of healthcare costs is about 8% per year now, so saving $4T might help the deficit, if it were possible.

Somehow, I think those numbers just don't add up. And the fact that no news story on his speech evinced skepticism about his numbers is astounding. But finally, remember when Newt Gingrich said we wanted to "slow the rate of growth for medicare" in the mid-1990s? Dude was hung out to dry. Called a dirtbag and a hater of old folks. Now, of course, as in many other things, when Obama says it the press just nods and says "Great!"

Times change, Baby!

The 3 Lies in Every Story on Health Care Reform

Every current article on health care reform (or "health insurance reform") contains at least three lies that the media repeats time after time. Of course, some articles have more than three, but that number seems to be the minimum daily requirement for the MSM. For convenience I'll use my local paper, The Riverside Press-Enterprise, which ran an article this morning by their Washington Bureau guy, Ben Goad. But you can have fun by applying the "3 Lie Test" to any article by a MSM source.

Obama's health care plan
The first line of the story contains the phrase "President Barack Obama's health care plan," which is a false premise. Obama has pointedly made clear in multiple interviews that he has not put forth a plan, nor has he given many specifics as to what a plan should include to get his signature. You can believe the Obama of 2003 and 2007 if you like the single payer plan, or you can believe President Obama who now says the current plans under consideration are in no way a "trojan horse" for a single payer system. What you cannot believe is that Obama has A Plan he provided to the public or to Congress. Such a thing does not exist.

In fact, this is a problem Obama has inflicted on himself twice this year, first with the stimulus bill that he outsourced to the two people with the lowest approval ratings in the country, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid. Of course, they larded it up with crap that can't and won't stimulate the economy, but are long-held wishes of the Left.

Public Undecided
The fourth paragraph of the story leads off with the phrase "Polls show the public is torn over Obama's vision for reform" and is but one variation of the "undecided meme" playing out in the media. And it is a bold-faced lie, one often paired with the "two sides in the debate break mostly along party lines" lie. The truth is more than three quarters of Americans polled are very concerned about the shape of the plans in Congress, and those in favor are dropping below "Elvis is alive" numbers. In fact, the most recent poll finds Americans are overwhelmingly happy -- 80% of them -- with the insurance they have and are worried that Congress will blow it up to make their universal health care plan viable. Nothing that has those kind of numbers can be a one party vs. the other debate. If you have a slice of America 80% wide, then you have what used to be called "bipartisan" support.

Which brings us the the third of the must-have lies for every article on health care:

Sales Job
Coming in the fifth paragraph of the story but widely reported everywhere, is the Big Sales Job lie. As evidence by my local paper's story this morning, and various videos burning up Youtube the real mission is by Democrats is to avoid public discussion at all, if possible, and if a debate must be joined to lie about what's in the bill or feign (let's hope) ignorance. I leave open the possibility that there could be real ignorance in Congress and the Executive Branch, of course. But the sales job meme is just another continuance of a theme the MSM hammered during the campaign, when it seemed that Barack could do no wrong, and words slipped off his silvery tongue to wild applause. Let's face it, unless he's selling Barack he can't sell worth squat!

This has become all too apparent as he holds press conference after prime time snoozer after on-site droning. The man is the best argument against health care reform every time he opens his mouth. The idea that he is any kind of a salesman is an insult to real sales professionals. The hallmark of a good salesman is the ability to provide value through solutions, typified by the well-worn car sales line, "What do I need to do to put you in this car today?" Have you ever heard Obama consider what the public would like to know about "health care reform" in order to make a wise decision? No! He doesn't care what you think, as long as you don't think too long or too hard about what Congress is doing.

The other trait common to good sales professionals is product knowledge, the ability to clearly communicate features and benefits of the service or widget they sell. The public is well aware that every "news conference" he's held on the subject has been famously devoid of actual facts about the bills under construction. Not only is he ignorant of the particulars, he is quick to give off the slimy vibe of someone trying to pull the wool over their customer's eyes. The media can say he is doing a bang-up sales job, but it is so patently false that fewer Americans are buying, and that is why there is such a rush to get a bill -- any bill --signed into law before the popular uprising leaves a permanent taint on the President.

This little post has gone on so long, I don't have time right now to expound on the various "lies of omission" that would round out my take on the article in question. But go ahead, test these lies against your local paper's story on health care reform today. Then ask yourself, "What are they not telling me?" (Hint: tax increases and budget deficits.)

[Edited for spelling and syntax about one hour after original post. Content is the same, just clearer now, I hope.]

Birthers and Truthers are both Stupid

Of all the conspiracy theories one could waste time on, the fretting and arguing over Barack Obama's citizenship is the dumbest. Even if he was born in Kenya or Indonesia, he is an American citizen because his mother was. So whether or not you "believe" the Hawaiian facsimile or not, it doesn't matter. If you are born of American parents -- or even just an American mother -- you are an American. Go ahead, ask a lawyer about that.

For example, if a US citizen is traveling in France and gives birth, the baby is not French. It is a US citizen. There are some countries that will confer dual citizenship, such as happened to friends of mine in South America when their parents where in the peace Corps. But still, being born of Americans they are American. But wait, you say, what about Mexican "anchor babies?" This is a strange interpretation of the Constitution that was invented by Democrats and rarely applies to immigrants other than Latinos crossing our southern border.

And it's not reciprocal. Try having a baby in Guadalajara and see if their government will claim it a s a citizen and give it welfare. In the end, the Birthers, like the psycho Truthers who think somehow the fumbling American government pulled off some grand conspiracy to take down the twin towers -- and got away with it despite thousands of people trying to prove it so -- will not let facts and the evidence in plain sight sway their opinion.

Two months?

I can't believe it has been that long since I had a long-from piece. However, my Twittering has also slowed considerably -- for two reasons: First, I have started a Twitter feed for one of the Brands I manage, and the brief time I can devote to tweets has been allocated mostly to that exercise. And it's fun to interact with customers and enthusiasts too! Second, there is far too much to do for the Brands I work with to tear myself away and offer up commentary or links. I am blessed in that I still have full and interesting employment.

So, all that being said I have some writing in the works and will post to the Tiny Pundit soon. One project is a long post about how Sarah Palin made me tweet. But first, there will be some more...uh...current topics to write about. See ya!

Excerpt from WSJ: Obama's GM Plan Looks Like a Raw Deal

With respect to questions posed by Mr. Nader and Mr. Weissman, number one is intriguing. After all, it costs nothing for GM and Chrysler to allow franchisees to remain in business. What it does accomplish is turning customers of the factory (distributors, in the classic sense) into debtors who hold factory goods and owe money on them, but have no way to return them in lieu of payment. Chrysler has refused to accept cars back from dealers. When their is no obvious answer one's mind turns to the political implications.

And why isn't Congress assertying their rightful place in these negotiations, as they fid in 1979 with Chrysler's first bailout? That is explored more fully in number seven, but fair use does not allow me to reprint the entire article.

Here are samples of the first 5 questions in the article published today:

Congress, not a secret task force, should decide the company's fate.
By RALPH NADER and ROBERT WEISSMAN

1) Has the task force conducted any kind of formal or informal cost-benefit analysis on the costs of a GM bankruptcy and excessive closures? These may include the social effects of lost jobs (including more than 100,000 dealership jobs alone), more housing foreclosures, the government expense of providing unemployment and social relief, lost tax revenues, supplier companies that will be forced to close, damaged consumer confidence in the GM brand, and impacts on GM's industrial creditors.

2) Do GM and Chrysler really need to close as many dealerships -- which do not cost manufacturers -- as have been announced?

3) Is the task force asking for too many plants to close and the elimination of too many brands?

4) Why is the task force permitting GM to increase manufacturing overseas for export back into the U.S.? Under the GM reorganization plan, the company will rely increasingly on overseas plants to make cars for sale in the U.S., with cars made in low-wage countries like Mexico rising from 15% to 23% of GM sales here.

5) Why is the task force supporting GM's efforts to devise a two-tier wage structure, whereby new auto jobs no longer provide a ticket to the middle class?

6) How will bankruptcy affect GM's overseas operations, with special reference to China and GM's corporate entanglements with Chinese partners?

Link to complete Wall Street Journal article here (requires subscription to log in).

Bank of America or Tele-Scam? 800-669-0102

Mowing my lawn this morning I was interrupted by wife, bringing me the telephone. "Who is it?" I whispered.

"B of A," she mouthed. After the brief discussion, which I transcribe as best I can below, I considered the likelihood of this being legitimate. After all, the 800 number that popped up indicated "unknown caller" on my phone. That alone is suspicious when it comes to alleged "debt collectors" calling. Worse, when I called back the number, 800-669-0102 the voicemail said, "Hi this is Stacia," who did NOT say a company name or indicate what position she holds. And hers was definitely not the voice that called me.

Here's my call log with the Indian telemarketer:

Me: "Hello."

Indian telemarketer: "Hello, who am I speaking to?"

Me: I stated my name and added, "Who am I speaking to?"

IT: Her name and, "calling from Bank of America, formerly Countrywide Mortgage and I must inform you that this call is from a debt collector and may be recorded for quality control purposes.

Me: "Really?" Said with slight incredulity.

IT: "This is a courtesy call to determine when you will be making your mortgage payment and in what form."

Me: "Is it past due?" I already knew the answer to this.

IT: "No it is not past due, t is due now and we would like to now when you will make that payment?"

Me: "I don't know but it will be on time. What is the purpose of this call?"

IT: " We are trying to save you a charge of $97 if you pay it late."

Me: "But I'm not late. I'll pay on time, as usual."

IT: "How do you usually make your payment?"

Me: "By check."

IT: "Will that be a written draft or a check by phone?"

Me: "Depends, usually by check but I believe we have paid by phone before as well. I'm puzzled by the purpose of this call since the account is current."

IT: "We would like to know what form the payment will be and when you will make the payment."

Me: "On time. What exactly is the purpose of this call?"

IT: "This is just a courtesy call."

Me: "Well thank you very much for reminding me I have a mortgage. We'll talk to you later. Goodbye."

Then I returned to mowing my lawn, puzzling over the facts presented by this telemarketer, (a) Countrywide is now Bank of America, and (b) they've spent money hiring telemarketers to call customers who are current in their accounts. Why would a company that recently took another Federal handout  at the same time they were buying a pig in a poke whilst their shareholders were firing their chairman be wasting money calling good customers, and in my case at least, wasting their customers' precious weekend time?

Well, what else has B of A been up to this week? Oh yeah! Their stress test indicated they need another $35,000,000,000 to be "healthy" and indicated they should convert some common stock to cash. Sure, I bet people are just lining up to buy that stock now. So, I called a retired bank president and asked him what reason would a bank have for enlisting telemarketers to call and ask for early payments? Mr. B pondered that a bit and admitted he could think of no benefit to B of A that would outweigh the cost. Beyond an immediate influx of cash. But that would not help their long-term capital position.

So, the question remains, what is a bank on the public dole doing bugging good customers who are paying on time. Don't they have something better to do? Once this house is paid off I will never get another mortgage through B of A or C-Wide.

If you don't like this kind of "courtesy call" bullying then call "Stacia" and let her know how you feel: 1-800-669-0102.

RIP: Chrysler | Cars I've Owned

1975 Pontiac Firebird
1974 VW Karmann Ghia
1978 Dodge Aspen
1972 Oldsmobile Delta 88
1985 Isuzu I-Mark
1980 Subaru Hatchback (GL or DL?)
1978 BMW 530i
1986 VW built in Brazil (such a piece of junk I can't even recall its name)
1992 Honda Accord DX
1991 Ford Crown Victoria
2002 Chrysler PT Cruiser
1993 Acura Integra ES
1962 Chevrolet C-10 Pick-up

LA Times: Republicans stage 'tea party' protests against Obama

Thousands of demonstrators in Southern California and elsewhere in the nation demand lower taxes and less government spending. But some GOP pollsters warn that the tactic could backfire.

By Michael Finnegan and Janet Hook
April 16, 2009

Reporting from Washington and Santa Ana -- Republicans sought to ignite a popular revolt against President Obama on Wednesday by staging "tea party" protests across the nation to demand lower taxes and less government spending -- but the tactic carried risk for the party.

With half a million or more jobs vanishing each month, many Americans are less concerned about how much Washington deducts from their paychecks than whether they will have a paycheck at all.



* Tax Day Tea Parties
Photos: Tax Day Tea Parties

"Nothing is as pressing a concern as the economy," said Republican pollster Whit Ayres, adding that even among Republicans the political salience of taxes is not what it once was.

In California, where the Proposition 13 tax rebellion of 1978 sparked a national conservative resurgence, the rallies carried extra resonance, thanks to the nearly $13 billion in state tax hikes enacted in February.

But for Republicans nationally, the issue is whether their call for shrinking the federal government in the depths of a severe economic downturn makes them seem out of touch or tone-deaf to the harsh reality of the jobs crisis.

Gallup polls released this week found that 53% of Americans approve of the expansion of the U.S. government to help fix the economy, even if most of that group wants it scaled back once the crisis abates. And 48% think that the amount of federal income taxes they pay is "about right," a finding that shows anti-tax sentiment near a historic low for the last five decades.

Nonetheless, protesters gathered in cities across America to mark the April 15 tax filing deadline with rallies inspired by the Boston Tea Party and promoted by Fox News, conservative blogs and talk radio.

Among the top grievances were the hundreds of billions of dollars in recent taxpayer subsidies to automakers, banks and Wall Street investment giants.

"All these bailouts, it's just money that's never going to reach the common people," Dan Kipp, a 31-year-old stay-at-home father, said at a demonstration outside the Colorado Capitol in Denver.

Like scores of other protests, from Boston to San Diego, the one in Denver served as a forum for a broad range of attacks on Obama and fellow Democrats who control Congress. Demonstrators waved signs saying, "Don't Blame Me, I Voted for the American" and "Our Soldiers Didn't Fight and Die for Socialism."

The California rallies offered a fresh display of upheaval within the Republican Party over the new sales, income and other tax hikes approved by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Legislature.

In Santa Ana, more than a thousand protesters cheered as speakers called for the Republican governor's recall.

"The guy's got to go," Allan Bartlett, a member of the Orange County Republican Central Committee, told the crowd gathered on a plaza outside the county courthouse.

To dramatize the anger of many conservatives, Colin Gomes of La Mirada brandished a plastic sword piercing a hollow rubber Schwarzenegger head.

"We need to punish him for what he's done," Gomes said shortly before the crowd joined in singing "America the Beautiful."

Gomes and others denounced the budget measures that Schwarzenegger is promoting in the May 19 statewide election, most forcefully Proposition 1A, which, in part, would extend the tax increases for two years.

Still, most of the anger at the California rallies was directed at Obama and the vast expansion of government that he has overseen as the economy has worsened.

Yet the president's high approval ratings for his handling of the economy suggest that most Americans accept his argument that a major increase in federal spending is needed to blunt the crisis.

Obama sought to inoculate himself by building modest tax cuts for most Americans into the stimulus bill, while saying that today's higher spending must give way to frugality and deficit reduction once the economy rebounds.

And so far, Obama seems to be controlling the debate.

"A lot of the discussion has been focused on government spending, but the voters are still focused on one number: the unemployment number," said David Winston, another prominent Republican pollster. "Any time you are not talking about jobs, you are talking about topic No. 2 for Americans. Republicans need to translate the tax and spending issue into jobs."

At least since the days of President Reagan, Republicans have thrived on the anti-spend, anti-tax message -- even if Republican presidents have presided over expansions of the federal deficit.

Today, however, the economic climate is worse than it has been in decades. In November, the country picked a do-more, spend-more presidential candidate over a do-less, tax-less opponent.

And though Republicans insist that Obama's budget will ultimately put upward pressure on taxes, for now Obama is cutting taxes.

But that fact carried little weight with the demonstrators.

"We're just Americans trying to get our voices heard -- about too much taxation and spending, the swelling size of government, the bailouts for big business," protester Robin Todd said at a rally outside the domed Capitol in Sacramento. "That's European-style socialism."

In Glendale, signs bobbing over a crowd of 250 outside City Hall proclaimed: "Taxed Enough Already" and "America, No Left Turn."

In Temecula, where hundreds gathered at a duck pond, a sign warned: "Back Away From My Wallet!" An elderly man wore a blue shirt with "No We Can't!" emblazoned on the back, a rebuttal to Obama's "Yes, We Can" slogan.

Sara Dotson, 17, dressed like an Indian for the occasion. The leader of a local Republican club for teenagers, she helped people hurl mock Styrofoam crates of tea into the pond.

"The sons of liberty dressed like Mohawks for the Boston Tea Party," she said. "That's why I'm wearing this."

michael.finnegan

@latimes.com

janet.hook@latimes.com

Times staff writers Eric Bailey in Sacramento, Ari B. Bloomekatz in Glendale, Richard Cooper in Washington, Richard Fausset in Atlanta, David Kelly in Temecula, Nicholas Riccardi in Denver, Catherine Saillant in Ventura, and Michael Oneal in the Washington bureau contributed to this report.

BlackBerry Bold Surpasses Expectations

After about 10 days with my new Blackberry 9000 (BlackBerry Bold) I am really impressed with the ease of use, power and design of this Research in Motion product. I’m not tech-savvy enough to be a geek, and I have avoided smart phones for a while now. But this device has made me a believer.

For a long time I resisted the urge to get a new phone because I really wanted my phone to just be a phone – not because I’m a technophobe, but because I hate to give up my phone at military sites (a requirement if your phone has a camera or recording device built in), really loved my plan with T-Mobile (which worked in Europe as well), and felt I didn’t need extra services offered in smart phones.

The iPhone changed that. We bought my wife a 3G last year and she loved it. We added cool apps to it and it was a joy to use. However, once she started texting me I couldn’t keep up with my old Motorola. And once the decision to switch was made, it narrowed down to BB or iPhone. One factor made the choice obvious: Enterprise email. And my employer had a killer deal through AT&T and so two days after making that decision my new Bold arrived.

Before I opened the box I was impressed. The “Made in Mexico” tag was encouraging. I’ve been in more than one contract manufacturing plants (such as produce Research in Motion devices) in Mexico and they are very well organized, ultra-modern electronics assembly plants staffed with highly trained locals. So I was confident in the assembly, test and packaging of the device. After unboxing the phone I was amazed at the sleek design and clear layout of the keys and hot buttons. And the screen was very dense with pixels, and provided a rich and clear interface. Wow. The best display I’ve ever seen. Following that, set-up was easy with AT&T and I ported my number over from T-Mobile (goodbye old carrier). For me, the real test of the design is how easy the device is to use without reading the manual.

So before cracking the manual open (and avoiding as much as possible the set-up wizard) I put the BlackBerry Bold to the test. Email loaded and synced with my laptop (through the exchange server) instantly. Within seconds I was downloading Google Maps and Gmail. Minutes later I had moved icons around and personalized my home screen and the full apps menu. At home I was able to sync with my Mac’s addresses through Bluetooth immediately, and joined the wireless (Airport Extreme) network effortlessly. It couldn’t have been easier and as a compliment I’d say the elegance of the design and interface rivals the iPhone in its intuitiveness.

In some ways I like it more than the iPhone: There is an escape key that functions like a go-back button, something I wish for at times when using my wife’s iPhone. The dedicated menu key puts options and actions at your fingertips from within apps and makes switching tasks a breeze. Now to the other apps. Just this week the BlackBerry app store opened, but even before that if you did a little googling you could find these FREE applications easily:

Twitterberry - a decent way to Twitter from your BB although the print is teeny tiny on the screen, and is only really readable if you click through a post to see the full text (it shortens longer tweets to a preview).

Flycast and Slacker Radio – two nice Internet radio programs that are handy, but you should have the unlimited data plan (I do) because they require data downloading. I tends to use Flycast more because they have talk radio and I like to catch up on technology, sports or political news when I’m on the go.

Beyond411 - this search app which is for BB what Urban Spoon is for the iPhone. But it's less fun and not synced to location (though it might do that; I just don’t forage for grub much).

PocketMac – very handy program for syncing the BB with Mac programs (Calendar, Addresses, etc) and very easy if you download the installation to your Mac. I had trouble doing OTA with the BB, but encountered a nice customer service (Lauren) person who pointed my browser in the right direction. This is not necessary for addresses, as that works through Bluetooth, but is a must if you want to sync Entourage or music or bookmarks.

QSMS – a sweet little app that makes the “Q” (on the full qwerty keyboard) act as a hot key to start an SMS text.

Pocket Express – the fastest free app I could find to put weather info on my Blackberry. (I read a review where a lady mentioned another app that places temperature on your home screen, but I’ve been unable to locate that since the day I saw it and this was the second-best option.) It is now my right side hot key.

There are many more, including free themes and ringtones, and even a cheap app that makes your BB screen look like an iPhone with the same icons and interface. But these are the ones I found really useful out of the gate.

After a week of heavy use I love this Bold. You can surf the Web (a real browser) while on the phone and the radio or music functions automatically pause while you take calls. Overall, a well thought-out and (I’ll say it again) elegant design. Battery life is good (all day with continuous use in multiple functions). Charging times are pretty short. Once I had exhausted my ability to sort out the features and functions I used the manual. Great keyboard shortcuts (space space puts a period and capitalizes the next letter. Neat!) and some tips on subtle difference detectable in icons. And there are few downsides to the device.

One downer is the desktop manager. There is little functionality and I still haven’t been able to transfer my extensive (8.5 years) Palm records over. Once connected by cable the desktop utility is slow, weird and set in its ways. This is an area where the geniuses at RIM should apply their skills. But for what it is supposed to do, it does pretty well. Items from Outlook (calendar and email) are uploaded. Events from iCal on the Mac upload as well, and so far no data was lost. Back-up gave an ominous warning and did not complete but I think I’ve fixed that now.

All in all, a pleasing experience and a pain-free migration from dumb phone to smart.

That old blog feeeling

Do you ever forget a password, and then get so busy you forget to go back and fix it?

Have you ever run across an old, abandoned blog of your own? Man, kinda like a time capsule. Never did keep up that Chevy truck site, but I did eventually finish restoring the truck!

Before Bush Issue 3 -- Extraordinary Rendition

Continuing my mini-series illustrating the historical context of the Bush presidency, this weeks issue takes a look at the practice of extraordinary rendition -- or simply "rendition" just like the bad movie from 2007 -- whereby suspected enemy combatants or terrorists are taken to an "ally" country where they can be held or questioned by entities not under authority of US laws.

Sometimes those allies are erstwhile "friends" of the US such as Egypt or Saudi Arabia. The practice is controversial, as it may or may not violate treaties we have with other democratic allies. But it has been a useful tool in the pursuit of terrorists. And Obama is keeping this tool handy.

Mainstream media reports often (purposely I believe) provide the impression that this practice originated with George W. Bush and is unique to his presidency. That's incorrect. The record is clearly different and as this article states, the program "began under Bill Clinton, the last Democratic president, in the early 1990s."

Could these targets have been pursued and prosecuted under the law enforcement model put forth by Barack Obama during his run for president? Perhaps, but it is clear that he is presently prepared to carry on the tradition of the last two presidents and keep his options open.

Before Bush Issue 2 -- Kyoto Protocol DOA

It may come as a surprise to some people newly interested in the Hope and Change of politics, that the American response to the Kyoto Protocol has been consistently negative stretching back to the second term of Clinton. Before Bush (for an explanation of this Series please click here) "rejected" the Kyoto Treaty it had been decidedly tabled for lack of support.

In 1997 the Senate voted 95-0 to adopt a resolution stating that ''the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto.'' Given that result, presidnet clinton wisely refrained from signing the treaty and submitting it to a vote.

So Before Bush was president, the senate unanimously and bipartisanly rejected Kyoto as an nonviable treaty. By the way, since then the USA has made more progress towrd reaching targeted reductions in greenhouse gases than any of the signatories to Kyoto. And Bush was the first president to build and occupy a sustainable green home.

Before Bush - Introduction

While reading through the posts on Twitter on the day of President Obama's inauguration and the glee with which his first policy announcements were greeted an idea began to form in the Tiny Pundit's brain. Granted this is not all that original an idea as many better writers than I have attempted to influence the tide of information about the Bush administration in light of the historical facts that apply to the execution of the office of the president.

My theory is that many Twitter users are so young they can't remember much about politics before Bush became president, and have been fed a steady diet of the mainstream media nonsense that leaves out any historical context when discussing policy. Of course, now that Obama has been crowned, er, inaugurated, the media have no end of comparison with historical figures such as Roosevelt and Lincoln. But the MSM sure won't provide a complete picture of the extraordinary executive power these men wielded in times of emergency.

Suspending Habeas corpus? Interring foreign born citizens or Americans of questionable ancestry? Torture? Extraordinary rendition? Readers may be surprised to learn that these policies are not the work of Bush & Co. Indeed, there are a lot of Things that Existed Before Bush that bear telling, even though the sacrosanct accepted version of history is ALL that is evil took office January 20, 20001 and all is well now.

In the coming days -- or weeks -- I will post a tidbit per day (on average) attempting to enlighten my young friends on Twitter. This series will be titled Before Bush. Each day's piece will be pithy and easily digested but will include a link back to this post to provide more of that needed "context" so lacking in MSM reporting.

You can save a life for $25

If you could save a life for a few bucks would you? If you could save two lives for $25 would you do it? If it was tax deductible and you could win a truck, LCD TV or iPod would you do it? $25 isn't much but it might be enough to save a life or two.

A family friend is Executive Director of a pregnancy resource center and their ultra-sound machine is dying. She shared with me a shocking statistic: 98% of teens who are considering abortion change their mind after seeing an ultrasound of their baby.

However you feel about a woman's right to choose, the truth is it is the mother's choice and the more women who choose life save at least one life. And there are many couple waiting for a chance to adopt a baby, and that is a happy outcome as well. Every woman I know who underwent an abortion procedure came to regret it later, in some way. It is a difficult experience for all involved and the pain can last for years.

So how can your $25 help? You can enter a raffle and gain a tax deduction in the process. This weekend I'll spend time making up a web site and mailer for the Center. We got the idea for the car raffle after hearing Hugh Hewitt promote one on his radio show for a charity in Orange County. If you know someone who can help publicize this or you want to receive the email invitation and send it on to your family and friends, please drop me a note at mjbwolf@gmail.com and I'll respond with the letter when it is ready and a link to the Web site.

If you are reading this blog then you are witnessing the birth of an idea, and it may result in a lifesaving ultrasound machine for a worthy charity. Please pass on the message and check back here for more information

The Best Cure for Hiccups

This has nothing to do with marketing, culture or politics. It has to do with helping people live better lives. And I'm giving away the secret for free! Because it works. And I'm a helpful giving person. This has worked every time (100%) I led someone else through it and always for myself.

CURE HICCUPS
1. Exhale completely, even more so than you think you can.
2. Inhale deeply two more times, immediately exhale completely each time.
3. Inhale deeply and hold your breath. Keep holding!
4. When you feel you can no longer hold your breath, breathe in a little more to extend your time.
5. Repeat if necessary, and it usually takes only one to two cycles to completely stop hiccuping.

Note about children: Step 3 is difficult for kids because for some reason they hear "inflate your cheeks" when you tell them "hold your breath" so you may need to explain the concept of inflating their luings with demonstrative repetition and showing them how your chest expands when you actually inhale. Still the system does work for kids too!

After doing some research I see there are some people who have a similar method, but the one above is a bit simpler and easier to coax children into performing correctly. This was developed by trial and error and until I began typing this post, I was unaware anyone else had used this method. That's because mine predates the existence of the internet.

LA Times Hates Prayer, Bans God from Sports Section

Kurt Streeter’s Sports opinion piece (abstract here, full article is hidden in the archive*) yesterday posed as an article written by God complaining about so many prayers by athletes, illustrated with a close-up of Tim Tebow from Florida with the citation for John 3:16 on his Muller strips (under his eyes). Anyone who watched the BCS title game last Thursday probably noticed young Mr. Tebow, who wears his faith visibly.

Apparently, Kurt Streeter and the L.A. Times have seen enough! This typical mainstream opinion pieces is full of the bigotry and cluelessness we have come to expect from the L.A. Times when they address “sensitive issues” like evangelical Christianity. Packed with whining, vitriol, allusions to evolution and at least one reference to student athletes praying that labels this act “holy war,” Streeter’s ignorance of how and why Christians pray is striking. But his preference is clear: It should stop!

Could this be the same L.A. Times that praised the Muslim basketball player who refused to stand for the National Anthem? I’m sure it is. So why doers Streeter single out Christian athletes and their prayers? Because he has a narrow view and he wants you to share it.

You see, the gist of his article is a complaint that there are so many things God has to worry about, and so many serious issues requiring His attention that He doesn’t have time for your stupid pleas for strength or “a win” as Streeter puts it, and He can’t be bothered to hear your thanks. Streeter’s whole premise rests on the assumption that the only time athletes pray is when they are on national television and you are watching.

Of course, and practicing Christian knows that we are to have an “attitude of prayer” throughout the day. And we are to give thanks to God continuously. And maybe Streeter doesn’t know it, but Tebow and many athletes thank God every day – maybe every hour – for the physical gifts He has given them. During the brief time that the camera is trained on them, they give the same thanks to God, but the audience is larger. Mainstream Media sometimes has a problem in assuming that they make the story instead of just report it.

Finally, about the headline the Times assigned Streeter’s story: In this Spirited Debate, He Wins! I really had hope of a balanced article upon seeing the headline and the photo of Tebow with John 3:16. But the slant was completely opposite to the headline (as many are in the L.A. Times). So, if you have any complaints about my headline to this post, just access your sense of irony, the same one you use to filter the headlines in the Times.

* It shouldn’t be hard to find one lying about in SoCal if you drive down any suburban street today. Many “subscribers” don’t bother to collect them.

Obama Rhetoric vs. Blago's Style

Listening to Blago defend himself live on the radio just now, I was struck by the great communication ability he displayed (I couldn't see it, obviously, but it sounded extemporaneous). It was simple and direct, although not the least believeable, he made it all sound so plausible. This is in sharp contrast to Barack Obama, who I consider a very poor deliverer of speeches and a horrendous creater of off-the-cuff remarks.

Why does everyone say he gives a great speech? I have never heard it, and if not for the shrieking of Hilary he would have been the worst of the lot in the Democratic primary. I listened -- and how can you avoid him, really -- to his speech on race, his convention speech and various pronouncements since then. I never liked one of them. The Emperor has no game.

His pacing is wooden and ponderous, his style bloated and self-important. (Not to mention his unscripted remarks have more huhs and ums than a sixteen-year-old's telephone conversation.) He remains in campaign mode, which means he can not provide specifics or clear direction. Even a few days ago, in saying we have moved beyond terms like small government and big government to an era of smart government. What does that mean? It's political cotton candy. It is light and fluffy and sweet and absolutely devoid of substance. Unless Mark Steyn is correct, and it means "smart" is the next in a series that goes from "small" to "big" and continues growing.

Every speech Obama gives is a string of meaningless phrases stitched together with his egotistical rhetorical flourishes, to my ear. It's lawyer talk without the benefit of actually having to have made convincing arguments before a jury. Like 48% of American voters, I remain unconvinced Obama knows what he's doing or is willing to tell us what he will do. We'll see in 12 days.

Star Tribune Buries the Lede

As usual, the Powerline guys are invaluable for providing original reporting on the Muslim Brotherhood's first U.S. Congressman. And they put the lie to the myth that Bloggers don't do journalism. Being a craft, and not a profession, anyone can "do journalism" if they put their energy into it. Read their post if you want to see the story mainstream media won't tell you about how Hamas is connected to a Democrat in Congress.