What's the Deal with Multi-Touch?

I have long viewed this blog as more than just a political soapbox -- hoping for it to be more a platform for the discussion of a number of topics as varied as my interests. As such, I hope you'll entertain a slight deviation from my typical political banter -- and perhaps also help to answer a long-nagging question I've had: "What is the deal with multi-touch?"

I've always been an avid technology enthusiast, so the evolving mobile phone market has long held my interest. While the iPhone was a transformative device that has forever altered the way we think about interacting with our devices, it's never fascinated me. I've always preferred the idea of an open system that doesn't place artificial limitations on what I can do with it. (See, Liberty isn't just a political ideal!) As a result, I've always rooted for the "underdog" mobile phone platform: Google's Android.

Since Google announced an Over-the-air (OTA) update for the Nexus One, the current flagship Android device, everyone's been clamoring about the fact that the update enables multi-touch gesturing support in the core applications, (think Google Maps). The blogosphere has been abuzz about it since early last week. (Here's a smattering of the coverage: here and here.) Actually, people have been yapping about that since the beginning of the Android "revolution". Virtually every review of every Android device I've ever read has included a standard complaint that bemoans the lack of multi-touch. And every time I read one of these, I have to ask myself "What's the big deal?"

Granted, I've never used in iPhone or an iPod Touch. But, I just don't get what's so important about that single pinch gesture. Frankly, having watched a good number of slightly older individuals struggling to pinch their iPhones "just right", it looks cumbersome and odd. Plus, I like to be able to use my phone with one hand. Multi-touch invariably requires one hand to hold the phone and another to interact with it. We're not talking about a device that's large enough to be self-supporting or set on a tabletop so one can use it without holding it. We're talking about a (reasonably small) phone. Multi-touch seems a waste, and I'd prefer to see Google focus on innovating (i.e. coming up with other/easier ways of interacting with the phone) rather than imitating the has-been known as the iDon't.

I'm obviously in the minority here, or I'm missing something that's perhaps painfully obvious to others. If you have any thoughts on this, I'd love to hear them. Thanks for letting me get on one of my soap-boxes.

Destroying Our Future. One Dream at a Time.

I think it's quite possible that pigs may have learned to fly. (And, I'm not referring to aircraft-assisted flight, or to the soaring level of pork under the current Democrat Congress/Administration.) I am referring to the fact that I have finally found an area in which I do not want to see spending cuts: Our space program.

According to Fox News, Obama's spending plan for the coming year freezes NASA's budget at it's current level. While I applaud the new-found spending restraint, this essentially puts the brakes on NASA's Constellation program, which oversees the agency's manned space flight efforts. And while holding the budget at current levels isn't a cut, it amounts to a beheading, as

"The program needs about $3 billion in additional funding annually for the next five years to keep the International Space Station supplied and to create a new generation of spacecraft, according to a commission the president appointed last year."

By failing to give the agency what it needs to continue the program, he's basically cutting the program in its entirety. (Unless, of course, NASA is able to cut enough costs elsewhere to continue the program.)

But is this really the right program to cut? Obama just gave a lacklustre State of the Union address in which he hailed our need to create jobs. But, how many jobs does the program provide? Moreover, these are high-paying jobs that require a high degree of education and specialization. That seems a bit of a hypocrisy, given the daily deluge of Public Service Announcements featuring Obama yapping about how we should "stay in school" to help keep America competitive. Some competition: By cutting this program, NASA will be forced to "outsource space flight to other governments -- such as the Russians." That sounds more like surrender than competition to me.

One may think the decision to cut the program to be simply a practical one: we have to cut somewhere, right? Well, not so fast. In cutting the program,

"...the White House will direct NASA to concentrate on earth science projects -- principally, researching and monitoring climate change..." (emphasis mine)

So now we see the real reason for the decision: Manned space flight doesn't help him advance his political agenda, but climate change does. So, we're trading the hopes and dreams of a nation that was once inspired to put a men on the moon in exchange for the futility of chasing a scientific hoax.

Small Business: The Real Enemy of the State

This may come as a shock to some of you, but to Obama, America's real enemy isn't terrorism, Al Qaeda, or the Taliban: It's Small Business. Last weeks' dog and pony show known as the jobs summit is all the proof we need. Obama's own words prove my point:

Despite the progress we've made, many businesses are still skittish about hiring. Some are still digging themselves out of the losses they incurred over the past year. Many have figured out how to squeeze more productivity out of fewer workers. And that cost-cutting has become embedded in their operations and in their culture. That may result in good profits, but it's not translating into hiring and so that's the question that we have to ask ourselves today: How do we get businesses to start hiring again?

For those who do not yet know how to interpret this President, let me translate:

Many businesses have lost money over the last year. And now, they're so concerned with making a profit that they're taking advantage of their poor, oppressed employees by squeezing more productivity and/or hours out of them. They're mercilessly cutting costs and benefits to increase their profits. So, how can we get businesses to realize that they exist to hire and serve their employees? Without banning or capping their profits, how can we get small businesses to sacrifice their profits for the good of the oppressed (and the Country)?

Since the real enemy of the state is Small Business (and the profits held by the Private Sector in general), it's no wonder the Senate Health Care bill (in its current form) intentionally increases insurance premiums for the self-employed and the small business owner. Only by increasing the risk of taking an entrepreneurial venture can America truly eliminate the entrepreneurial spirit that has helped make this country great. And only by eliminating the evil profits from the private sector can we create the conditions for economic growth. And only by sacrificing the good of the one can we secure the good of the many.

This is the world, according to Obama. Personally, I subscribe to the view of Adam Smith: (my paraphrase): FWhen individuals were free to pursue their own self-interest, the good of the many is the natural result.

Senate Health Care Bill Increases Premiums for Self-Employed

The Washington Post is revelling in the news that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has released an analysis of the Senate Health Care Bill, claiming that "the measure would leave premiums unchanged or slightly lower for the vast majority of Americans" (emphasis mine). They'd like you to stop reading at that sentence and assume that this bill does the job of reducing health insurance premiums for those who need it most. But, who is not included in the "vast majority"?

The answer may surprise you. In fact, in my opinion, this legislation does the least to reduce insurance costs for those who can use the most help: the self-employed. According to the CBO, "the measure would have its most dramatic impact on the individual market. Becuase they are not part of a workforce or other group that can pool its risk, consumers tend to pay more for policies with fewer benefits." Moreover, the CBO concludes that "premiums [in the individual market] would be 10 to 13 percent higher, on average, than under current law, climbing to $5,800 a year for individuals and $15,200 for family coverage."

So, while the Democrats in Congress would like you to believe that this report is a victory for their bill, it's really a huge failure. This bill raises health insurance rates the most for those who need the help the most. And, because the self-employed are the entrepreneurs of America, what this bill really does is to discourage the entrepreneurial spirit that contributes to the greatness of America.

Michelle is so Valuable, Nobody Can Replace Her

Yes, that's right folks: Michelle Obama is so valuable, she can't be replaced. Her former employer, the University of Chicago Medical Center, found that she did so much to earn her $317,000 annual salary (in only 20 hours a week), that they decided not to fill the position when she resigned.

Now, call me a cynic, but I can't help but think that they're not filling the position for one reason: she already did what they paid her to do. You see, one of the very few things Barack Obama did while a United States Senator was to request a $1 million earmark for the University of Chicago Medical Center. I guess she did earn her keep. Or she would have if the earmark had passed the Senate! Since she failed, though, I can't help but think that they ought to sue for breach of contract.

(Note: This is old news, originally covered by the American media in January of 2009. But leave it to the Canadian media to bring up such juicy information that the American media just glossed over it. And despite the fact that this is old news, it still illustrates the both the level of corruption that has invaded our White House, and the ability of our Media to gloss over a story that doesn't help advance their agenda. HT: @KatyinIndy.)

Europe: "America, Don't Repeat Our Mistakes"

The Center for Freedom and Prosperity just put out a amazing tool for use in defeating the attempts to overthrow our health care system. In about 5 minutes, the video lays out a number of facts about the nature of American health care spending, and the leading contributor to high health care prices (hint: it involves government and spending). It's well worth your time. (And even more worth your Liberal friends' time!)



HT: Dan Mitchell at BigGovernment.com

Obama's Really a War Hawk

I bet you've never thought of him that way, but Obama is really a war hawk. Or, one would think that based on his pell-mell rush to lead us into a full-scale (potentially nuclear) mid-east conflict. That is the conclusion (one conclusion among many) of the piece,
Lose Afghanistan, Lose Pakistan, Lose Iran, Lose It All, by Jason Lewis in today's American Thinker.

The stakes in the Middle East are higher than they've ever been, and Obama's foreign policy failures just push us closer to the brink of a war we may not be able to avoid. Two particular areas are of particular concern: In Afghanistan, "Gen. McChrystal wants more troops. Obama doesn't want to send them because he needs the money to promote his socialist take-over of America. You can't have both." And in Iraq,"Ahmadinejad will have nuclear weapons too, and he already has enough radioactive materials for a dirty nuke, a low-tech weapon that can spread terror everywhere in the world". Some have speculated (and I believe) that Iran will have a nuke within one year.

Until then, we have a deadlock of sorts:

"If Israel attacks Tehran, the Iranians will try to retaliate, either by a missile strike or by local attacks using Hezbollah and Hamas. If Israel does not attack Tehran, the Iranians will try to attack Tel Aviv anyway, because it is the key plank in their ideological doctrine, the one they have been chanting about for thirty years. For Israel it's just in the difference in the timing of an inevitable war. It's damned if you do, damned if you don't. So it makes more sense for Israel to attack first, and expect to defend immediately against Iranian retaliation. It is far, far better to do that before the Iranians get actual nukes."
...
[But,] Will the United States back Israel in a preemptive war? If so, and if preemptive strikes succeed, we can keep the rogues in their place. Beating down Iranian nukes will signal to the other rogues that nuclear weapons are not the ace in the hole they think it is.

That is why Afghanistan and its neighbor Pakistan, AfPak, is a historic watershed moment. If we lose in Afghanistan and the Taliban win, and they can combine with their brethren in Pakistan to get control over a nuclear weapon, and we will see an Al Qaeda look-alike with nukes. That's what Cheney and Bush were warning us about. India can't afford that, and they are quickly arming up. China can't afford it either.

The same logic applies to Iran. Ahmadinejad has been threatening not just Israel and the United States, but the Saudis and Gulf States. The Saudis have financed Pakistan's nuclear program to be able import them instantly, as soon as Tehran gets its own.

It is the United States that keeps its finger in this dike. Pull that finger out, and we'll see a flood.

So we lose, and the world does, too, if we don't beat down the threat. If we succeed in defending the world in alliance with other countries, we will survive and the gangster regimes will be held back."

Right now, our best bet is to keep the nukes out of the hands of terrorists like Ahmadinejad, and to defeat the terrorists in Afghanistan. But, Obama's refusal to stand up to anyone on the national scene leaves me with but one conclusion: He's really a war hawk, driving us ever-closer to war with his own ineptitude.