Initial impressions regarding my Mac

A week ago I posted that I was changing computers. The Mac Mini arrived yesterday, and I've been playing with it for about a day so far. So far, the start up is faster than my Vista desktop from Gateway. Now, this is an interesting comparison. The Vista desktop has the Core two duo at 3 Ghz. with two gigabites of ram. The Mac Mini has the 2 Ghz chips, and half the ram. Yet it renders the video faster and while it was doing a backup I was able to watch the movie 300.

Now, my old printer is not Mac compatible, so I'm shopping around for a new printer, and looking at one that will tie into my Wi-Fi system.

Webpages are fine, although there is a small problem with some pages having issues with the included web browser "safari" which isn't too bad other wise. No locking up of the computer has happened. No lock up issues, and Leopard was installed easily over an hour without any issues so far.

I've only played around in the "office" programs, since I can't print yet, but I'll let you know if I'm disappointed. So far, so good.

CNN helps Democrats plant another operative

After CNN got busted by the various bloggers planting questions and misleading the viewers about the identity of questioners, you would think that they would have learned their lesson. After all, Drudge has more hits each day than CNN has viewers. The truth will explode if they try it again right? They wouldn't have the audacity to try and do it again right?

Well they did. Hot Air is one of those reporting the story. Just identify the guy, CNN. His question’s perfectly fair. And, apropos of nothing, Hunter’s answer is awful.

The problem is that CNN won't ever identify a Liberal as a Liberal, much less as a person whom they cherry picked from the Clinton Campaign. For some reason, we can't be honest about what we are talking about if Liberals are doing the talking. They can't tell the truth, they just won't do it.

CNN is one of those networks that refers to every conservative as an Extreme Right Wing Republican. However, they never refer to the Radical folks over at the National Association of Gals as extreme.

CNN, here is a suggestion. Now that people are watching carefully, and checking the facts, something I can only assume your writers used to do for you, why not be honest? I mean, when the General speaks, put into the print for those viewers at home he's a member of the steering committee for Kerry, and is a listed member of Senator Clinton's campaign? What harm will come of it? Isn't it better to put the facts out there on your own, instead of having them thrown up to show the people that you are even more biased than they think?

UPDATE: CNN has claimed that they didn't know the General was a part of the Clinton campaign. A link to the Youtube video. I find it hard to believe that with all the producers and all the staff that no one was assigned to punch the names into Yahoo. They flew the guy out to the Debate for a follow up, and during the discussions with him, they never asked if he was affiliated with a campaign? Hello is it me or is this sounding a little thin?

National Organization for Women silent on womens issues.

The National Association of Gal's (NAG's) are silent when women are sentenced to 200 lashes in Saudi Arabia for being Gang Raped. No call for action, no demand for action. Nope, seems that the NAG's don't mind that punishment.

How about the British teacher in Sudan who has been charged for allowing the children to name a teddy bear? That sound you hear is the sound of silence.

What are they calling for action on? Calls to demand that Walmart carry the morning after abortion pill. Calls for Bush to fund Abortion clinics around the world, and an end to don't ask don't tell.

The National Organization for Women actually represents the interests of women about as much as the worst abusive husbands do. As long as the Abortions are being funded by the Government, the NAG's don't care about how the women love.

Tammy Bruce, a self described Gay Feminist is outraged that NOW is silent. Well, it seems that NOW is only interested in getting women abortions, other than that, they don't seem to care how they are treated. The most recent comment from NOW is that their online store reflects big savings opportunities for you to buy NOW junk for the unnamed holiday season.

NAG's, tell you what. I'll support you when you actually give a damn about any woman other than Hillary. In the mean time, I guess we'll leave it to the US Military to worry about Women's rights around the world eh?

Is it time for polygraphs for the police?

Friends, I am no fan of Police, and I'm not opposed to the Police, I am a big supporter of truth, and justice. I disagree with the overwhelming power of the police, and the automatic believability of the officer. One example comes to mind. I was in a municipal court, and watching the various cases handled by the magistrate judge. One police officer had arrested six different people for possession of Marijuana when he had stopped them for other offenses. Each time, the same officer ran down a list of things that informed him that the suspect was under the influence of marijuana or it had been used recently.

If he had played a tape of the commonly seen/smelled clues, it would have sounded no different.

After the third time I saw it, I began to wonder if he ever smelled anything other than a "smell not unlike hay burning" or if anyone who ever talked to him had anything but "bloodshot eyes." Now, I am not saying this police officer was lying. I'm not saying anything like that, however I was suspicious about his testimony.

First, let me clear the air. All police are not liars, thugs, bullies, or abusive. The same remains true on the other side, all Police are not dedicated public servants who selflessly man the thin blue line between the public and the barbarians in our society.

It is a fact that people with Top Secret clearances have to take polygraph, or lie detector tests to maintain their security clearance. Now, that being said, why don't we require the same type of thing for the Police? Every six months, or every year, they take a lie detector test.

"Have you planted evidence on any suspect in order to get a conviction? Have you lied to the court or your superiors to cover up any improper behavior? Have you taken any items that do not belong to you except items which were issued to you by the department or otherwise authorized by the department for your use?" Could be the early example questions.

Now, before you decry the lie detectors, I already know they aren't admissible in a court of law, but that's not the point of their use. If you fail the polygraph test, you aren't put into jail, like the people with the top secret clearances, you just aren't allowed to work in that area any more. Take the test over, have someone else administer the test.

We don't do that for some reason. While we are happy to allow people with top secret clearances to take the tests every now and then to make sure they remain loyal and honest with their superiors, we don't demand the same from other public service sector employees.

How many good honest selfless members of the police would be affected by this type of test? Zero, none, none at all. How many thugs in uniform, those damn fools who give cops everywhere a bad name would be affected? Hopefully all of them.

Of course, you and I are reasonable and intelligent enough to know that this won't happen. Even discussing it as a possibility would have the police unions striking from one end of the nation to the other.

Tom Brokaw and his erronious ideals

In Brokaw's new book, it would appear that he joins the parade lauding the accomplishments of Gloria Steinem. While pushing the book on the radio show for Laura Ingraham and was asked why he didn't highlight the accomplishments of Phyllis Schlafly in his feminist accomplishments chapter.

In 1976, the Equal Rights Amendment was the stated position of most of the states, it was on the party platforms of both political parties, Republicans and Democrats. So in other words, it was the official position of nearly everyone. Newspapers, news shows, television personalities, and about every politician in the country was behind the Equal Rights Amendment. On the other side, you had Phyllis Schlafly, and to quote Ann Coulter, that was enough. The Equal Rights Amendment is again on the platform of the Democrats, yet it's not going anywhere, because Phyllis Schlafly shot it down once, and that was all that was needed.

It's interesting that Brokaw didn't bother to either notice, or understand this. I wonder why? Liberals always want to re-write the history of the 1960's and the 1970's. Apparently Brokaw is one of those who decide what impact and influence is. Shooting down the Equal Rights Amendment almost single handed wasn't enough of an impact.

I'm changing computers.

As I type this on an older Laptop running a Pentium 4 chip and Window's XP SP2 software, I do so knowing that next week I'll be expecting delivery of a new Apple Mac. Yes, I'm buying a Mac, and here is why.

I was a dedicated Window's user. Having jumped on the bandwagon with DOS, and then Windows 3.1, I am familiar with the Window's products and uses. However, with each OS upgrade and each new computer over the last 20 years or so, I've noticed something. The Operating Systems get more complicated, but you can't do as much. Now, with two machines in the house running Vista, I've had it.

First, the security nonsense. If I clicked on the link, I want to run the program. It's really that simple. I shouldn't have to allow every stupid thing I do. If I turn the security stuff off, then Vista reminds me my computer is vulnerable ever few freaking minutes. Printers, scanners, digital cameras, all have issues with Vista. It's like Microsoft expected you to go out and buy new everything to keep Vista happy. Apple's ad's are funny, and true.

So I'm going to be walking to Mac and checking it out. Starting with the Mac Mini, I'm going to see if it does the things I want to, or if the long problems of software shortages will continue to be a problem. Frankly, all the software in the world that won't run on Vista reliably isn't much use to me. If Mac performs as advertised, not just by the advertisements, but my friends three of whom have recently switched to Mac's swear by them, then I may be saying goodbye to windows for a very long time.

Before you ask what does this have to do with the Conservative theme of your blog, that should be apparent now shouldn't it? A conservative approach is if something works, use it. If it doesn't find something else that will work. A Liberal approach is to stay with something, out of loyalty, even if it doesn't work, because intentions matter. Well, I'm conservative, and I'm going to check out a Mac, to see if it will work for what I need it to do. I'll post my personal experiences here, to see if I can tell you all that Mac's are as useful as I hear them to be.

In a way, it's sort of like watching the foreign car craze of the 1970's and 1980's all over again. The Big Three managed to turn out cars that didn't last, sucked amazing amounts of gasoline, and broke down frequently. In other words, they turned out cars that did everything but allow you to drive them. While Toyota, Nissan nee Datsun, Honda, and the rest, turned out ugly little cars that at least ran reliably, and sucked very little gas by comparison. Again the conservative approach, if it works, use it. My father bought a 1974 Toyota Corolla and drove it back and forth to work for the next 12 years. He never had a real problem with the car, it started reliably, and ran reliably. By the time it was finally retired, it had over 150,000 miles on it, and would have still been running, except for that little problem of being rear ended in an accident and totaled out. It had no frills, no Air Conditioning, AM radio only, for those of you old enough to remember when that was normal.

So since Windows appears to be more trouble than it's worth any more, I'm going to check out a Mac. Conservativism at it's core.

President (Chairman Mao) Chavez demands obedience

In a news story, the Dictator Chavez claimed that anyone who voted against his proposed reforms would be a traitor. If the politicians refused to essentially name him President for life, they would be committing treason. Another historical first? Not hardly.

Another famous world leader held much the same pose as he directed not only his lifetime appointment as supreme leader, but demanded that the people there too read his little red book.

It seems that whenever you have a poor and uneducated population, you have a communist dictator demanding unlimited obedience to him.

Do we want to see another China, Viet-nam, Cambodia, and the normal millions dead from the Communist dream? Apparently, Chavez does.