A new Vanity Fair/60 Minutes poll (January 2010) asks if "you could confidently explain what exactly the public option is to someone who didn't know?"

Keep in mind that the public option is one of the 5 biggest issues in the country right now--and has been such for several months going.

A whopping 66% of respondents said "no" to that question.

One of my favorite movies has a fictional President claim that "America is advanced citizenship".

Well, what happens when the citizenry decides to punt on its responsibilities?

Does America--"the land of the free"-- cease to exist?

Just wonderin'

So it appears that President Obama is going to send more troops to Afghanistan. I applaud the decision...although I do reserve judgement on the "strategy" until I get a better chance to digest it.

Anyhow, the point of this post is this: not too long ago several voices on the left bluntly stated that if Obama sends more troops, VP Biden should resign. Biden,of course, has not been supportive of increased troop presence in Afghanistan, and let us not forget that HE is the one with all the foreign-policy expertise, blah blah blah. The logic on the left was that if Obama would ignore Biden's input on this very important decision, then why have him one heartbeat away from the Presidency?

First of all, I'm glad Obama is ignoring Biden on this issue. The VP's counsel is off-the-mark...as is almost always the case on these issues. Biden has a long history of wrong-footing big military issues, Afghanistan being just another example of his poor understanding of the world in which we live.

But to the larger point raised by the left: why is Biden still our VP? He's the key overseer of the stimulus efforts, and by now everybody knows how ludicrous the governments claims have been in this arena. Also, there's millions and maybe even billions of stimulus dollars that are unaccounted for--that goes straight to Biden. Throw in his poor counsel on a major policy topic where American and Afghan lives are at stake, add into the mix his penchant for putting his foot in his mouth while the microphone is still turned on...and you have to wonder:

How much longer will we be able to mess with Joe?

Secondary wonder: will any member of the press ask these kinds of questions?

Is this the droid I've been looking for? (UPDATED)

Earlier this week, I bought a Motorola Droid. For the uninitiated, that means I bought a new smartphone, or a combination phone and personal data device. I have spent the last couple days getting used to the device, and today I will finally post some thoughts on it.

First of all, this is a fun gadget. I love being able to access YouTube and to watch all those videos on the go. Also, just tonight I took the google star map out for a spin, and it is great! I'm sure there are other great apps available that I hope to find over the next days and weeks.

The phone uses the Android OS, and if you're looking for a lengthy discussion of that system here, you'll be disappointed. My knowledge of Android is this: there were earlier versions; the droid uses v2.0; and the system is pretty quick. I don't know how powerful the OS is because I haven't really taken it through the paces, but so far I haven't been left wanting.

The hardware is a tad bulky by current market standards. The incorporation of a qwerty keyboard means an increase to the form factor over some competitors, including the Droid Eris, which is another new phone offered for Verizon customers. Still, this phone feels good in my hands.

It should be noted that my prior phone was a Palm Treo 680. I've spent the last several years looking for a smaller smartphone--only to find myself taken with a phone that is noticeably bigger than the Treo. The Treo is much thicker, however, and the droid doesn't feel as bulky as what I'm used to. That doesn't mean you won't find it to feel "big", though.

While I'm comparing Treos to droids, I have to point out one big difference between the two: single-hand texting. It's pretty easy to go one-handed with the treo, but it's a non-starter on the droid. I know, not a show-stopper or anything--but it is worth mentioning. Also, the treo's default phone app is much more intuitive than is the droid's, and the screen of the treo is easier to use in sunlight. In fact, the droid's phone app screen is almost unuseable in direct sunlight--a situation that I hope to remedy soon.

But the droid is the new car in the driveway, and it provides great bang for its buck. Yes, single-hand texting is gone the way of the do-do--but in its place is the aforementioned sliding qwerty keyboard and a dual-aspect virtual keyboard. Several reviews have panned the hardware's keyboard, and I will join their chorus. I just couldn't get the thing to type right, so it is already relegated to back-up mode. The virtual keyboards fare much better--in fact, I am writing this on the landscape-oriented virtual keyboard.

The droid is an excellent internet device. I am able to surf my favorite sites with only minor inconveniences brought on due to the device's size. Surfing speeds when on the 3G network are excellent. I am able to do just about everything I used to do on my desktop, to include check e-mails, check out facebook, and blog. Did I mention that I'm writing this post on the droid? Just thought I'd throw that in there.

The camera on the droid has received a lot of attention, too--with a fairly even split of likes and dislikes. I am in the like column--but I'll be upfront in telling you that the droid is only a good alternative to a real camera rather than a primary device for capturing photographic memories. The pics I'll post with this article were taken with the droid in good lighting conditions and using the zoom feature (the pics were taken from about 60 yards off the playing field). The camera does have a flash, but it hasn't been very practical for me.

The battery is sufficient for a couple hours of use--if you set up the display for lower battery consumption modes.
In sum: I do like the droid. . .but I can't help but wonder if the Eris by HTC is a better option. There are some bells and whistles that you get for springing the extra dough on the droid (qwerty keyboard, built-in google maps), but the eris provides the big benefits of the droid--big screen, android OS (although right now the eris is running v1.6), and the 3G network. All of that in a smaller handset at a smaller price. . .yes, the eris is worth checking out. And if that doesn't answer your bell, try the droid. I bet you'll like it!

UPDATE: I decided to follow my own advice, and one week to the day after I got the droid, I turned it in and brought home an Eris. So far, there is no doubt in my mind that it was the right choice. The selling points for the droid over the Eris are really only twofold: the on-board keyboard and the upgraded version of the Android OS. Well, I never did get to liking the droid's keyboard (and trust me, I tried), and the 1.5 OS is treating me just fine. There are some apps that I used on the droid that I haven't been able to utilize on the Eris (Camera Magic most notably), but everything else is great. Smaller form factor, less expensive, and just about as capable--yes, the Eris is the right one for me.

UPDATE x 2: I like the Eris so much I just got one for Mrs. Otranews. Verizon has a sweet deal going on right now that I just had to take the plunge for her. This is a great phone!

John's tent

In the wake of the happenings in New York's 23rd district, there has been--and will continue to be--a lot of discussion about the GOP "tent". Surely there has got to be some common ideas that can unite the party going forward, right?

So today, I present "John's tent", wherein I will write what I think should be the principles that unite the party that contains conservatives. . .and stands in loyal opposition to the current crop of Congressional leadership:

1) The Federal government will never render as illegal the public expression of the belief in God;

2) The primary responsibility of the United States Congress is to protect citizens from overreach of the Executive Branch and to curb any legislative influence from the Supreme Court;

3) Taxes are a necessary evil; taking those taxes and redistributing the money to the pockets of other citizens is an unnecessary and un-American evil;

4) With the exception of crimes against the country (espionage, sedition, and the like), the Federal government is not the right level of government to govern personal behavior;

5) A citizen's single vote, cast free of duress and counted as is intended by the voter, is the cornerstone of the future of this republic, and its value must be protected

. . .and that's about it. Thoughts?

UPDATE: oh, and one more:

6) That a citizen that willingly signs a contract and is current on his/her responsibilities of that contract should not be fearful of unwanted government alteration of said contract

two things on this busy, busy day

Two items of news to talk about today, one big and one not even close to important:

1) So the Olympic Games are not coming to Chicago in 2016. President Obama went all the way to Copenhagen to put his stamp on a presentation that was, um, less than convincing. In the end, he was made a fool.

All this week, I'd actually felt sympathy towards Obama's plight on this one, under the belief that Chicago's victory in this decision was a done deal. I felt that the IOC had played Obama well, guaranteeing him of a favorable decision if only he would bring his name (and considerable star-power) to the proceedings. In such a scenario, Obama really had no choice. Well, as a liberal with no sense as to what the office of the President is REALLY supposed to encompass, he had no choice. So I wrote this off as a loss that would not haunt me too much. On the bad side: the office of President had become such a joke that its schedule could be bent to the whim of an international organization with limited power and credibility; and there would now be TONS of excuses for stimulus money to disappear into Obama's back yard with zero accountability. On the good side: Obama made time for a meeting with McChrystal; and Oprah was going to be out of the country for a day.

But it turns out my assumptions were wrong. Obama must have decided to get involved in this either because he felt he had to OR because someone from his own team gave him some really bad counsel. So this is yet another error that was forced by nothing other than his own ineptitude. AND TO THINK HOW EASY IT COULD HAVE BEEN!: again, glad he met with McChrystal--which SHOULD HAVE BEEN the whole purpose for the trip! After his day with the "war council" yesterday (which he could have moved up to Wednesday), it would have looked. . .I don't know. . .Presidential, maybe, for him to fly overseas to meet with the Commanding General of Afghanistan. And then, on the way back, he coulda just dropped in to Copenhagen because he heard something was going on there. I mean, really, this could have been staged so much better--if he and his team hadn't decided to make it all about them. Again, rank amateurs trying to play above their pay grade do not always make for family-friendly viewing.

I am not rejoicing as much today as I normally do when Obama is made the fool. It's one thing to be rebuffed at home; this Olympic fiasco is embarassing for all Americans.

And its a little scary, too. As much as I'd like to make this all about Rio being the best place to hold an Olympics, I just can't. Granted, maybe it is the best of the 4 cities considered for the 2016 games, but the second Obama put his two best gals and himself on a plane to Copenhagen, the decision became about Obama. And he lost. This is a bad omen for a man who, I am convinced, has very little depth beyond that layer-thin charm. The last thing we need is more people and organizations on the international stage deciding they want to see how full of himself this guy really is, and if there's any "there" there. Today the IOC. . .why would anyone shy away tomorrow?

2) So David Letterman, on his show last night, confessed to past transgressions. This is really low-ball news--I really don't care too much about the whos, the hows, there wheres and the whens. But I am truly curious about the why.

I think it is safe to say, from how I read the reports, that this gal/these gals were employees of the show. I wonder if any of them felt some employment "pressure" from Big Dave?

I really wish there was a media around who would ask these questions, because I don't think Mr. Letterman --or ANY boss in such a scenario-- just deserves the benefit of the doubt. Whenever there is boss/employee relationships, there are some natural questions that should be asked: did the employee see promotion benefits that might not have been earned strictly through clothes-on performance of the job?; did the employee start acting too big for her britches with the other staff?; did the employee see something akin to a buy-off for her silence; etc etc.

SO I think Mr. Dave should have to field some questions. And I think the gals should have to field some questions, too. And I think that NOW--yes, that's right, the National Organization for Women--should be the ones screaming for some answers.

Because IF this is a case of a boss using pressure of employment to gain sexual favors from a woman, this is a clear case of sexual harassment. NOW should be vocal and swift in the denouncement of such things. Now we aren't there yet, I know--but their ears should be perked up.

If Mr. Letterman was a Republican Congressman, you can bet your sweet bottom they'd be looking for some answers.

I'm thinking someone needs to get grilled

Please note that I do not say the following lightly:

As reported here, yesterday Secretary of Defense "Bill" Gates (that's what the President calls him) said: "The strategy that the president put forward in late March is the first real strategy we have had for Afghanistan since the early 1980s".

Ya know, as SECDEF I'm pretty sure that he was in a position to forward a "real" strategy for Afghanistan for the last 3 years. . .which makes me wonder what the heck he's been doing? Are soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines in harm's way not enough of a motivator to put the development of a strategy for their theater of engagement on a "to do" list? Or is he so inefficient that he just never got around to it?

I think Americans need answers. If only one of our elected representatives cared to ask the right questions.

In case you missed it--UPDATED

Last night, at one of the endless, mindless awards shows that allow entertainment types to aggrandize themselves on a network's dime, a showboat of an artist took the stage uninvited and intimidated a much younger woman into yielding the floor to him despite that fact that the moment was, for all intents and purposes, entirely about the woman. This showboat then proceeded to tell the woman--who happens to be of another race than the showboat--that her work was somehow less qualified for recognition than was the work of another woman who happens to be of the same race as the showboat, despite there being absolutely no evidence that such is the case. In fact, the audience didn't seem too surprised when the "winner" was revealed, so I guess you could say that popular opinion was at best split as to who was the most deserving of the title. It should be noted that exactly one of the 5 nominees for the award were of the same race as the . . .ahem. . ."gentleman" who ruined the night. Yet there he was, on national TV, making sure the whole world knew that in his mind, there was only one deserving winner for this award.

And lest we forget, this showboat has made several public pronouncements regarding equality of race in this country. It is not a stretch to say that EVERYTHING this guy does is about race, and it is definitely not a stretch to make that claim when the subject of his tirade last night was a member of a different race.

SO of course, Mr. Race-arbiter-in-chief said something about it today, right? I mean, this case (or to be more accurate, this nutcase) has several more suspicious marks of actual racism than did that famous incident with Skip Gates, right? And yet Obama couldn't WAIT to get on the air and claim that law enforcement acted stupidly to his friend Skip; lord only knows what kind of verbal harranguing is going to come out of this situation.

Actually, President Obama was oddly silent on the whole thing.

And I'd love to believe that he's actually learned that there's a limit to how often people will listen to him react foolishly with regards to race relations. Or maybe that it is not his place, as the President, to talk about silly events in pop culture.

But color me skeptical. These events aren't supposed to happen anymore, not with the great Obama as President. And like it or not, he "owns" race issues. He's gone to that well one too many times in other circumstances that absolutely did not merit his involvement to just turn a blind eye now. At the very least, this has got to be what he calls a "teachable moment". . .right?

No, I think Obama's silence can be chalked up to one thing and one thing only: the showboat is a black man. And as much as Kanye West deserves an upbraiding of historic proportions from every person who has any influence anywhere, especially from any man who purports to be some kind of racial healer, we will not hear anything from Obama.

The cowardly lion had absolutely nothing on this guy.

You know, I've said many a time before that being a lefty means never having to say you're sorry. There's always some out, some scapegoat that can be blamed that keeps a lefty from taking accountability for his or her actions.

Well, I've got another axiom of today's America: being black means never having to worry about being called a racist.

For the rest of America, though: stand by. Your lecture is a-comin'--and with far less of a "trigger" than was provided by West last night!

UPDATE: HotAir is reporting that an ABC reporter tweeted that Obama called West something unkind. . .off the record. I'm treating that with a huge ol' piece of salt; as far as we know, some young whipper-snapper at ABC thought this was an easy way for their guy to score points with a country that is well aware of what West did last night. Off the record means "does not exist", and that's exactly how I'm treating that report: Obama didn't say nuthin'! I'll wait for Gibbs or Obama himself to weigh in on this WITH THE TAPES ROLLING before I believe they actually called West out.