Matt Margolis

I so wanted to like the iPad. I anxiously anticpated its announcement last week, only to find myself disappointed.

I love Apple products. I have an iPhone. I have a MacBook Pro. What I was hoping was that Apple would create a keyboard-less MacBook with a touchscreen. Intsead, they created a jumbo-sized iPhone. Frankly, that’s not what I want.

Thinking about it for a while, I’ve put together a list of things that the iPad needed to be to tempt me to get one.

• Native Mac OS X with the ability to run iPhone Apps. What use is a portable device that big if it doesn’t have the ability to function like a laptop first and foremost?
• Dvorak Simplified Keyboard support. As a Dvorak typist, this was probably the biggest deal-breaker of them alll. Nothing in the features or specs says anything about Dvorak keyboard support. I can’t type QWERTY anymore, and lord knows I ain’t switching back, especially for the iPad.
• Syncing capability with a primary Mac computer. The size of a tablet device limits the amount of onboard memory it can have, so why not be able to specify through iTunes, what applications you want to run on the iPad and be able to sync as required? And not only that, but sync specified folders either through iTunes or MobileMe so you can work on files on the road, but they can be updated automatically, or through sycing, back on you main computer?
• Bluetooth. I didn’t see this listed, so, nuts to that.
• Tether capabities with the iPhone, and no extra data plan required.

Is that so hard? I don’t think so. Maybe Apple will develop an actual tablet computer sometime.. but for now, the iPad is not something I need when I already have an iPhone and a MacBook Pro.

I recently realized that I have over 500 friends on Facebook.

To some, this might qualify me as one of the 12 most annoying types of Facebook users… The “Friend-Padder”:

The Friend-Padder. The average Facebook user has 120 friends on the site. Schmoozers and social butterflies — you know, the ones who make lifelong pals on the subway — might reasonably have 300 or 400. But 1,000 “friends?” Unless you’re George Clooney or just won the lottery, no one has that many. That’s just showing off.

Okay, I don’t have 1,000. But, I can admit that I am near the point where some migt say I am a Friend-Padder… and I don’t like it.

Admittedly, I first joined Facebook with the intention of networking in anticipation of the release of my first book. But now, various changes in the way Facebook operates, and the explosion of users makes my news feed full of mundane details of people I have no idea who they are, why I added them, or why they requested me in the first place.

This explosion of non-friend Facebook friends is intolerable when you have so many people who could qualify as one or more of the top 12 most annoying Facebook users, such as “The Let-Me-Tell-You-Every-Detail-of-My-Day Bore” and “The Self-Promoter.” Yeah, I don’t need all that. I like Facebook for keeping in touch with people that I’d otherwise have a hard time keeping in touch with. I also do like to have the potential to network. But, I don’t need to keep in touch with people I have never heard of or never met, and I don’t need to network with every single person in politics.

Of course, I know I am partly to blame. My past desire to use Facebook as a networking tool, and the fact that I am a blogger with national readership puts me in a position where I receive 100 or so friend requests from people I have never heard of every 30-60 days. I used to accept them quite liberally, because “that’s what Facebook is for… networking.”

Yes, I still want to use it for that purpose, but for crying out loud I need to establish some guidelines that will determine whose request gets accepted or ignored. Here they are so far.

I am not going accept friend requests from people I don’t know (or haven’t met)

• just because we have 100+ mutual friends
• just because we share the same or similar political view

I will accept a friend requests from people

• I have met at least once or know
• have worked with in some fashion at one point or another
• they are candidates for political office in races that interest me.
• they are a fellow blogger I have heard of or read or worked with.
• I believe there is advantage to networking with that person.

These guidelines are subject to change, be it additions, subtractions, or revisions.

This week, Starbucks made its exclusive Pike Place Roast available in all its locations. Starbucks is promoting the widespread availability of Pike Place Roast with rebranded cups featuring (temporarily, I assume) the original siren logo.

The original siren logo is slightly modified, however. The siren’s hair covers more than the true original logo, but, more importantly the circular band says “Fresh Roasted Coffee” instead of “Coffee • Tea • Spices.” Considering recently publicized problems Starbucks has had, the new emphasis on their coffee selection process and freshness is undoubtedly intended to address those issues. Starbucks suffers largely from an image problem. People who aren’t Starbucks regulars associate the coffee-chain with high-priced espresso drinks or coffee that is “too strong” for them. Starbucks is now attracting attention to their commitment to quality, fresh coffee by posting the “roasted on” date with with daily brews.

I’ve had the Pike Place Roast every day since it became available. And I have say it is one of my favorite roasts. I think Starbucks is on the right track to fixing it’s overall image problem. In fact, I would suggest they continue to not only emphasize their coffee selection processes and commitment to freshness, but also keep showcasing the original siren logo. Another aspect of their image is problem is the bleeding heart objections to big corporations, and the old logo doesn’t have the corporate look that the current logo does. Renewed attention to their roots can’t hurt and reminds consumers that Starbucks started small, and grew into something larger because it has a quality product.

This is a tribute made in the aftermath of 9-11 by my brother while were at the University of Hartford…

My own thoughts later…

Humiliated frontrunner-turned-loser in the Democrat primaries, Howard Dean, has taken his abortion-performing skills to the media by starting a new syndicated column..

His first topic was electronic voting.

Only since 2000 have touch screen voting machines become widely used and yet they have already caused widespread controversy due to their unreliability. For instance, in Wake County, N.C. in 2002, 436 votes were lost as a result of bad software. Hinds County, Miss. had to re-run an election because the machines had so many problems that the will of the voters could not be determined. According to local election officials in Fairfax County, Va., a recent election resulted in one in 100 votes being lost. Many states, such as New Hampshire and most recently Maine, have banned paperless touch screen voting and many more are considering doing so.

Without any accountability or transparency, even if these machines work, we cannot check whether they are in fact working reliably. The American public should not tolerate the use of paperless e-voting machines until at least the 2006 election, allowing time to prevent ongoing errors and failures with the technology. One way or another, every voter should be able to check that an accurate paper record has been made of their vote before it is recorded.

Personally, I am against eVoting, today, tomorrow, next week, next year, or anytime. The moment voting becomes electronic it becomes that much easier for the Democrats to tamper with votes. It’s basd enough that dead people can still vote for Democrats, and that they want kids as young as 16 to vote legally for Democrats, but paperless voting? Electronic voting? The next step would be voting via the Internet, which gives Democrats even more oppotunities to cheat.

When it comes to voting, I’m a traditionalist. I believe eVoting will cause more problems than it will solve.

Thomas Sowell wrote:

The so-called “9/11 Commission” is supposedly trying to find out what happened, or failed to happen, that allowed the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001 to succeed. But there is a big difference between trying to unearth facts about September 11, 2001 and trying to collect political ammunition for November 2, 2004 — election day.

It has become painfully obvious from some Commission members’ grandstanding, especially during their questioning of national security advisor Condoleezza Rice, that they are more interested in scoring political points during an election year than in finding out what happened before the terrorist attacks in 2001.

Sowell hit the nail right on the head here. It’s quite clear to me that the same people who have accused the White House of wanting to “stonewall” the commission for political purposes are themselves wanting the commission to be going on during the election year for political purposes. An exhausting exercise in finger pointing, and so-called “Gotchyas” the only thing that goes through my mind right now is “What must the terrorists think about us now?”

Are we resolved in fighting terror anymore? I don’t think so. We’ve gone from going after the terrorists to going after eachother, wondering who in our government is to blame, rather that keeping our sights on who’s really responsible: the terrorists.

This commission weakens us in the eyes of the world, and strengthens the will of terrorists who know a country divided will fall apart when it is attacked again. Another attack against our country will divide us further, and the 9-11 Commission gives the terrorists ample proof of this.

Our country will be at its weakest within the last two months before the election. With the 9-11 Commission and heated battle for the White House, the polarization of partisans will be at its greatest, and the ideological differences of American citizens will be even inflammed.

If the 9-11 Commission was really about finding the facts, it would be entirely behind closed doors. Being in the public eye, it just acts as a badge of weakness for all our enemies to see and become determined to exploit.

We’re not focused on the future, we’re consumed with the past. If 9-11 should have taught us anything about how to be be prepared for this enemy, its that we should quickly learn from our mistakes and do everything possible to prevent another 9-11 in the future. Dwelling on the past, we cannot prepare for the future.

As the Democrats continue to (ab)use the 9-11 Commission as a means to capture the White House in November, there is still a war on terror going on, and I believe it suffers daily because of the 9-11 Commission.

UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt’s latest on the 9-11 Commission

It was one year ago today that I entered the blogosphere. I had previously manually updated my site with new writings – which at the time worked for me, but upon learning about what a blog was, I eventually was convinced to take up blogging.

I had written for my school paper for two years while at the University of Hartford. After graduating in May of 2002, I still had the desire to write. Blogging was the perfect solution to that. 300 blog entries later, I’m here reflecting on the past year.

I happened to become a part of the blogosphere as the war in Iraq was beginning – and an anti-war movement was brewing on my former campus. I used my blog to talk about what was going on, and react to the happenings of the anti-war movement that was growing at my alma mater – I even submitted an article for publication to the paper I once wrote for.

It was an interesting time to start blogging. Things were happening so fast in the news, and my former school… I had so much to write about.

Being a part of blogosphere also introduced me to a community of people I hadn’t had the opportunity to interact with before. I got to chat with other bloggers, visit their blogs and be exposed to what they felt was “blogworthy” – which helped me a new blogger.

It was great to see my blog gradually get more attention in the blogosphere. I found myself on an increasing number of blogrolls, more people were commenting, trolls came out in large numbers because they couldn’t stand my views – which only told me I was doing a good job.

With the rise of the Howard Dean candidacy came my realization that even though George W. Bush was not starting to campaign, that a means to organize pro-Bush bloggers on the internet needed to be done. Later in the summer of 2003, I conceived of the idea of Blogs For Bush and after organizing a small team of people I met in the blogging community, we launched the site on Election Day 2003.

Since then, Blogs For Bush has grown at an extraordinary rate. It took all the pieces of the pro-Bush online grassroots effort and gave them a home. From Wictory Wednesdays to Letters To The Editor Fridays, to the Blogroll For Bush, we brought the pro-Bush blogosphere together.

It’s been quite a year in the blogosphere. I like to think I’ve been able to contribute something to the blogging community as a whole, both with my personal blog and with Blogs For Bush.

I’ve had quite a bit of help this past year of blogging, and some people I have to mention:

Nikki, of Every Tomorrow, for giving me the heads up on blogging, pushing me to take it up, and for setting up my first blog on her server.
Jay, of One Fine Jay, for helping me with layout and design of my blog, and converting me to WordPress.
Russ, of TacJammer and Rachel, of Banana Republican, for helping to realize my vision for Blogs For Bush.
George, of BastardSword, for filling in for me while I was on vacation.
Everyone who has ever linked me on their own blog.
The folks at the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiller and the Loyal Citizens for giving me a well needed boost when I first started.
My entire team at Blogs For Bush for helping make Blogs For Bush what it is today.
George W. Bush, for his leadership which inspires a great deal of my writing, and my efforts to keep him in office.
The Informer, which published me for two years while I was at school. This blog would never have happened if I didn’t write there to begin with.

It’s time to keep blogging.

As some of you may know I am a graduate student. I am going for my Masters degree in Architecture (no, I’m not a Poli-Sci major).

So, I have class a couple times a week – politics is never an issue. Why should it be? It’s an architecture school. My classes are always thing related to architecture.

Last semester I had bit of an altercation with a professor who taught a class in the classroom before my class. She was showing her class “Bowling For Columbine” and I made an issue of out it. Once she realized where I was going with that one she called me “Joe McCarthy” and needless to say – she looked at me different for the rest of the semester.

All that aside, I don’t recall what the class was about and why they had to watch that – but that was the first time I really noticed politics in a classroom – which fortunate for the professor, I wasn’t in that class.

This week, I have two stories.

Tuesday, as walked into my first class of the evening, there were assignments written on the whiteboard from what I presume to be the previous class.

I was able to get a picture of the assignments with my cell phone camera:

It says:

2/12: read article
#1
2/17: Zinn, read
thru 181
[written ass'm't handed out]
————
Chomsky sem, 2/13
meet at 1 pm
sign up Thursday

So whatever this class is (as of this blogging, I haven’t found out what the class is) they are reading Howard Zinn, and are going to a Noam Chomsky seminar.

Keep in mind this is an architecture school. Why are they reading Zinn and going to Chomsky seminars?

Can someone answer me?

Wednesday night I had another interesting experience.

I easily stick out in a crowd. More often than not, I’m wearing a Bush/Cheney ‘04 baseball cap and a Bush/Cheney pin on jacket.

This class was on building codes… yes, very boring stuff. Nevertheless, we had a guest speaker talking to us about the Americans with Disabilities Act, which was signed into law in 1990 by President George H.W. Bush. When the guest speaker brought this up, my professor reacted with a disgusted lament and said “Did you have to mention him?” and the guest speaker responded “Why? Because you have student in the corner with a Bush hat on?”

Later when class was dismissed, my professor looked at me and said “So Bush/Cheney huh?”

“You better believe it,” I responded. Then, in a joking manner, he asked me my name and pretended to go into in the class roster as if to flag my name for a bad grade.

Sure, a joke it may have been, but what was thinking about later was that it really is risky to be politically conservative in the belly of the liberal beast called Boston. My professor may have been joking, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t get discriminated against or looked down upon for being an out-of-the-closet conservative.

On the train ride back home, my brother and I were approached two different times on by other conservatives who saw our Bush-gear and their first comments were about how brave we were to be wearing that stuff in Boston. We offered them Bush/Cheney buttons to wear themselves. They each took one.

This was not the first time we heard those kind of remarks.. From liberals and conservatives a like, we get the same line. What does it say about our society when the masses (especially the liberal masses) spend so much energy on racial, cultural, gender, ethnic, and sexual diversity, but not political or ideological diversity? Why does the Left not tolerate the presence of differing political views? Why do I endure stares and occasional looks of disgust on the train, while they guy across the aisle wearing a John Kerry pin just blends in, or the college student wearing a Howard Dean pin is commended for being politically active?

Now, don’t get me wrong, between my brother and I, we’ve given away over 50 Bush/Cheney buttons either on the train or the streets of Boston, and gotten plenty of good responses from people. They generally outnumber the bad responses – but only because a person more likely to say something for supporting us, rather than to express disapproval.

Boston beware! We conservatives are out there. And we will not be afraid, we will not be deterred. I’ll wear my hat and button with pride and do what I can to get my fellow Boston area conservatives out of the closet you’ve tried to push them into.

We’re out there, and we’re going to do whatever we can to help Bush win Massachusetts in November. If there is any year to do it, it’s this year.