Tacoma > Space Invader

More terriffic Tacoma ads:

Meteor: Tacoma Meteor-Proof ad

Loch Ness: Tacoma Loch Nest Monster ad (Shoot it!)

World of Warcraft: Tacoma World of Warcraft ad

Robosaurus: Tacoma Robosaurus ad

High Tide: Tacoma 2006 Super Bowl ad

Palm Centro Review by Watts

I'm usually at least 2 years behind the times with PDAs, so the new Palm Centro was the perfect choice for me (ha!). Yes, the operating system is old, but the Centro hit all my buttons. It's relatively cheap, has e-mail and internet access, and it's small enough to put in my pocket.

First, get a look at where I'm coming from: The Clie SJ-33 on the left was my first PDA, bought it on eBay back in 2003 after it had been out for a couple of years. It hooked me, and lasted about a year until I cleaned the screen with Windex (oops). I can get it working pretty much now and again, but it has become harder to reset since the up arrow no longer works. I loved the size, and the protective cover was perfect for a pocket. The design is a bit wider than the new Centro, but they do share a lot in the look and feel departments.

Not pictured is the Clie TG-50 I bought to replace the SJ-33. It had a keyboard, metal cover, tougher, smaller and more durable screen. It was longer, thinner, and much faster. Unfortunately, it was stolen out of the Volvo while we were at Chucky Cheeses's.

I replaced the TG-50 with the brick, the Sony Clie NZ-90. This mammoth PDA originally cost about $800, but I snagged it for less than $200 on eBay a couple of years ago. The screen is gigantic, 320 X 480. It runs much faster than the old Clies, even a reset takes only a couple of seconds. A wifi stick enables internet functions and e-mail, but it takes up the memory stick slot, and I found it to be too cumbersome and battery-draining to be of any real use. The NZ-90 sports a 2 MP camera with a flash. Pictures aren't half bad, better than any cameraphone I've seen including the Centro. The downside? Battery-life. You might get 2 or 3 pictures with the flash on, and that's it. Battery drained all the way. And it's not just the camera, this thing is an all-around battery-hog, not good for more than 2-3 hours doing anything. Did I mention that it's huge? No way to put the NZ-90 in a pants pocket.
And that leads to the new Palm Centro. Compared with my other PDAs, the Centro is tiny, and fits in my pocket better than my old cellphone did. That's big difference #1, the Centro is also a phone! Told ya I was always about 2 years behind the times, but there you go, that's the biggest addition to my PDA arsenal.

Along with the cellphone, the Centro comes with a Sprint unlimited data plan for e-mail and web browsing. Although we don't have high-speed cell service in my area, the internet is speedy enough to browse pretty good, and it even does streaming audio and video. My daughter was amazed when I pulled up Sponge Bob and Dora episodes. Always having access to e-mail has been a revelation. No more booting up the main computer just to see if I have any e-mails. I have my e-mail IMAPPed through gmail and it works flawlessly. That's big difference #2.

One of the coolest features is Google Maps. This function nearly eliminates my desire for GPS, since you can set up directions on the go. When you look up a contact, there is a "Map" option so you can see the contact's address. Click on aerial view and you get aerial photos. Wow.

Yes, the keyboard is rather small on the Centro, but I've found it to be just as usable as the keyboard on the NZ-90. One handed operation is possible, and the backlit keys help out in the dark. The screen is super-bright, and not as battery-draining as the larger NZ-90. I've loaded some larger fonts for the Pluckr program, and that has helped a great deal as the smaller screen means smaller fonts.

I like the small size of the Centro, it fits my rather large hands well, and it has basically become an additional appendage for me. It feels solid, and after two weeks I have no regrets about my choice. Go Centro!

W, You're no Reagan

"Mr. Reagan, like Mr. Bush, had gone through his share of second-term blues, including scandal (Iran-contra) and a hit to his job approval. But Reagan rebounded in his final year-plus in office – in part by cutting deals with Congress (and the Soviet Union) – and ended his presidency with job-approval ratings above 60 percent. Perhaps not coincidentally, he pulled off a rare feat: He was succeeded by his vice president, George H.W. Bush.

The current President Bush has shown no such inclination to compromise with the Democrats lately, instead using or threatening to use the veto pen early and often, particularly on spending bills. On Tuesday, Bush signed one, Defense appropriations, and vetoed one, the Labor-Health-Education appropriations bill, on the grounds that it was $10 billion over budget and funded 2,000 special projects.

Bush went after Congress in a speech Tuesday in Indiana: "Their majority was elected on a pledge of fiscal responsibility, but so far it is acting like a teenager with a new credit card."

Bush went 5-1/2 years before his first veto, but his apparent goal now is to reestablish his bona fides as a fiscal conservative, after spending big earlier in office."

Good luck with that 60% approval rating, George.

War Costs Mounting

I remember when they estimated the war would pay for itself, cost $50 Billion at most, and now that's less than a "supplemental". From the AP:

"The $1.6 trillion figure, for the period from 2002 to 2008, translates into a cost of $20,900 for a family of four, the report said. The Bush administration has requested $804 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined, the report stated.

For the Iraq war only, total economic costs were estimated at $1.3 trillion for the period from 2002 to 2008. That would cost a family of four $16,500, the report said....

...Meanwhile, “the sum of interest paid on Iraq-related debt from 2003 to 2017 will total over $550 billion,” the report said. The government has to make interest payments on the money it borrows to finance the national debt, which recently hit $9 trillion for the first time.

The report comes as the House prepares to vote this week on another effort by Democrats to set a deadline for withdrawing troops from Iraq as a condition for providing another $50 billion for the war."

I'm not really anti-war per se, but a cost-benefit analysis of the war does not look good, even if you're in the pro-torture camp. It would be difficult to prove that this war has been "worth it". Just imagine what we could have spent that money on...or saved in taxes if that's what you prefer.

Indian

http://www.WattsCarr.com

Hall Eve

Centro blog test

centro!

Blackwater, 2 Years Ago

Checking out some old posts , I came across this one I wrote in October '05:

"...why the government and military are hiring these private companies for security in Iraq and Afghanistan is questionable.

These companies hire away our best soldiers, pay them more money and then we the taxpayers end up paying more money, so they can do the same work our military should be doing, at a much higher price. These private companies happen to be pals with the politicians and military folks, and it all may seem rather ordinary, but I can't help but think that this is unconstitutional. And certainly, it is costing us more money.

But worse than being in Iraq and Afghanistan, now these private companies are working here in the "Homeland", "protecting" us from ourselves and the ever-present dangers of terrorism and floods and drugs and whatever else they can think of to scare the public. There's a lot more to this story than we can already see, and I submit that Congress should commence investigations into companies like Blackwater immediately. It's not that I think the folks in Blackwater are bad people, but rather we need to look closely at this new system to be sure everything is on the level, and taxpayers and civil rights are protected. This is not a sound or sustainable policy."

Congressional Money for War

Fred Kaplan at Slate takes on our war machine:

The military budget in question—not including any money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—totals $500 billion. This is roughly equal to the military budgets of all the rest of the world's nations combined. Adjusting for inflation, it is larger than the U.S. military budget at the peak of the Cold War—in fact, larger than any budget since the Korean War. Again, this is true, apart from the money allocated for the current wars. ...

...Look at the defense budget.... The Army gets $130.1 billion. The Navy (including the Marines) gets $130.8 billion. The Air Force gets $136.6 billion. This near-even divvying is no fluke or accident. It's been constant since the mid-1960s. (In no year since then has the split varied by more than 2 percentage points.) There is no principle of national-security policy that requires the money be divided this way. It would be an amazing coincidence if there were. Its origins lie in the truce that the service chiefs reached 40 years ago, and have maintained ever since, to quell the vicious internecine rivalries of the 1950s, when the chiefs battled furiously for every scarce dollar

It is for this reason that secretaries of defense and seasoned congressional chairmen rarely get entangled in procurement battles. They don't want to reignite the hellfire of interservice rivalries."

Hey, that's a good reason for the empire to go to war!

Mario is Pro-Constitution

We need to bring back the power to declare war. Bring it back to Congress, that is:

"Congress’s refusal to comply with Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution has led to a catastrophic aftermath. Such a tragedy should never be allowed to happen again. Rather than enact new legislation that would create constitutional ambiguity, the Democratic leadership in Congress should assert its strength by simply announcing it will allow no “resolutions” or “authorizations” purporting to delegate to the president Congress’s constitutional power to declare war against any other nation. Nor will there be any new war without Congress’s solemn deliberation and declaration of war."

Thank you, Mr. Cuomo! Hey, would you mind telling everybody that it's Hillary's fault?

Throw your hat in the ring while you're at it, at least you're honest and care about the most important parts of our Constitution. This issue is at the root of our current problems in Iraq, and caused us much heartache and loss in Vietnam, Korea, etc. Congress has the war power and they do not have the right to delegate it. Time to take it back, Congress, take it back!

Knee-capped on Terror

From ABC:

"Three days after Americans saw the Bush administration's counterterrorism chief say the Iraq war has likely not made the United States safer from terrorism, the official announced his resignation, citing health reasons.

In an e-mail sent to his staff Wednesday afternoon, Adm. Scott Redd, head of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), said he was stepping down to "take care of some long-delayed surgery that I can no longer neglect.""

The surgery? For his knees. He was literally "knee-capped".

End of War Mistake

The COLD War, that is. What an opportunity we had to show the world the greatness of America. Instead we turned petty and belligerent. Who can blame Putin for being an ass after the way we've treated Russia? Communist-hater Pat Buchanan opines:

"At the Cold War's end, the United States was given one of the great opportunities of history: to embrace Russia, largest nation on earth, as partner, friend, ally. Our mutual interests meshed almost perfectly. There was no ideological, territorial, historic or economic quarrel between us, once communist ideology was interred.

We blew it.

We moved NATO onto Russia's front porch, ignored her valid interests and concerns, and, with our "indispensable-nation" arrogance, treated her as a defeated power, as France treated Weimar Germany after Versailles.

Who restarted the Cold War? Bush and the braying hegemonists he brought with him to power. Great empires and tiny minds go ill together."

War at the Airport

"By Thomas Frank

USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Security screeners at two of the nation's busiest airports failed to find fake bombs hidden on undercover agents posing as passengers in more than 60% of tests last year, according to a classified report obtained by USA TODAY.

Screeners at Los Angeles International Airport missed about 75% of simulated explosives and bomb parts that Transportation Security Administration testers hid under their clothes or in carry-on bags at checkpoints, the TSA report shows."

Um, hello? The enemy started our War on Terror in our own airports, and yet we still cannot stop bombs from getting on the planes even most of the time? Seems to me this should have been a top priority, right after reinforced, lockable cockpit doors.

""That's a huge cause for concern," said Clark Kent Ervin, the Homeland Security Department's former inspector general. "

Take it from Clark Kent, folks...

The New JFK According to Sorensen

We can't have JFK Jr., but one of Kennedy's closest aids and speechwriters, Ted Sorensen, has a lot of nice things to say about Barak Obama (and some not-so-nice things about the Clintons). From the UK Telegraph:

""Both Kennedy and Obama have fantastically winning smiles and I might say both are very relaxed in front of an audience and on television," he said in an interview. "They don’t shout into a microphone, they talk.

"The principles, the values Obama and Kennedy are enunciating are not five-point plans for new health care programmes, which is more Hillary's style."

The Kennedy legacy and the aura of Camelot have been powerful but largely unspoken themes underpinning the campaign of Mr Obama, another charismatic Harvard alumnus heralding a new era in politics. "

And on to the Hillary-not-quite-bashing:

"When asked about her similarities to Bill Clinton, Mr Sorensen said that her election would be "a continuation of the Clinton-Bush 20 years" and business as usual in Washington.

“She has the same tendency to triangulate, as he called it, she has the same ability to equivocate, to vacillate, to imitate what the Republicans are doing and saying.”...

...The Clintons, he said, were Washington insiders who wanted to maintain the status quo and who had not brought honour to the White House.

“I’m not accusing Clinton of being lawless. He was impeached for trivial reasons.

"But I don’t think that it was the noblest time for the White House when the Lincoln bedroom was rented out to donors and pardons were being issued to some truly dreadful people.”...

...He argued that the former First Lady would be defeated in a presidential fight with a Republican candidate like Rudy Giuliani. "She's got everything going for her but a lot of people just don't like her.

"I'm tired of losing. We've had these candidates who give those five-point programmes, who sound like they are lecturing at MIT or trying to convince the New York Times board of editors.

"That doesn't reach the hearts of the voters. Mr Kennedy reached the hearts of voters. And so does Obama."