Paul Ryan - An Effortless Performance

            Paul Ryan’s acceptance speech to the RNC may be one of the best political speeches of the year—if not out of the last four years. It’s strengths were many, and it’s weaknesses few, and the delivery was impeccably good. It wasn’t entirely “safe”, but neither was it the politically risky ranting and raving that makes people uncomfortable. He was idealistic without being unrealistic, and realistic without being a doomsayer. He was funny without being a clown, heartfelt without the sappiness, and pointedly brutal without coming off as a douche. He spoke clearly, and succinctly, proving that brevity is indeed the soul of wit—wit without being an unlikeable know-it-all.

            Love him, hate him, or indifferent, there are several truths each side should recognize: first, it was a killer delivery of one hell of a speech. The crowd loved it, and perhaps the nation did too. Paul Ryan came off as a very easy guy to like and to listen to. The speech could have been ten minutes longer, and Ryan still would have had the crowd in his pocket. Second, Mitt Romney has three very tough acts to follow: Mrs. Romney, Condy, and Paul Ryan. Making it even tougher on Mitt will be Clint Eastwood’s address, and the scrutiny of the nation coming off the Olympics with a scorecard mentality. Mitt Romney survived debates, and hit singles when faced with fastballs. But the last three batters hit home runs. Mitt Romney simply surviving and "paring the course" won’t be anywhere near enough. Mitt Romney’s greatest challenge Friday night will be to end the convention with an energetic bang that motivates the base and the undecided voters of the country.

            Perhaps the greatest challenge facing the democrats after Ryan’s speech is the third truth, a cold reality for Team Obama: Joe Biden is no match for Paul Ryan. Biden tries to be likeable, but Paul Ryan is likeable. Joe Biden comes off as an arrogant jerk, Paul Ryan as a friendly intellectual. Biden is an awkward, embarrassing bull in a china closet, yet Ryan is relaxed, inspiring, and precise. Biden flounders, but Ryan delivers. For Joe Biden, Paul Ryan is a nightmare Biden cannot wake from. Whatever Paul Ryan may have done on Thursday night, one thing is for certain: Joe Biden can neither replicate nor match it.

Era of Idiocy: Grounding Moonshot Beer

            It’s the era of idiocy—especially in government. More and more the nation irreversibly charges into the realm of the nanny-state, and the idea that the common person cannot look after their own good. But the almighty Federal nanny isn’t exactly a powerhouse of common sense either. The Fed ends up doing what it does best: making an idiot out of itself while stepping on the common citizen. Case in point? Look no further than Moonshot Beer.

            Moonshot was featured in the documentary Beer Wars, which came out in 2009. Dogfish Head brewery, Moonshot, Samuel Adams, and a few other small-time entrepreneurs were featured as well made, craft-breweries taking on the giant corporation of Anheuser-Busch. Moonshot was unique in being one of the first if not the first beer with caffeine in the brew. Moonshot front-woman Rhonda Kallman said in the documentary that Anheuser-Busch was her biggest threat—they had made a caffeinated beer of their own, and had illegally offered free cases to stores that would carry the brew over hers. The law in her state prohibits such activity, but obviously that never stopped Anheuser-Busch, nor did it protect Kallman. The law never helped her one bit.

            Kallman’s problems continued with distribution. Under federal law, a brewery may not sell to retailers directly, or even online. Instead, they must use what’s known as the three-tier system. This nightmare of laws and paperwork was enacted to help create a regulated system that prevented monopolies. A small-time brewer would say it does exactly the opposite: it creates a system where only large corporations are favored. Kallman struggled to find investors for her company, but she also struggled to get her product to retailers. The middlemen delivery companies were tied up with million-dollar accounts with the Big Three brewing corporations. In this case the law didn’t just leave Kallman out to dry—it hindered her almost completely.

            Still she struggled on. In one interview she said the only thing that wasn’t leaned or mortgaged were the kids—and she would keep them. Her husband, while fully supportive, said that if Moonshot didn’t take off, they’d lose everything—house included. Even so, he was confident in her resilience and in her ability to bounce back from the flak she took for trying. It seemed like Rhonda Kallman was the incredible bobo-doll: no one could knock her down for good. So it seemed.

            Moonshot was finally brought down—not by “evil” corporate America, but by the federal government. The FDA ruled that Moonshot was too dangerous for consumption, and in spite of Kallman putting up a fight for her product, family, children, and company, the fed would have none of it. Her beer contained 69 mg of caffeine—as much as a can of Pepsi. But big brother knows best. If what the Kallman family stated was true, the collapse of Moonshot cost them their house and a bankruptcy. Kallman had another brand started, but the collapse took out the secondary company before it had a chance to become self-sufficient.

            This is a picture of the idiocy that is our government. Mixing Redbull and vodka (which is very popular) is like Moonshot on steroids—and Redbull doesn’t contain as much caffeine as Monster, or Rockstar, which are also popular mixers. Yet all these combo-mixer drinks are completely legal. Does it stop there? Unfortunately, no. Jack-and-Coke, Rum-and-Coke, Baileys-and-cofee and other popular mixed drinks contain high levels of alcohol and caffeine. Is it good for the human body? Probably not. But the federal argument against Moonshot was akin to saying, “Cigarettes from Marlboro, and Camel are outlawed because they cause cancer and are too dangerous. But you can roll your own and put whatever you want in them and smoke those instead.”

            In the end, any one of the aforementioned drinks is legal to order and consume at any bar—and they all probably have as much or more caffeine and alcohol than Moonshot, given the right proportions. Moonshot came under fire probably because it was both ingredients in one bottle. Is mixing one’s own drink less dangerous, or is the fed just that stupid?

            In the end, Moonshot may not have been a great product. Light beer drinkers seemed to like it, though many connoisseurs didn’t care for it. Was it a gimmick or a good idea? The truth is, we’ll never know. The fed failed to protect Ms. Kallman from violations of the law by other companies, they failed to allow her a fair opportunity via the shipping laws, and finally they simply quashed her altogether. They did all this while “worse” drinks were made and served everyday in bars across America.

The market, the people, the consumers are the ones who should have decided if Moonshot was a bad idea. If they didn’t like it, they didn’t have to buy it, and eventually it would go away. Despite this, the fed has moved into nanny mode to decide which beer (among other things)  is best for the consumer. Wake up, America. This is your government.

(Author’s Note: I have never tried Moonshot, and even if given the chance I probably wouldn’t try it. The whole concept never appealed to me, and I’d rather just have a coffee if I needed caffeine. That said, still I believe in a free market where people can decide what they want without an idiot politician telling them what they can have.)

Welcome, Paul Ryan

            I feel sorry for Paul Ryan. From now until November this man, his wife, and his kids will be under an unforgiving microscope of biased media coverage. Perhaps even worse, the political left will be using a fire hose connected to a septic tank and daily or even hourly spraying bitter hatred and vile accusations against this man and his family. It won’t be because he

-       Voted yes to make it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime

-       Said that America is on an unsustainable fiscal path.

-       Voted yes on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation.

-       Is rated 93% by the US COC, indicating a pro-business voting record.

-       Voted yes on requiring states to test students.

-       Voted yes on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC.

-       Stands to strengthen prohibitions against animal fighting.

-       Acknowledged the Armenian Genocide as official US policy.

-       Voted for free trade for Peru, Chile, Singapore, and Australia.

-       Wanted to restrict campaign donations from foreigners or 3rd parties.

-       Voted yes on $46 billion in tax cuts for small business.

-       Has a multi-year commitment to Africa for food & medicine.

It won’t be for these reasons. It will be because he’s running opposite Joe Biden—who’s certified liberal enough to get a free pass. Ryan will come under fire for what his wife wears, where his kids go to school, and so on simply because he’s more right-of-center than a socialist liberal. It’s been well under 10 hours since the announcement, and already the memes of Ryan and Romney laughing have been captioned with “pissing on the homeless guy” jokes and so on. It’s almost 100% certain that neither Romney nor Ryan has ever urinated on a homeless person—but that doesn’t seem to matter. He’s against Obama, therefore he’s public enemy number one. The economy circling the drain and Obama’s abysmal record will not be the narrative. Mitt Romney will be murderer and Paul Ryan will want to burn gays at the stake, and “piss on homeless people” and so on. Even though the election will eventually turn to the issues, there will always be a part of it that attempts to destroy the man and his family for who they are. Mr. Ryan, I hope you’re ready for this. It’s going to get ugly before it gets better.

Jailbreaking the iPhone 4S 5.1.1 -- There and Back Again

            Recently I finally caved and gave the uber-simple Jailbreak tool called “RedSn0w” a try. Jailbreaking the iPhone 4S isn’t really that hard—it’s all a matter of procedure and correct order of steps. It’s pretty simple, and once you figure it out, it takes well under an hour to go from bone-stock to a fully tweakable jailbreak.

            What isn’t simple is Cydia, which is the “app store” of the jailbroken world. A user gets Cydia for free when they use RedSn0w or Absinthe to jailbreak their i-device. There are hundreds of tweaks, apps, and theme managers from Cydia and its sources. All these goodies come from source servers on the internet. While Cydia has it’s own clean sources, there are literally hundreds of other source domains online for tweaks, themes, apps, etc. Keep in mind that not all sources are good—be warned, malware is out there too. To start things off I got a reputable theme manager to mix things up in the aesthetic department on my phone.

Dreamboard seemed to be a popular theme manager, so I ran with it

Within moments of installing Dreamboard my phone looked exactly like an Android, complete with working clock, weather, and Facebook widgets. Things could be confusing at times, but thanks to Dreamboard it was extremely easy to swap back to the stock look as necessary. I will say that Dreamboard definitely made swapping and trying themes easy as pie--and fast too.

            Despite the uber-slick theme swapping that Dreamboard provided, I found myself bouncing back and forth between feeling bored, and overwhelmed by all the aspects of jailbreaking. There’s a thousands of tweaks, and themes all from hundreds of different sources. But each source must be manually added into Cydia, and then manually sorted through. Going through the sources is a drag as the search feature is horribly ineffective unless you know exactly what you are looking for. The rating system is a joke, so browsing the app/tweak/theme lists tells the user next to nothing about the quality of the download.

            Using Google and YouTube helps you quickly find the best tweaks and so on. Installing them comes at multiple costs though—some installs cost money (more on this in a moment), and all the cool goodies take system resources. In short, lots of installs will almost certainly make the iPhone run slower than stock. Even I noticed a little performance loss with minimal goodies installed.

            There were two more final straws that made me go back to stock. First were the ads. Cydia has ads on nearly every page. That wasn’t appealing at all…every tweak and theme listing in Cydia had 2-4 ads on the info page, and it took time to load them all in addition to the screen shots. At best, they were annoying, and detrimental to the load speeds in Cydia when browsing.

            Secondly, many of the cool tweaks, apps, and themes cost money. It would seem that “out of jail” everything has a price—and no accountability. Purchases on Cydia can range up to $15 for a theme. Many themes are $2-$3 each, and other tweaks all cost a pretty penny once added up. (And they’re not always bug-free either. Getting them to work properly can take some additional tweaking). Installing a few top tweaks could easily run $10-$20. A friend of mine who had done a jailbreak ended up with a couple of unintentional bills due to hidden subscription fees after purchasing a couple of different items.

            In the end, jailbreaking is pretty simple and easy—but living with it, and taking full advantage of it is not. If you’re obsessed with your phone, and have lots of time to tweak it and get into it, then jailbreaking might be for you. Also, if you have a few specific themes in mind that you just have to have, then it may be worth a shot.

            On the other hand, if you’re not that into your phone then jailbreaking is pretty overrated in my opinion. The possibility of bricking a phone, or messing something up and dealing with the voided warranty isn’t really worth the tweaks in my opinion. It’s cool, but it’s not that cool. I’m happy to wait in jail for iOS 6.

Defeathering the Chick-Fil-A Meme

Time for a de-meme-ing of sorts…

This meme shouldn’t have any traction for a few reasons—mostly logical reasons.

-       There's no evidence that it was mostly Christian supporters that showed up. That's a logical fallacy, called "sweeping generalization". Some may have been Christian, but some does not justify all. There are no statistics suggesting the CFA supporters were even greater than 50% Christian. One cannot take “there were some Christians” and make it, “Christians”, as in all. For many, this was about freedom of speech.

-       Logically, Jesus is ok with the "biblical definition of marriage” and supporting it. One can be pretty sure Jesus doesn’t mind people supporting a man that publically places faith in Him and the Bible He wrote.

-       Contrary to the meme, one will see that many Christians have lined up to help others. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/viral-chick-fil-a-picture-claims-christians-dont-feed-the-poor-but-we-have-proof-to-the-contrary/

-       Operation Christmas Child, World Vision, Operation Blessing, Samaritan’s Purse, Salvation Army, hundreds of city missions across the US, hundreds of Crisis Pregnancy Centers, JAF Ministries, Koinanea House, Mission Aviation Fellowship, New Tribes Mission, thousands of churches with Food Pantries, Habitat for Humanity, Mercy Ships, Christian Aid Ministries, and the list goes on and on and on. These aren’t flash mobs. These are Christian organizations that take a lot of money and manpower to run, year in and year out. If someone thinks that “Christians aren’t doing anything” maybe it’s because they’re not involved in what Christians are doing. Ironically, many food banks and homeless shelters are run by Christians. A more accurate statement might be that one would never see this many LGBT supporters lining up to help any of the above organizations.

-       The nature of the meme suggests two sources: a self-loathing, handwringing Christian, who, (as stated above) probably isn’t involved much with aid organizations of any kind. Or secondly, a liberal who very subtly is trying to slip the hypocrisy accusation into a catchy meme. Either way, self-righteous ignorance is a theme here, and that’s why the meme is busted.

Is it over for Ron Paul? It should be

            Ron Paul’s luck and delegate insurgency ran out in Nebraska in the month of July. His hopes for a plurality of delegates from five states (which was needed for a shot at being nominated and a spot to address the RNC in Tampa) were dashed when Nebraska picked only two Paul delegates out of 35 total delegates being sent to the National Convention. Is it over for Ron Paul's shot at the 2012 presidency? It all depends on whom you ask, so maybe a better question to ask is, “Should it be over?” Anyone wanting to fire Mr. Obama should answer “yes”, and there are two reasons for this.

            First, the whole Paul candidacy should be over for one very simple reason: Ron Paul is not the nominee of the people. In raw votes (which is arguably the best sampling of what the public wants), Ron Paul is dead last in terms of the popular vote. Out of all the voters who could go out and vote for anyone of their choosing in the primaries, they picked Paul last. In fact, out of the 50 states, Ron Paul never carried a single one in terms of the popular vote—only in Puerto Rico did he take first place. In raw numbers, he was out voted eight to one, or 16.3 million non-RP votes to his 2 million voters. While allegations of fraud are common from Paul voters, the fact is that the 14 million "non-RP" votes are impossible to conjure out of thin air. For sake of argument saying that even half those votes are fraudulent is still to say that Paul got buried in a landslide of “non-Ron-Paul” votes. In short? It wasn’t even close. The conservative/GOP voters do not want Ron Paul as the nominee.

            Despite this, Paul has changed tactics to try and sway delegates to his side, as reported by various sources including the Washington Post. The Post reports that, “Paul supporters have been increasing his delegate totals or nominating Paul sympathizers as Romney delegates”. MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow also noted that Paul delegates have been working to generate support and favor for their candidate not among voters, but amongst their fellow delegates. This is possibly the most disgusting act of misconduct on the part of any candidate’s supporters. Dictionary.com defines a delegate as, “a person designated to act for or represent another or others; deputy; representative, as in a political convention.” Thus, a delegate is called to represent the will of the people above all other interests. What is the will of the people? See the previous paragraph. Eight-to-one against Ron Paul is the way the people should be represented by their delegates. Not only are the pro-Paul delegates ignoring the total votes of the public, but they would also be forcing the will of the minority onto the voting majority by nominating Paul.

            The second reason that it should be over for Ron Paul is the very reason that Rachel Maddow is so enthralled with his run: a split conservative vote. Ron Paul’s continued candidacy does not bring the country closer to firing Barack Obama. If Ron Paul runs as a third party candidate the sad truth is that Obama would get the upper hand in November’s elections. It’s simple mathematics really. Pretend there’s a pie and whoever walks away with the biggest piece wins. Barack Obama is going to take at least 45%—just under half—of said pie. This means that Obama is beatable—but only if the “Voter Pie” isn’t getting split three ways.

            Even Paul's own words have assured his loss in a general election. All Mitt and/or Barack have to do in the first debate is ask Ron why he thinks Reagan was a lousy president, and why he supports legalized heroin and prostitution (his words). His stances on these subjects will never endear him to conservatives, traditional values voters, and anti-drug voters--all of which he would need to win against both Mitt and Barack.

(For a final coupe de grace on why Paul is unelectable as president, see this top 12 list that would sink him: http://www.rightwingnews.com/john-hawkins/why-ron-paul-can-never-be-president-in-12-quotes/ Also, trust that the liberal media machine would run these on a loop till everyone in the nation thinks he’s a complete kook.)

            All this isn’t to say that Mitt Romney is the conservative standard by which the future of the country will be redeemed. It is to say that if the country wants to send Barack Obama in to the realm of the unemployed, that Ron Paul is not, and cannot be the man to lead the charge in the November elections.

            There is no shame in a good race ending in defeat. There is shame in meddling to one's own hurt and to the hurt of the nation. If Ron Paul really is the “man of the people” and “champion of the constitution” that he proclaims himself to be then he should honor the system set in place by the people. But if he pursues delusions of grandeur as the dark-horse wild card 3^rd party, Ron Paul’s actions will ultimately set Barack Obama squarely on a path to the White House for a second term. Obama may be losing steam, but underestimating the sheer amount of Obama’s support (and overestimating his own support) would be a costly mistake for Ron Paul to make—and the country itself would foot the bill for it.

State of the Primaries: Either Mitt or Miracle

We’re so close and yet so far from the GOP nominee being officially being named. Here’s my take on the primary situation: it’s Mitt. This has nothing to do with issues as much as it does delegates and raw numbers. Rush Limbaugh made a great point when he said that Mitt doesn't win debates--he survives them. While Romney doesn’t have it sewed yet the harsh reality for everyone else is that he will have it in the bag soon—unless the unthinkable happens. Here’s what that "unthinkable miracle" probably looks like.

As I stated in a previous post, Ron Paul has an impossible math problem (which is more impossible now than it was when I wrote it—see the original post here: Ron Paul's Impossible Math Problem). Ron is statistically done by probably April 3rd or so as he can’t win one primary, much less the 100% he needs at this point.

Newt is in a bad spot too…his support rivals Ron Paul’s (that is, single-digits), so he’s short of support—and cash too, as Drudge reports that he’s charging $50 for a pic. He’s got a little pile of delegates, and while it dwarfs Ron’s collection, it’s far shy of Rick’s and Mitt’s gatherings.

Rick has the most delegates out of the Non-Mitts—but it’s still not enough. Again, Drudge reports that Rick needs a 75% winning streak to bag the nomination. Odds are, he can’t gather enough delegates before Mitt does. Or can he? A Santorum victory is theoretically possible, and even plausible given that three events happen.

First, Ron Paul drops out. Paul admitted that his odds for the White House were slim, and even hinted that he was largely drumming up support for the libertarian cause. Fair enough. Paul got himself in the limelight, and people heard him. Great. That’s fine. But Ron isn’t winning—but what he is doing is drawing votes away from Rick—which ultimately helps Romney alone. Libertarianism will go on, most certainly. But there is no good cause for Paul to stay in the race at this point: it’s expensive and Paul isn’t getting free camera time in front of millions of voters anymore. The debates are over, and the public eye is elsewhere. In short: message delivered, we all got your point, now are you going to help Romney or help Rick?

Second, Newt has to drop out. He’s got more delegates than Paul, sure, but he’s not won anything huge recently. Georgia wasn’t much of a win: it’s his home state. The first clue that it’s over for Newt should be that he’s trading places with Ron for finishing last. The road to the nomination is not won by playing leapfrog for last place.

Third, and finally, Ron and Newt both have to do the unthinkable: they have to endorse Rick, and beg their delegates and supporters to throw in behind Santorum. If all their delegates went to Rick (a big if), he’d be sitting at around 450. Santorum would still be 100 delegates behind Mitt Romney but two states worth of voting could easily even the playing field. At that point, Romney would be split for odds, and the whole “Inevitable Candidate” image is in the dumpster. Additionally, there are undoubtedly some Romney voters who would jump ship because Mitt is no longer “inevitable”. Rick might not win, but he’d have a fighting chance, and a darn good one at that. The odds for the upset would go up drastically. (Whether or not this is actually good for the party/process/election in November is another idea entirely).

Personally I severely doubt this will happen. Newt Gingrich is a stubborn, and proud man. He’s a hard fighter, and buckling to a nobody like Santorum is beneath him. Ron Paul will stay in because he honestly thinks there’s something to be gained by doing so. In short, Newt is too stubborn to quit, and Ron is too deluded. End result? Romney wins. There are few that will argue that Romney is the most conservative of the four. Rick and Newt draw the more conservative crowd, and Ron Paul’s followers should loathe Romney as a big government fat cat. It makes sense that these three are somewhat sharing a similar voter base—and sharing will not result in any of the three winning over Mitt. I’ve talked with a lot of people, read a lot of articles, watched a lot of primaries, debates, and punditry, and I can safely conclude that from the basic conservative voter all the way up to Rush Limbaugh does not love Mitt Romney. They just vastly prefer him compared to Obama.

Barring the "unthinkable miracle", the real question is for the hardcore Rick/Newt supporters and the Paulbots: when Mitt wins it, are you going to take your toys and go home? Or are you going to stick around and help the country do it’s best to fire one of the worst presidents in our history? Robert Heinlein once said, “If you are part of a society that votes, then do so. There may be no candidates and no measures you want to vote for ... but there are certain to be ones you want to vote against. In case of doubt, vote against. By this rule you will rarely go wrong.” My plea for the GOP base is at the very least to stop grousing over the candidate you cannot have, and get with the one you can have. Mitt may or may not be many things, but one thing he is not: worse than what we have now. Come November this country needs you to pull up your pants and vote. If you can’t do this then the rest of us don’t want to hear your whining for the next four years.