I saw this article on Yahoo Monday about a TED talk Sergey Brin gave last week, where he discussed the ways that he finds his smart phone “emasculating.”  I don’t have a strong opinion on that topic, but it’s also partly because I don’t have a smart phone.  I’m not really a luddite as much as I am true to the Swiss, German and Scottish parts of my ancestry in my frugality and my reluctance to adopt the latest fads, especially when those fads come with a monthly fee I’d rather not have to pay.

I only have a rather primitive cell phone, and I rarely use it very often.   I remember back around 2000 watching the Oprah show one day when Oprah confessed she didn’t have a cell phone, and she couldn’t understand why people needed to be available that way at all times and in all places.  While I’m sure Oprah has relented and gotten not just a cell phone but a smart phone by now, I still remember her remark in resisting that particular technology.

But while I might not have a smart phone, most of the other folks I know or encounter have one.  And that brings me around to my topic of the moment.  I’m less worried about whether or not smart phones are “emasculating” than I am about their tendency to make people more self-absorbed, oblivious, and frankly rude.

I’m appalled at work when I see people checking their smartphones during meetings, but I see it all the time.  And then there is the matter of the folks who text (or play “Angry Birds”) while walking or crossing the street or, worse, while driving.

My particular gripe at the moment is something that I see more and more frequently when I fly these days, and that is people who flout the rule against using their cell phones during flight.  Maybe it is an unnecessary rule, but it is still a rule, and ostensibly a rule put in place for everyone’s safety.  Nevertheless, I’ve witnessed people within my line of sight who don’t turn off their phones when instructed, or who furtively turn them on in mid-flight to start texting or checking e-mails (and I’m not talking about a flight with wi-fi), or who hide them away only to have them ring during flight.   On one of my most recent flights, a phone rang and a guy took the call and started talking as we were going into the final descent before landing.   I’m not a frequent flyer, so if I’ve witnessed all of these things, I can’t be the only one.

Maybe I’m just being a grouch, but it seems to me that the advances in communications technology have desensitized many people (and not just the Alec Baldwins of the world) to the demands of common courtesy and common sense.

It never ceases to amaze me that so many liberals fail to grasp the reality of the law of unintended consequences with respect to any piece of supposedly well-intentioned legislation.  I use the word “liberals” here rather than “leftists” because I mean to refer not to the hard-core, doctrinaire leftists, but to the garden variety liberals who continually get fooled by the left into supporting their ill-intentioned schemes.

The difference between a basic liberal and a hard-core leftist is nicely illustrated by the anecdote that opens this article about the left’s scheme to undermine American power in the world and the American way of life.  Daren Jonescu describes an acquaintance of his, a teacher, and a liberal, who was surprised to learn that the Communist Party of the U.S.A. had endorsed Obama:

When I explained that the Party’s official endorsement cited Obama’s signature policy initiatives as the surest means to achieving socialism in America, and that CPUSA leaders were actively campaigning for Obama in swing states, my colleague fell silent for a moment, and then said, matter-of-factly, “It doesn’t really bother me; I guess it might bother me if Obama were endorsing the Communist Party, but if they’re endorsing him, it doesn’t matter.”

In typical fashion, the liberal here manages to convince himself that what should be obvious is really inconsequential.

But I digress.  While it seems clear to me that the left’s aim in pursuing gun-control is to disarm the populace, liberals always buy into it because they believe the lie that gun-control will somehow reduce “gun-violence,” even though lawbreakers will always find ways to acquire guns.

In the current environment, for example, all the gun-control talk has created a run on guns, ammunition, and the magazines that the politicians are talking about outlawing.  And the liberals are flummoxed and upset about all of the guns being sold these days.  It’s a classic case of failing to understand the law of unintended consequences whenever gun-control becomes a fixation of the politicians and their agents in the media.

Of course, that is only just the beginning.  Opponents of more gun-control are always quick to point out that as the measures fail to achieve their aims, the calls for more restrictions and more confiscatory legislation will only escalate.  Conservatives recognize this, and leftists know that is their ultimate aim.  But liberals always delude themselves into perpetuating the lies of the left.

Every so often, though, they get a clue that the problem might not be as easily fixed as proponents of immediate legislative fixes would have them believe.  Consider, for instance, the title of this recent Washington Post article: “Weapons made with 3-D printers could test gun-control efforts.”

To follow the implications of that story to its logical conclusions is to recognize that one unsuccessful gun-control bill is but the first step down a slippery slope that can lead to more and more government intervention into every aspect of our lives, yet “liberals” still manage to remain in denial about that reality.

This is my first posting via my new iPad. Just so you don’t think I’m a rich millionaire like Obama, I cashed in years of AMEX miles points to get it.

I’ve had it less than 24 hours and already love it. It is the most user friendly computer device I’ve used since I first loaded the game “Lawn” into the cassette player attached to the 60lb PC.

There is a lot of functionality that I hope will allow me to do more frequent blogging on the go. Always remember that if you REALLY need your daily GayPatriot fix … I’m a minor celebrity on Twitter! (@GayPatriot.

The other thing I’m hooked on with the iPad is the quick way to get information. There are a lot of multimedia sources available (think: the “come to life” newspapers in Harry Potter’s world)

And books!!! My Kindle subscriptions can be read in full color and it LOOKS LIKE A BOOK!! By the way, I’m currently reading “Rawhide Down” — the in-depth story of what happened behind the scenes on March 31, 1981.

For now, so long. I’ll be back soon….as long as there’s a free WiFi!!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Almost up until the day in 2002 (nearly exactly 8 years ago) I signed up for my first cell phone, I had vowed I would never get one.  I didn’t like the idea of being constantly reachable.  Yet, after a wonderful day at Disney with two nieces and a nephew, don’t know how I could have managed many family gatherings without one.  Simply put, because both my brother and I had cell phones, I could take my 14-year-old niece on rides her (much) younger siblings were too young (or too small) to enjoy.

Not long ago, I vowed I’d never upgrade to a Smartphone, not wanting to have the temptation of internet access wherever I go.

Today, after much consideration, I went out and bought a smart phone, in large measure due to recent nudging for my sister-in-law.  To be sure, had been wrestling with getting one, but kept putting off the decision because I’m a Mac guy and the iPhone is not available to Verizon users (& I have long been very happy with that service).  But, well, I got a great deal on an LG phone via a Verizon mailer (about $50 with rebate).  (Yes, I’m aware that Verizon users may soon be able to keep their carrier on iPhones.)

All that said, today, when I returned home from Disney and got said circular in the mail (seeing this as a sign to followup on my sister-in-law’s concern), I figured I should check the phone out at the local Verizon store.  Anyway, when I googled Verizon, I came up with only two stores near me.  Eight years ago, when I had bought my first cell phone, I recall there being about seven.  Indeed, the store where I bought my first cell phone (as well as the one where I bought my second) has long since closed down.

So, I was wondering that, as cell phone usage becomes commonplace, there is less need for such outlets, fewer people going in to set up (their initial) cell phone service, with more stores selling cell phones and helping you transfer your (already existing) service to the new gadget. (more…)

I haven’t read The Corner at National Review Online all week.

K-Lo…. please get The Corner on Twitter!

PS — Patrick Ruffini declared Tuesday was the day that Twitter “jumped the shark”.   Ironically it was the same day I figured it all out.   That is pretty much par for the course with Internet & techy stuff for me.   Dan (GPW) is 6 months behind me. 

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

[A]s the Financial Times notes, social networking site Facebook has become an important venue in the Arab world for protesting the Israeli campaign, as well as a potent fundraising tool for supporters of the Palestinian cause…

Of course, Israel has plenty of Facebook friends as well. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported today how Matt Freelander, a young Jewish Londoner, organized a pro-Israeli demonstration through Facebook; around 1,000 people showed up for the rally. Radio Netherlands notes another Facebook site that aims to round up a million supporters of Israel. (Wired)

It makes sense that this is happening. Islamic terrorists have for years now been using internet chatrooms, message boards and even YouTube for connections and propaganda purposes. It looks like Israel has learned from this and is now likewise engaging the enemy online in this current conflict through such efforts as the IDF’s new YouTube channel.

– John (Average Gay Joe)