Wired

The laptop I use everyday, in fact the one I'm writing this post on right now, is a 17" MacBook Pro. Or as they say in the laptop biz, a dinosaur.

I bought it the minute it was announced in January of aught 9, which for those of you doing the math means—in technology years—it's as old as dirt.

The reason I had my credit card fired up and ready to buy this laptop the first day it was announced was because of its big, beautiful screen. I have terrible vision—in fact it's even gotten worse in the time you've been reading this. The idea of a screen this large was very appealing. I thought this kind of real estate would be much easier to see and work on.

But that was then and this is now. So even though it's bigger, it's not a retina screen with impossibly great resolution. The battery drains faster than a seventy-year old with a urinary tract infection. And I can't upgrade the apps and operating system because the processor is too old and slow.

I think it's obvious to even the most skeptical readers (pauses to laugh hysterically at the thought of anyone reading this) it's about time I got myself a bitchin' new state-of-the-art, high-tech, super-expensive 15" MacBook Pro. Only because Apple discontinued the 17" version—did I mention dinosaur?

As fate would have it, before she went to college my beautiful daughter, who's getting a quality out-of-state tuition education in the middle of the Iowa cornfields, unexpectedly got a brand new 15" MacBook Pro. So she generously gave me her 13" MacBook Air she wasn't going to be using.

Now, even though it's obviously a lot smaller screen than I'm used to, it's a higher resolution so it's actually easier on my eyes. Which means I get to write sentences like that last one using the word "it's" three times.

I've also found because of the smaller size, I don't (can't) have as many windows open at once. So I don't waste a lot of time toggling between them. It forces me to focus. Turns out that's a good thing. Who knew?

Of course, the only exercise I was getting on a daily basis was lifting the 17" laptop, which weighed—true fact—350 lbs. At least it felt like it. The MacBook Air weighs next to nothing, hence the name.

So what does any of this have to do with the photo of tangled computer cables? Well, I have to get my info from the old laptop onto the new(er) one. To do that, I can connect them to each other, or the MB Air to my backup drive. Problem is I don't have the cables to do it.

In spite of my cable drawer looking like snakes on the floor in Raiders Of The Lost Ark, the one cable I need isn't among them. Because my laptop's so old, there's no USB to USB cord to be found. Or Firewire to USB cord. I'm not even sure which cable I need: Lightning, Thunderbolt, HDMI, DVI or Magnum PI (look it up).

It's a lot of tech mumbo-jumbo for a task that should be easier than getting into city college. Thanks Obama.

Anyway, the MB Air is a few years old now, so maybe it's time for me to just bite the bullet and pony up for that brand new bitchin' laptop after all.

But only if the cables are included.

Emotionally loaded

It's 2:30 in the morning on a starless, black night.

You're suddenly awakened out of a deep sleep by the harsh sound of shattering glass - a sound you intuitively know means nothing good is about to happen. As you get out of bed to see what it is, extreme unease fills you. Your heart is pounding, all senses are on high alert. As you get to the bedroom doorway, you discover an intruder, a stranger you immediately recognize as a very bad man, moving quickly with very bad intentions down the hallway towards your daughter's room.

You see him, but he doesn't see you. Yet.

The question is what would you like to have on you at this moment. A phone to call 9-1-1 in the hopes they'll get to you faster than he'll get to your daughters' room. Maybe a baseball bat, so you can run up behind him (which he'll hear) and engage in physical combat with him. A flashlight so you can shine it on him and let him know you're there and exactly where you're standing. How about a whistle to blow, so you wake everyone in the house up making it easy for him to know where they are, and who the most vulnerable one is.

For me, the answer is a gun.

If this were the scenario in my house, I'd have no qualms about taking the guy out before he ever reached my kids' room.

I have friends who disagree strongly on this viewpoint. In fact, one of them recently posted on Facebook that you're a moron if you even own a gun. Obviously a much more emotional response to the issue than an informed one.

But that's what the emotion on both sides of the issue drives people to do: paint in broad strokes, and make assumptions that simply aren't true.

Everyone who owns a gun is not a moron, or a killer waiting to happen. I know people who own guns. In fact I know people who own arsenals. Their weapons are legal and registered. They're well trained, responsible people who secure them when not in use. They know and practice gun safety.

In the light of the Newtown tragedy, both sides have a hair trigger when it comes to the other. And it's irrational fear that's driving both of them.

I don't think there's any one answer, but we have to start somewhere. The 23 items Obama put forth today - from assault weapons ban to increased and in-depth background checks - is as good a place as any. I believe monitoring and follow-up should also be part of the mix.

It's ridiculous and ignorant in equal parts to think all people who own guns are morons, or all guns are going to be banned, or the government is going to raid your house and take your guns. What all this talk does is drive gun sales. And the most fearful people who are doing the buying are probably the ones who shouldn't have them.

Do we have a gun culture? Are our children exposed to too much violence? Does it have a detrimental effect? I don't know. Does playing with toy fire trucks mean they're going to grow up to be firemen?

These are all appropriate questions that deserve considered and thoughtful answers.

Right after I take out that guy on the way to my daughters' room.

Ron Paul got it wrong on this one

Despite what some of my friends think, it's been a very long time since I've been a liberal Democrat. In recent years, I've been much more of a centrist.

I've always liked Ron Paul. And I find myself agreeing with many of his libertarian points of view. Often times, especially with the debates he's been involved in, he's the only one making any sense (although it's not hard to look that way standing next to Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann).

Every time I've ever listened to Ron Paul, whether it's been in this election or the last one, he seems to come from two places other politicians fear to tread.

The truth. And common sense.

But with this week's killing of Anwar Awlaki, I'm afraid Ron Paul got it wrong. Here's what he said about it:

I can't decide whether to take his statement line by line or overall, so I'll do a bit of both.

He starts by saying he doesn't think it's a good way to deal with our problems. I agree with that. For things like urban blight, water shortages, disaster relief, unemployment, the recession, poverty and most of the other problems the country faces, a Predator missile probably isn't the go-to solution.

But the killing of Awlaki wasn't symbolic of how we handle everything. The action was only designed to handle one problem. Which it did exactly as intended.

Paul goes on to naively say Awlaki was never tried or charged, and no one knows if he killed anybody. This is disappointing because it seems so self-serving. He could've said the same about Bin Laden. The truth is there actually are people who know that Awlaki killed and orchestrated the killing of innocent Americans. And since Paul sits on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, he knows it.

The part about how sad he thinks it is if Americans blindly and casually accept a practice of the president assassinating people he thinks are bad guys is pure manipulation. I don't think Americans blindly or casually accept the killing of anyone.

But Awlaki wasn't just anyone. He was and has been an immediate threat to the country for years. These weren't the first missiles we fired at him.

Ron Paul is a brilliant man. He knows Obama takes the fight against terrorism extremely seriously (just look at the scorecard). If by "bad guys" he means international terrorists intent and dedicated to destroying American interests and killing as many innocent Americans as possible anywhere in the world, then I have some bad news for Congressman Paul.

I have no problem accepting that. According to the polls, neither do most Americans.

There also seems to be a lot of outcry about the fact Awlaki was American-born, and we shouldn't be assassinating American citizens. Truthfully, I haven't noticed a sudden rash of American citizen assassinations being ordered by Obama. One of his good qualities is that he's pretty selective about who to pull the trigger on.

As far as I can tell, so far it's been pirates and terrorists.

But, you know, every job comes with occupational hazards no matter where you're from. When you list international terrorist at the top of your resume, the risk of Predator missiles just comes with the territory.

Especially if the territory is Yemen or Pakistan.

So, I'm glad we got Awlaki. I'm disappointed in Ron Paul, although I still believe much of what he says is dead on.

By the way, while I do think there are easier ways to get it, it's worth noting that Obama received support from both sides of the aisle on this decision.

Ron Paul is certainly entitled to his opinions. But the idea of the presidency is to represent the majority of Americans.

And on this particular action, I don't think Ron Paul does.