Well, has everyone seen the new iPad? A lot of ballyhoo and it is interesting. However, I am no longer one of those people who want every new toy coming out. Mom's first question when we saw the excerpts of Job's introduction of the device was 'can we connect it to a printer?' The other problem I have is the tie-in to AT&T. I simply don't like that company. I have Verizon and have had very good service with them. I won't change to get a new toy. We would look at the iPad if we were replacing our computers (which we are not since we had to do that a couple of months ago). I imagine that when we are forced to replace the computers we will give it another look. For us the iPad would be attractive if we could consolidate all computer and phone functions into the same device. However, here is an article on the iPad which follows some of the morning coffee conversations here. The tv news this morning noted an AT&T announcement that the company is shifting a lot of money into capital upgrades after a rising number of complaints about its service with the iPhone customers. It comes down to a matter of numbers. After the telephone and automobiles were introduced it took decades before those items became ubiquitous in our social landscape. With the iPhone millions of customers had to have the device immediately and that was on top of the other smart phone customers with other band hungry devices.
CNBC carried almost continuous coverage of the Bernanke confirmation votes. Yes--that is plural. They required a cloture vote with 60 affirmative (minimum) to cut off the 'debate' and then a separate vote to confirm. The most asinine comment that came out of the whole thing was from the one senator (sorry, I don't remember his name) who lambasted Bernanke to hell and back and, then, said he would vote for to confirm because he was afraid of who Obama would appoint if Bernanke was not confirmed. First, Bernanke was originally a Republican appointee. Now, because he is nominated by a Democrat he has terminal B.O.??? Give me a break!! Second, if Bernanke would be such a disaster why not reject the renomination and then stonewall the process to get someone you like better. It would not matter who Obama nominated given that a super majority is required to cut off debate and move it to a confirmation vote. That sounded like someone trying to have his cake and eat it too. Which was confirmed by the CNBC breakdown of who was voting for and against Bernanke. Republicans facing re-election voted overwhelmingly against the nomination.
Ronni Bennett at Time Goes By has an excellent post on Crabby Old Lady's reaction to the State of the Union. We do need bold and vigorous leadership and we haven't had it, not even from Obama. It appears to me that he is trying to stay above the fray hoping to somehow achieve that nirvana of 'bipartisanship' he has been seeking. We need a president who will get down in the fight and call some of the obstructionists out as the 'economic royalists' they are. FDR was willing to do that but Obama hasn't been. I agree with Ronni that we need patience but we need something to be patient for and I haven't seen that. Instead, everything I see convinces me that people like me are being written off as expendable and I resent it. I can't believe I am the only one.