A New Computer

I suppose this is more of a blog entry than an "article" but it may be of interest to some of you regardless. Recently I purchased a new computer. I know: we're talking about me--you're interested already. I'll tell you why this is a big deal. I'm one of those nerds that knows how to put a computer together. I put my last computer together with parts that I purchased or scrapped myself. If I can do all of that, why purchase a brand computer instead of individual parts? I'll tell you why: Windows.

When you put together your own computer, you inevitably have to install an OS (that's "Operating System" for the less tech savvy). You could go with a free Linux distribution, but not only do you have to figure out which of the many "distros" is best for you, you have to find one that actually installs (a daunting feat--I've never been successful). And don't plan on doing any gaming with Linux--there aren't any serious games for it. I mean, at least Mac has the various Blizzard games; Linux has nothing.

That leaves Windows (as far as I know, you can't "put together" a Macintosh). A legitimate Windows OS costs around $300. Yes, $300 just for the OS. For most computers, that's more expensive than any singular component. You would either have to suck it up and shell out the cash, or find and install an illegal version of Windows.

I've tried the latter, and it wasn't pretty. First I installed a pretty basic cracked version of Windows XP. I couldn't update it so I was forced to find a new OS that would fully recognize the hard drive I wanted to install without constantly crashing. I found one in the form of an XP-Vista hybrid. This OS had compatibility issues with some of my games that I couldn't resolve because the OS wasn't legal. Finally I tried one called Crystal XP-- the worst XP hack of all. It was incredibly unstable, randomly crashed, and it crashed so hard that it ended up physically damaging my hard drive.

So I knew what I had to do--or at least I thought I did. I was going to replace the hard drive, an expenditure of at least $80, and suck it up and shell out the $300 for a legal version of Windows. That's a total cost of $380--more if I wanted a larger hard drive. So I strolled into Wal-Mart (it was midnight, I was impatient, and it was the only store open in town save for fast food) and I notice some desktop PCs (pre-built of course) for under $500. I figured the specs were crap but decided to look anyway. To my surprise the specs on these PCs smoked my home-built PC, which I've probably spent over $1,000 on. I had a choice: spend the $400 or so on a hard drive and Windows or spend an extra hundred on what is essentially the same thing plus an upgrade on every single piece of hardware I had and a warranty. You can see how it wasn't really a choice at all.

Lesson? It's cheaper and more convenient to simply purchase a new pre-built computer every few years than it is to try to build one yourself. Putting one together is fun and it's great if you have the money to do it-- especially if you can spend the big bucks and build a truly great machine. For me, though, I'll just have to miss the joy of putting together a computer.

Maybe that's why this feels more like a defeat than a victory.

Obama or Bust

Some people are still struggling to determine whether they should support Senator of New York Hillary Clinton or Senator of Illinois Brack Obama for the Democratic nomination for Presidency. When it comes to the battle between these two candidates I am much more in favor of Obama over Clinton, although I was more hopeful about other candidates such as Kucinich, Edwards, and even a possible run by Gore (which unfortunately never came to pass). I hope I can give everyone still trying to make the consideration between these two candidates good reason to vote for Obama. By the way, some of my reasons to vote for Obama may include or be reasons not to vote for Hillary. This is because I'm assuming, for the purpose of this article, a choice between only these two candidates.

Overall, Obama is the more progressive candidate; when comparing their policies, his tend to be further left from the center than Clinton's (though, to be fair, neither candidate is that far left). Some of Clinton's policies, in fact, are right of the center rather than left! For example, Hillary Clinton co-sponsored a bill to ban the desecration of the American flag. I'm not supporting flag-burning, but this clearly violates our First Amendment right to free speech! I should mention that the proposed bill (which wasn't enacted) did not ban flag-burning outright, but "only" when such flag-burning is of a threatening nature that "may" incite violence. The wording is very vague and serves only to attempt to circumvent the First Amendment. It should also be noted that Hillary Clinton later voted against a proposed Constitutional Amendment to give Congress the power to ban flag-burning. All this means is that Hillary Clinton is a snake and an opportunist--not the sort of person we need as our President!

This isn't the only issue where Clinton has taken a neo-conservative approach to limit freedom of speech. In 2005, when controversy exploded about the Grand Theft Auto series of video games and the secret nudity level in Grand Theft Auto San Andreas, Hillary Clinton had something to say about it. She said (and I paraphrase) that these sorts of video games are destroying our society and something has to be done about it. Sound a little out there? She called for such games to be rated Adult Only and for heavy fines to be applied to those who sell such games to minors. Well, you might say to yourself, that doesn't sound unreasonable. But guess what? It already works that way. The games she was referring to, such as Grand Theft Auto and Mortal Kombat, are already labeled Mature and cannot be sold to anyone under the age of 17-- yes, it's very similar to an R-rated movie. In fact, R-rated movies tend to get away with more than M-rated games! Are you going after theaters next, Clinton? The point is that this just spells out Hillary Clinton as an opportunist once again, if not worse. She's an elephant in disguise.

Since we're on the issue of free speech, and thus individual rights, let's move on to Clinton's health care plan. She advocates what she calls "universal health care." This is, of course, illusory at best and an outright lie at worst. What she truly advocates is mandatory health care, masquerading as universal health care. That's right, Clinton would make it illegal not to have health care, turning the poor and homeless into criminals. And she pretends to be for the working class? Please, give me a break. If I want to not have health care, that should be my right. I can understand mandatory car insurance, because your car can be a weapon. But not having health insurance on myself doesn't hurt anyone else! Why should someone who opts not to have health care be branded a criminal? If anything, this hurts the poor. True universal health care, by the way, would be paid for by tax dollars, rather than individuals. It is very different from Hillary's plan, but that's the level of deceit you get with the Clinton administration. Obama's plan on the other hand, focuses on making health insurance affordable rather than mandatory. He also wants free health care for children. Free, automatic health care for children, not "mandatory" health care. That means the government pays for your child's health care if you cannot. I'll admit that Obama hasn't revealed all of the details of his plan. But I'll take that over Clinton's plan in a heartbeat. His plan might be vague but at least it doesn't trample all over individual rights. Back to the GOP where you belong, Hillary!

What Clinton has revealed for her plans to help the economy does not bode well for working-class citiizens. Obama wants to increase the tax limit, and Hillary uses this as a way to twist his words in order to make him appear to be in favor of increasing taxes. Let me take the time to explain something, here. Most of us (96% of Americans) are used to being taxed on all of our income. That's because 96% of Americans make under $97,000 a year-- the cap for taxable income. This is a break for the extremely wealthy who pay taxes on only a fraction of their incomes (and have the gall to complain about it!) where most Americans are taxed on their entire incomes. What Obama wants to do is to raise the cap on taxable income so that the rich are taxed just like the rest of us. What's fair is fair. Hillary doesn't want this, and in fact spins it to make it look like Obama is in favor of more taxation. Hillary panders to the rich, lies about her opposition, and has no actual ideas of her own (when it comes to our falling economy). She is a deceitful opportunist.

America wants out of the War in Iraq, and so does Obama. He has made that very clear. In fact, of all the viable candidates (McCain, Huckabee, Clinton, and Obama) he is the only one who wants out, and clearly so. Clinton supported Bush's decision to enter the war and defended him throughout the war. Even now her plans on the war are incredibly vague and consist of staying for an indeterminable amount of time. She is sympathetic to Bush and has no concrete plans for leaving the war. Doesn't this sound like disaster to anyone? The only reason she even pretends to "eventually" want out of the war is for votes. That's what we call "political opportunity" if you catch my drift.

I have to be honest: Hillary Clinton leaves a nasty taste in my mouth. She leaves a nasty taste in the mouths of many others as well. She is disliked by nearly everyone but her supporters. The funny thing is, most of her own supporters like Barack Obama but just think that he doesn't have the necessary experience (as if Clinton has more experience than Obama!). Most of them would probably vote for Obama if he got the Democratic nomination; the reverse isn't true. If Obama got the nomination he would have the united backing of the entire party-- if Hillary gets the nomination she would divide the party, cause dissent, and probably give a win to the GOP in the general election.

Obama is better than Clinton in nearly every way. His policies are more progressive. He is a more charismatic and powerful speaker. He wants out of the war-- he wants peaceful negotiations. He isn't despised by foreign leaders or disliked by much of the American public. He doesn't represent an establishment and isn't a production of the party machine. He doesn't take money from lobbyists. He has the qualities for leadership and would make a much better diplomat. He doesn't want to legislate conservative morality. And, perhaps most importantly, he would unite the Democratic Party (and the general public) rather than divide it.

I can see Barack Obama as an excellent President of the United States. I cannot say the same for Hillary Clinton. Hillary would make an excellent dinner guest and is the kind of woman I would love to hang around for an evening--much the same way George Bush is the kind of guy you would love to have over for dinner. And, again like George Bush, while Clinton makes an excellent guest, she does not make an excellent leader.