The Hugh Hewitt Show

Listen 24/7 Live: Mon - Fri   6 - 9 PM Eastern
Call the Show 800-520-1234

The Bill Press Doctrine

Thursday, February 12, 2009  |  posted by Hugh Hewitt

My old pal, lefty Bill Press, jeeps inviting Democratic senators on his radio show and getting them to speak kindly about the return of the patently unconstitutional Fairness Doctrine. (Yes, I know about Red Lion. I teach it. It came down before satellite radio and the internet destroyed the already lame idea that scarcity in available spectrum allowed for content non-neutrality by the government.)

Bill joined me on the program yesterday and, predictably, dodged the most obvious question about the operation of any “new and improved” Fairness Doctrine: Do stations that air criticism of al Qaeda have to air voices that favor mass terror? Do opponents of Hamas have to be balanced with admirers of Hamas? Does every sermon preached by a religious broadcaster have to be followed by an equal amount of time devoted to one of the new atheists?

The idea that the government can referee and balance viewpoint is an absurd cover for the liberal left that, having dominated public radio, broadcast television and MSM print for decades, finds it difficult to spread its already over-saturated messages into AM radio. Having captured so much of the market, it is hard to find new customers for the same old product available 24/7 on or in NPR/NBC/The New York Times etc.

The constitutionally-suspect nature of the drive for “balance” may not deter the Congressional left, but using a position of dominant political power to attempt to silence critics would unleash a huge blowback and not just from listeners, but from all Americans who would recoil from the idea that majorities would be used to silence opposition.

AdvertisementAdvertise With Us

The Great Mac-PC Debate

Thursday, February 12, 2009  |  posted by Hugh Hewitt

I noted on the program yesterday that it seems to me that the overwhelming majority of under-25 computer purchasers who have a choice chose Macs. Dissenting calls and e-mails rolled in, but so did this e-mail:

Morning Glory, Hugh-

I am the network manager at a high school (1,350 students) which has been transitioning to Macs over the past 5 years, and I agree with your assessment. Macs are ‘cool,’ and the number of kids who buy a computer for college who *have a choice in the selection* overwhelmingly favor Macintosh. The trend is favorable to Apple, but PC geeks usually don’t “get it,” and they probably never will.[# More #]

There are a few important considerations why:

1) Many PC-heads are stuck in the old days of Mac before Jobs came back – when Apple’s OS 9 was showing its age. The Mac OS has been unix-based now for 8 years (Mac OS X, say “Mac O-S-ten”), and it’s a whole different animal… stable as all get-out — crashes are rare –and secure to a point Windows has not approached. Unix is a 40-year-old technology built from the very start to be a multi-user, secure, network operating system.

2) Many geeks I encounter still do not know that Macs can run Windows natively (which means no emulation needed). Since the migration to Intel processors started 3 years ago, Apple has made it possible to easily install Windows in addition to the Mac OS, making a dual-boot powerhouse (even achieved the “Fastest Windows PC Tested” status in ’07: http://www.pcworld.com/article/136649-3 ). This turned out to be
a great “safety net” for the fence-sitters who weren’t sure they’d
like the Mac operating system (hint, hint, Hugh). Caveat: Windows does not come with a Mac, you must purchase a copy from that little mom & pop software company in Redmond.

3) Several of your callers brought up the much misunderstood “software titles available” and “market share” myths. While it is true there are more consumer titles available for Windows, just how many different word processors does one need? It is rare nowadays to find anything except odd utilities which do not have a Mac version or counterpart. Apple’s Product Guide (http://guide.apple.com) lists over 18,000 software titles for Mac OS X. Also, some make the argument that since scientific applications (which run largely on UNIX mainframes) are easily ported to OS X, the whole argument is moot, and point #2 above
seals this “mootiness” with a kiss.

As for market share, it’s a misleading figure, and more and more
software developers are figuring that out. Many allocate development resources based on these numbers, but they’re wrong, and here’s why: a large percentage of Windows PCs sold will never run any consumer-oriented software or games. As many as 50% of PCs sold are used in hospitals, factories, retail cash registers and similar which have proprietary software running. Most hospital rooms have a PC workstation nowadays. These these computers are “locked down” by IT departments to only run what the hospital uses to manage patients. The situation is similar in the vast “cubicle farms” in Corporate America- millions of PC workstations completely locked down to run only proprietary applications (often databases developed and maintaine in-house) and productivity applications– almost always Microsoft Office. Why should software developers consider these PCs as potential
customers? Most developers have products which have no chance of cracking into the above markets. The more important point is that software written for a single platform will disappear in the coming years as more and more applications are created to run in web browsers, either via the internal network or over the internet. This really levels the playing field when any modern browser can run the same application on any computer.

4) “Security by obscurity” is the term used by Windows proponents to explain why there are no self-propagating viruses which affect the Macintosh platform. Who’d want to waste their time when Windows has such dominant market share? There is some truth to that, but it’s only a small factor. Many hackers have stated that Windows is “easy pickin’s” in terms of security compared to OS X. The only malware that exists for OS X are the ‘socially engineered’ exploits which try to get you to launch a program pretending to be something it’s not. These viruses/trojans/worms cannot self-propagate and are rarely seen. I’ve never seen one myself.

5) Job security – I hate to admit it, but many geeks are threatened by Macs in terms of job security. One of my brethren so much as admitted to me: “I hate Macs. If everyone had Macs, they wouldn’t need me.” How short-sighted is that? Windows computers require a lot more attention than Macs to maintain, it’s true. But capitalism allocates resources saved in one area to expansion of the whole. As an example: I manage about 400 Macs (300 of which are laptops) for student and faculty use and about 50 Windows XP PCs (10 for student use, the rest used in offices because they’re ingrained there). Those two groupings take about an equal amount of my time to manage, though it’s an 8:1 ratio. As we weed out the old PCs, I’ll have more time to support our other
adventures in education technology.

In the past two years, I have been involved in the purchase of about a dozen PCs for various school needs and a few private clients. In every case, we paid extra for the “XP Downgrade” option instead of Vista, but the trick is that Vista still comes with each one on a CD, so Microsoft counts it as a sale of Windows Vista. What a joke! That being said, Apple has benefited greatly from Microsoft’s Vista disaster. I am sometimes accused of being a Mac “fan-boy” or”lemming,” but the truth is, I use Windows for much of my work, I like some things about Windows, and I believe that the competition between Microsoft and Apple has been, and will continue to be, good for the consumer. I think Windows 7 looks to be a big improvement over the Vista debacle, and Apple needs that pressure to keep innovating.

Free market capitalism: who woulda thunk?

High regards,

Tony in Minnesota.

P.S. FYI: I didn’t see you make this error, but Macintosh is
abbreviated “Mac” not “MAC” — In geek-speak, a “MAC” is something completely different (http://parabel-labs.com/docs/glossary/#m if you’re really interested).

From Coast To Coast: Tax, Tax, Tax and Spend, Spend, Spend

Thursday, February 12, 2009  |  posted by Hugh Hewitt

Details of the massive tax hikes in California’s proposed budget jam-down emerged on the same day that D.C. Democrats put the finishing touches on their spending volcano, and did so in so partisan a way as to make a permanent mockery of President Obama’s claim for a “new politics.”

The only winners in the coast-to-coast roll-out of the Democratic era of big government were those connected to big government. The overreaching is so great, the tax hikes so high and the spending so massive that conservatives should take heart: Rarely have so many masks dropped so quickly in American politics. November 2010 is still 20 months away but the first month of the Obama years has been about clarity, and the California Democrats rolling of a palsied Arnold just underscored what the country is looking at down the road –more and more taxes to pay for every increasing government and shrinking services.

The California GOP’s legislators may yet reject the disgraceful “compromise” that contains almost nothing in the way of serious spending cuts, and if they don’t the ballot measures to follow in a special election –measures that are part of the tricked up “package” of reforms– will set up a chance to rebuke the state “leaders” conclusively.

No such chance will be offered to send a message to D.C., and in fact the legislation flowing out from the Beltway will get much worse before it gets better. But rarely has a majority party promised so much through its leader only to deliver exactly the opposite once in power. The Congressional GOP just has to make that point again and again, even as it loses battle after battle as various combinations of Senators Collins, Snowe and Specter provide the razor thin margins the Democrats need in the upper chamber. Senator McConnell and his team should work to slow everything down as best they can, while focusing the voters again and again on the immense gap between what President Obama ran on, and the bills he is signing.

Meet Steve Poizner; Say Goodbye To David Codgill

Wednesday, February 11, 2009  |  posted by Hugh Hewitt

California’s billionaire Insurance Commissioner is running to replace Arnold.

His first appearance on my program was today, and though he declined the opportunity to name me to his short list of potential CA Supreme Court nominees, it was still a fun introduction, and he did commit to returning to a three hour conversation in studio between himself and fellow GOP candidates Meg Whitman and Tom Campbell. Duane is working on the logistics, and the invitations will be delivered within a fortnight. I hope to make it happen in March. The candidates should jump at the chance. At least if they know why they are running. We’ll see.

The transcript of my conversation with Poizner is below.

I’m in the stands with popcorn on the GOP primary race, but very interested in what three very smart people think about the Golden State’s future if today’s ridiculous budget “deal” becomes law and very productive folk start to head for the exits. It isn’t a budget that’s being debated. Its a suicide note, but the Sacramento “brains” have evidently never taken Econ 10. Arnold is guaranteeing himself a disastrous “legacy” if he pushes the deal as outlined, and the state GOP will be wiped out for lack of a reason to exist if enough defectors throw in with these massive tax hikes. The allegedly Republican David Codgill should just quit since he is declaring “This is the best deal I could get.” What a pathetic dodge. Codgill holds all of the cards, but he chose to fold. Period.

California’s near term future depends on a Democrat, Lou Correa, and the promise –the promisehe made not to vote for a tax hike, and on a few other Republicans who hope to run again some day for higher office, like Able Maldonado. Signing on to this is an announcement of the end of electoral ambitions.

Voting for this “deal” is the equivalent of being against Prop 13 –a political stain that will never, ever wash out.

Here’s the interview with Poizner:

HH: Even though this is a national show heard from Anchorage down to Florida, from Hawaii up to New York and everywhere in between, I know you know it’s from California that I originate, and it’s in California that the future of the economic vitality of the United States resides. The Golden State leads us when we grow, it leads us into recession when we contract. One of the five or six people who will be the successor to Arnold in Sacramento is Steve Poizner. He is the insurance commissioner of California right now, a very successful entrepreneur, said to be a billionaire, had a lot to do with GPS on your cell phone. I welcome him for the first time to the program. Commissioner Poizner, welcome to the Hugh Hewitt Show.

SP: Thanks, Hugh.

HH: What was it that you invented that’s in the cell phones that made you all your money?

SP: Well, I’ve started several companies in Silicon Valley, but my last one was called Snaptrack, where we did figure out a way to embed a global positioning satellite receiver onto a cell phone chip so that when you dial 911 from the cell phone, the emergency operators will know where you’re calling from. It did turn out to be an important feature, of course, about 700 million cell phones have the feature. We’ve saved hundreds of lives with this technology, sold it to Qualcomm a few years ago, really proud of it. [# More #]

HH: Yeah, this is basically why I am comfortable going into Yosemite now, is that I know they can find me. Well Steve Poizner, you want to be governor of California, and A) you had a big win as insurance commissioner today, I want to get to that. But the budget guys up in Sacramento along with Arnold have come out with a plan today. It’s a nightmare for this state. It’s going to drive productive people out of the state, people like you. I mean, why in the world would people like you stay in California when they’re raising the income tax, the sales tax, the gas taxes, the declining infrastructure. Why would they stay?

SP: Well, you just put you finger on the fundamental problem that policy makers in Sacramento just don’t get, that we’re in a very competitive global economy now. And California is losing the big race. I mean, we’ve gone from the 6th largest economy in the world five years ago to the 8th largest economy now. We are shrinking in size and losing market share at a rapid clip. 3,000 people a week, Hugh, pick up and leave the state of California. These are taxpayers just moving to Nevada, Arizona, India and China. We are completely out of sync. And the deal that was cut today in Sacramento, the budget deal, is a terrible, terrible decision on the part of those folks in our state’s capitol here. It only makes matters worse. Our economy is suffering because we’re so out of sync already. Our unemployment rate is two points higher than the national unemployment rate. To raise taxes by $14 billion dollars is a monumental, colossal big mistake.

HH: Now Steve Poizner, I’m an optimist. I believe that American technology and Americans ingenuity and just American entrepreneurial excellence will solve the recession in three to six months like it always does. There’s a business cycle. But I think the rest of the country’s going to come out of it ahead of California. Do you agree with that?

SP: I do agree with that. I do think the rest of the country is actually in much better shape than California. You know, California’s a pretty special place. I mean, it’s been a magnet for innovators and entrepreneurs for a couple hundred years. But in the last thirty to forty years, we’ve been in a state of decline because of overregulation, over-taxation, a deteriorating public school system, and infrastructure that is all clogged up and decaying. We really need to reform the way this state is run. Unfortunately, it was designed 150 years ago before the Civil War when we had just 90,000 people. We need to completely modernize state government. Look what I’ve done at the Department of Insurance, though. So there’s reasons to be hopeful. If you have the determination and the tenacity, you can get things done in state government. You can right size it, you can make it more efficient. At the Department of Insurance, I started with 1,300 employees. We oversee the entire insurance markets in California which are huge. Now I have about 1,150 employees. We did a 10% permanent cut in our cost structure by right sizing and looking for efficiencies. And then I passed on these savings in the form of about $15 million dollars in fee cuts that fund my agency back into the California economy. I did that about a couple of weeks ago. There’s no reason in the world that you can’t do the same kinds of things throughout the entire state government. We should demand that. And the notion of sending in more tax money into the state government that already collects about $100 billion a year is just a big, big mistake. It’s just going to hurt our economy, not get us out of a mess.

HH: Now Steve Poizner, I’ve been doing journalism in California for 20 years. We’ve never met, first time we’ve ever talked. And so I don’t know anything about you other than you’ve had a good run as insurance commissioner, and my audience doesn’t. And of course, Republicans across the country are saying hey, this guy sounds pretty good. Where are you on the social issues?

SP: Well, I’m a libertarian, mainly. I am, I pretty much want to keep government out of people’s private lives. But with that said, I’m a big supporter of traditional marriage, because that’s just the right thing to do.

HH: Did you vote for Prop 8?

SP: I did.

HH: Okay.

SP: I do think that marriage should be defined between a man and a woman. I’m fine with domestic partnerships and all. That’s just fine. That’s government staying out of people’s private lives. But marriage is a sacred thing, and the voters of the state of California have voted now not once but twice to define marriage between a man and a woman. And to be honest with you, Hugh, what really makes me angry these days is people like Jerry Brown, who’s going to be running for governor, by the way, I’ll probably be running against him. You’re…likely talking to the Republican nominee right here, and I’m going to be running against Jerry Brown. And what he’s doing as attorney general should make all law abiding folks around the country really mad. He’s actually suing the voters of the state of California, challenging their right to change our own constitution.

HH: All right, now Steve, I guess if you’re going to be the nominee, I should get this in early, a commitment to be on your short list for Supreme Court nominees for me. Is that okay?

SP: Well, I’ll tell you, Hugh, I’m going to be looking for the very best and brightest people to appoint. That’s one of the most important things I’ll do as governor is to appoint judges that understand about the basics of being a strict interpretation of the law, and not to legislate from the bench. That’ll be key.

HH: I guess that’s a yes then? I’ll put you down as a yes on that. You know, Arnold made me the state Sommelier, so I’m looking for something out of this. Now Steve Poizner, what about abortion? Are you a pro-choice guy?

SP: I am a pro-choice guy in one sense. I don’t believe that California is going to outlaw abortions anytime soon. Now I’m against abortions, and I want to work with people on all sides of this issue to drive the number of abortions down to zero. I do oppose late term abortions completely. I have supported and continue to support parental notification. Those are just common sense issues here. But this state’s not ready to outlaw them tomorrow. Instead, we need much more aggressive education programs to get people to understand that abortions really are a bad thing.

HH: By the way, three questions, Mr. Poizner. How much of your own money, minimum, are you going to spend on this gubernatorial campaign?

SP: Well, first of all, I’m going to make sure my campaign is completely and totally fully funded. But with that said, I believe in having a large fundraising base. People who self-fund campaign lose. And so I’m going to have a large group of financial supporters. But I’ll make sure at the end of the day, we’re going to get our message out aggressively.

HH: I used to talk to Governor Romney about this, and he was a billionaire running, and he was always shy about this. But I found that the audience always penalized people who aren’t at least specific to an order of magnitude. Are you going to put in at least $50 million bucks?

SP: Well you know, I’m just going to say that I’ll make sure that my campaign’s fully funded. After I raise as much money as we can, we’ll make up the difference, we’ll do what we need to do.

HH: Now about Meg Whitman and Tom Campbell, I just saw Tom yesterday, teaches at Chapman where I teach Con Law, and he is looking forward to a lot of debates between you and he and Meg Whitman. Are you willing and ready to go anywhere at any time to debate those two?

SP: Anywhere, anytime. Tom Campbell’s a great man. And Meg Whitman has fantastic experiences, too. We’ll all very different. My experiences are really pretty distinct. I have twenty years of experience starting and running companies in Silicon Valley as an entrepreneur. But at the same time, I have now six or seven years of experience in the trenches being very effective in the public sector. You know, I was in the White House during the 9/11 crisis, in the National Security Council, I taught for a year in the public schools and saw really the terrible conditions of our California public schools. And now I’ve been an elected Republican leader for two years of only one of eight elected statewide leaders. I would be happy to debate any Republican candidate, anytime, any place.

HH: Well then, within the next couple of weeks, we’re going to get you and Tom, and we’ll extend an invitation to Meg Whitman as well to come and spend an entire show with me-three hours doing wonk talk, because I think the country wants to know what’s happened in California. And between you and Tom Campbell, I think that’ll be fascinating, and we’ll try and get Meg Whitman in. We’ve got a minute, Insurance Commissioner Poizner. What did you do the bigs today? You got them to stop dropping people with bad health problems, right?

SP: That’s exactly right. As insurance commissioner, I’m going to do whatever it takes to make sure that health insurance companies fulfill their obligations, their legal obligations to policy holders. A bunch of the big ones, like Blue Cross and Blue Shield, they were cancelling people’s health insurance right in the middle of the term, after they started using their health insurance for legitimate reasons. That’s just wrong, and I reached an agreement today with Blue Cross, the largest player here in California, to stop doing that, and to reinstate the insurance of over 2,300 people that they cancelled improperly.

HH: Well done, Commissioner Steve Poizner.

End of interview.

Page 1095 of 3217 1 1,092 1,093 1,094 1,095 1,096 1,097 1,098 3,217
Stop Hamas Now Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Invite Hugh to Speak
Advertisement
Advertisement
Back to Top