Twitter is the source for the most instantaneous reaction to events on social media. When Dana Loesch’s husband was replying to those who tweeted about raping her, his account was suddenly suspended. It seems that bottom feeders figured out a way to use flagging at a rapid pace to trigger the spam block in Twitter’s system. It too around 12 hours to resolve the issue, with Twitter deciding it had to make Chris Loesch’s account un-closeable and start dealing with the people who abused the flagging system. One of them might have been @KillZimmerman. His account is finally gone after weeks of flaunting its existence.
Twitter may be one of the “good” ones. This social media site has been adopted by many conservatives. Michelle Malkin even started Twitchy to aggregate tweets and base news stories on them. The same is true of WordPress. There was a major Google / Blogger purge of pro-Hillary and anti-Obama sites in 2008 which sent many bloggers from blogger.com to wordpress.com. It’s probably why Google Plus will never get anywhere.
This is something that Andrew Breitbart understood since the late 1990s. Conservative “alternatives” are good places to hang out, but they should not be the enclaves of conservative thought. We have to fight in the same playground as everyone else. The way you can tell its working is when they do whatever they can to lock the gate behind them. If tweeps can free Chris Loesch from twittergulag, we can free Obama from his White House duties as well.
Usama bin Laden has been a problem for the United States since the 1980s. As such, I am not particularly inclined to blame one president for not catching bin Laden. The first president who was blamed en masse was George W. Bush. He may have killed al-Qaeda, but the mastermind who was unable to launch another attack in the United States for the next decade was the important get. Bush sure as hell wanted the guy, but he didn’t need Pakistan to destabilize over an American incursion and decide to use their nukes.
I bring up Bill Clinton’s foibles in the realm of terrorism mostly as a response to the unwarranted attacks on Bush. There were three terror attacks on the US during his administration, two foreign (WTC1 and the Olympic Park bombing) and one domestic (Oklahoma City). Still, the fact is that the president makes the call, and it’s not possible to know everything at any one time. Every outcome is a result of preparation and fortune.
Now, Bill Clinton has entered the fray again.
To paraphrase Rick Santorum, it’s enough to make me throw up. Bill Clinton started with “that’s one thing George Bush said that was right” about being the decider then goes on to praise Barack Obama for making the right choice when it wasn’t easy. Even Bill Clinton in his narration sets up the downside as political in nature, rather than the risk to international relations. This presumes the choice was to either go in and risk a negative result (the right choice) or not do anything and be safe (the wrong choice). In reality, the administration would have the ability to cover up the loss of Seal Team Six as another accident in Afghanistan. They had also set up the groundwork to cover their asses if the mission went south. The decision was ultimately one with tremendous political upside and limited downside for Obama.
Clinton was cagey enough not to actually narrate the wrong and ridiculous attacks against Romney at the end of the ad, Not going after bin Laden was Clinton’s domain. You would think he would be hesitant to politicize this kind of decision when his arguably justified decision to not take out bin Laden at his compound led to this infamous exchange.
Clinton refers to the Mogadishu attack as “Black Hawk Down” as if he only knew of the incident from the book or movie. As far as bin Laden, he talks about trying to kill him and failing. in the words of Yoda, “Do or do not. There is no try.” I’m sure Mitt Romney would try to kill bin Laden. The question is whether political advantage would enter into the equation.
Anybody but Obama is a very unifying rallying cry for 2012. It sets a low bar for an acceptable Republican challenger. Mitt Romney certainly is anybody. this slogan is also slow-acting poison which will destroy much-needed enthusiasm in the general election. Mitt Romney is not perfect, but he’s pretty good. Barack Obama is terrible all day long.
Mitt Romney’s strength is economic. He can create the fiscal climate to create jobs. Business will respect him in the White House and not hold the entirely reasonable fears they have now about Obama’s plans for regulations and taxes. He will do what he can to end Obamacare before it starts, because Obamacare isn’t Romneycare. Obamacare is a mandate system like the Massachusetts model, but with the unlimited power of deficit spending to unfairly compete with insurance companies using state exchanges.
I look at it this way. In the 90s, there was a show on NBC called “L.A. Law.” One character, Douglas Brackman, wasn’t particularly liked by some of the partners. He was a legacy from when his father started the firm, he was initially stuffy and patrician and was obsessed with the books. At one point during the series, Brackman was made senior partner. He turned out to be a model of efficiency and made the firm more financially viable and the partners more successful. Mitt Romney may be the boring white guy in the election, but he is about as presidential as it gets.
I will be voting for Mitt Romney as much as against Barack Obama.
I think Obama’s unofficial campaign slogan is becoming “It Might Have Been Worse.” He blames Bush, but has absolutely no evidence that Bush did anything to the economy or that anything he did hampered it beyond the terrible wastes of money under Obama in the last 3 years. I have no doubt that John McCain would have been a morally and ethically superior, more restrained, and overall smarter president. Oh, and he’s still alive. Not that it matters. Sarah Palin has created more jobs than Obama in the last 4 years. For all the “drill, baby drill,” it turns out the most anti-drilling president had the biggest oil drilling disaster on his watch. Unlike Bush, that debacle is still affecting the country.
Still, John McCain was a terrible presidential nominee. I think he ran in 2008 to prove that he was worthy of running in 2000. Plus, he had the benefit of people not liking Mitt Romney very much. McCain was very much the last man standing, partly because of Mike Huckabee who has since endorsed Romney. McCain ends up being very much a legislator. He doesn’t want to make the kind of decisions that make a winning campaign. If Sarah Palin ran that campaign, they might have won.
This was the scenario. Until the middle of the primary season, Republicans thought Hillary Clinton would get the nomination and maybe Obama would be her VP choice. Republicans who found McCain squishy would vote for him out of sheer hatred for Clinton. His superior experience would hopefully make up the difference. In Romney vs. Obama, (or possibly Edwards) Romney would have the money to saturate the airwaves, something Obama did unchallenged due to McCain’s disdain for actually raising money.
McCain also fed into the idea that he was the better guy, but the first black president wouldn’t be all that bad. People just drank the poisoned Kool-Aid over that one. Obama flew under the RADAR and the media did their best to covertly argue how awesome we would be to vote for the multicultural melting pot story with no executive and little legislative experience. I very much doubt Romney would have done the same.
I wasn’t against Romney because he wasn’t conservative, I was against him because he was an asshole. He never needed to spend millions to savage his opponents in the primary this year. Now that he’s got the nomination, that pugnacity will serve him well. Had he won the nomination in 2008, he might be president today, being assaulted on all sides for an 8.0% unemployment rate and only 3% GDP growth. If you can’t vote for 2012 Mitt Romney, vote for the 2008 Mitt Rooney who would have run a successful campaign against Barack Obama.
The cult of cool strikes again. Obama went on a show with an audience of about 300,000 mostly to boost his flagging ego. Jimmy Fallon was just the trick for him.
I imagine the booking decision began when his staff saw the Michele Bachmann treatment.
The song choice for her walk-on was a little ditty called “Lyin’ Ass Bitch.” The bandleader who made that decision can be seen in the “slow jam” band in the back.
The Republicans are not letting things lie there, though. The day after Romney won 5 states, they aired this ad comparing and contrasting the nominees.
I think it’s time to break down the cult of cool, though. How cool was he here?
It’s panic time in the House of the Tingling Leg. I watched the beginning of MSNBC’s Hardball where Chris Matthews inserted his tirade into the introduction of the show tonight. His take of the impressive speech Mitt Romney gave last night was that Republicans are for the people who do well and Democrats are for those who didn’t make it. Not only that, but Romney and Republicans want the people who haven’t made it to look up to the people who made it. For a split second, I was thinking about the absurdity of his interpretation. Then I realized Tweety was telling the truth. You are damn right that Republicans are for the successful. We want people to succeed. Matthews was right about Democrats, too. The party of Obama not only embraces the failures, but requires their continued failure. Romney can survive everyone being successful, Obama cannot.
Years ago, I saw a flag burning idiot win that right in court after being arrested. When asked about the verdict, he continued to bitch about the country. I learned that day liberals are never happy, at least about their politics. They come from a perspective that America is fundamentally flawed and sweeping change is needed to fix it. Conservatives like this country the way it is, and only want to fix problems, not remake the system. Everything about Obama is fundamental change. The only thing he prioritized during a brief Democratic majority was a health insurance bill that will fundamentally transform most people’s insurance plans and cost untold billions to pay for a new system where doctors don’t get paid as much and DMV-style health care will be the only affordable option for many.
Most people in this country can still find a job that pays for their living expenses. Government programs like student loans increase the number of students and decrease the percentage of graduates who find a job using their degree. Even people with enormous medical bills will still come out of a crisis with their lives. This country works, but Obama is doing everything he can to gum up the works. A Democratic Congress could have voted to raise taxes on the rich in 2010 but chose not to. When they don’t have the power anymore, they claim those tax increases will solve all their ills. The rich as a group are not evil. If an individual does wrong, that’s what the government is for. If they donate to Obama, that’s what his fundraisers are for. I refuse to accept that failure is the default option in America. I will not look down at businessmen with disdain. President has a new hope for 2012. If you’re poor, you’d better hope for a check. It’s the only option in Obama’s America.
Technically, I had four people to choose from in today’s ballot. There was Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich. Santorum is actually out of the race, so there’s not much point voting for him. I am completely tired of Ron Paul’s anti-Israel crap and his general pointlessness. I support a Mitt Romney candidacy because of the hell fire his campaign will release on the Democrats.
I still chose Newt Gingrich. I want Romney to understand that he has the chance to be a decent president and a fiscal conservative. I just don’t want to cut him a blank check yet. I also think Gingrich has done a lot to help Romney and his presence has been a net positive for the campaign. Here’s to you, Newt. You won my vote.
If they keep doing stories like this, they won’t be around for long.
h/t Legal Insurrection.
A bulb burned out in my kitchen today. I was in the other room and I noticed a strong flicker. As I went to turn the switch off, I caught the acrid smoke. This is a pretty familiar pattern. It’s a CFL bulb. They’re just as good as the old filament tubes, except that they tend to cook the base when they’re mounted upside-down and they’re filled with toxic mercury. Maybe I can get one of those $60 bulbs next. Happy Earth Day.
One of the reasons that Republicans consider environmentalism a secular religion is because of the blind faith involved. When they tell you the alternative is just as good as the real thing, they believe it. When the alternative under-performs or fails outright, it’s because you are hoping for failure. Now I was an early adopter of CFL bulbs. I liked the relative energy savings. I’ve learned a few things over the years. My first “5 year” bulb lasted 11 months. No one uses a light three hours per day. My average usage can go 8-12 hours per day. These screw bulbs do not work well hanging upside-down, are not indicated for a light on a dimmer and are useless in an outdoor fixture where the temperature falls below freezing.
Then there’s the Chevy Volt. The next time someone says Republicans hate the environment and that’s why they hate the Volt, ask them why the Volt uses the gasoline engine in the drive train when it’s supposed to be a series hybrid. If they do anything but stare blankly, move on to ask why we need to pay $40,000 for a parallel hybrid when the Prius is $25,000 and a battery retrofit is another $10K. I’m a technophile, so I know which technology sucks. I also know why it sucks and it usually has to do with the government.
Think about technology now and how the government would have killed it. In the 80s, millions of people were using computers and maybe thousands had a real use for them. Those old boxes used a lot of juice, too. What if the government put the same caps and taxes on computing that they want to put on driving? Imagine if Intel had to design the boards to use low power to avoid taxes. Modern computers would have been delayed by years. Laptops would be expensive because of the energy “vampire” power bricks they use or the fact they have their own screens instead of plugging into the rabbit ears. Why have a portable phone with toxic rechargeable batteries when there are plentiful pay phones?
People mocked George H. W. Bush when he talked about bar code scanners. Now, we have a president who thinks that ATM machines are taking jobs away from tellers who would otherwise stand on street corners in bad neighborhoods to hand out cash. The administration throws money at donors for research but complains about tax breaks for oil exploration. At least the oil exploration will yield energy, damned if anything will come out of Solyndra.
The left keeps telling everyone that they have to use less energy, then demands we use every method that seems to waste MORE energy. Frankly, if they just told the innovators to do it and shut the hell up, we’d be done by now. But then they’d have nothing to complain about. The whole thing stinks about as much as my old light bulb.
The CEO of Netflix is taking on Comcast over Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality is a concept that Internet should be treated like a sort of utility where everyone can get as much as they want, but specifically that all “content” is treated equally. For this concept to be valid, the internet would actually have to be a series of tubes. Ironically, that was the analogy the late Ted Stevens used against net neutrality.
I’m no Internet expert, but I still know more than 95% of the population. The Internet works as a series of networks, or nodes. Each Local Area Network, or LAN is made up of one IP address or a group of them. LANs connected by a communications system (a pip or tube, if you will) make up a Wide Area Network, or WAN. If a network can access most of the available IP addresses, it can be considered on the Internet.
So, what does that crap mean? Let’s say I have a LAN consisting of my router and a cable modem connecting a few computers. If I sent 10,000 Gigabytes of data from one computer to another per month, the trip costs me nothing because I own the LAN in my house. If I download files from the Internet, my provider has to pay for the data to come from outside their network and into my house. If I use a video service from my cable company, it may only go through their existing WAN, not costing them any more in transport costs, but only bandwidth usage. The bandwidth is cheaper, and they may not charge for that usage.
Net Neutrality was originally based on the idea that bandwidth suppliers want to give priority access to services that have a financial interest. Monopolizing Internet access for some customers is a possibility, and even though companies should have a right to their infrastructure, the FCC has decided that there should be equality of access to all public internet. What Netflix CEO Red Hastings is complaining about, however, if access to Comcast’s INTRAnet, the network that is located within the Comcast network. It’s ironic (or not) that Netflix is trying to put it’s service into the OnDemand systems of some cable companies so that they will have the advantage over streaming services like Hulu.
One problem with socialism is that it runs out of other people’s money. The other problem is that the rich and powerful usually get in on the ground floor and try to ride out the revolution. Netflix started when more people had dial-up internet than high-speed. The “net” in Netflix was the online queue you used to get your DVDs in the mail. In the late 2000s, they offered around 20 hours of streaming per month. Now Netflix is using 25% of all internet tubes to deliver movies to computers, TVs and other devices.
Netflix is also in trouble. DVDs by mail was a good business model since they retain the legal right to rent a physical DVD a thousand times to different customers. Their original streaming contracts were dirt cheap, since most production companies had no system to stream content themselves. Times have changed. Licensing costs are going up and $8 a month isn’t paying for it. Netflix is the biggest bandwidth hog on the internet and they want to make sure that internet service providers should have to pay the bill.
I think Netflix is using up more than its fiar share of the internet and slowing me down. Maybe the government should disconnect their tubes.