chrisbrad: Red Sox (Default)
I turn 1,000,000,000 (one BILLION) seconds old on December 9, 2010...



chrisbrad: Red Sox (Default)
Word around the web this morning is that Twitter has been hacked. Several trustworthy sites are advising against using the web-based parts of Twitter. Apparently TweetDeck is not affected, but some 3rd-party services are... Not a lot of details, but the reporting is a nasty virus is behind the issues.
chrisbrad: Red Sox (Default)

To mark Labor Day 2010, President Obama will join hands with AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka in Milwaukee and pose as champions of the working class. Bad move. Trumka’s organizing record is a shameful reminder of the union movement’s violent and corrupt foundations.

The new Obama/AFL-CIO power alliance — underwritten with $40 million in hard-earned worker dues — is a midterm shotgun marriage of Beltway brass knuckles and Big Labor brawn. Trumka warmed up his rhetorical muscles this past week with full-frontal attacks on former GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin. He indignantly accused her of “getting close to calling for violence” and suggested that her criticism of Tea Party-bashing labor bosses amounted to “terrorizing” workers.

Trumka and Obama will cast Big Labor as an unassailable force for good in American history. But when it comes to terrorizing workers, Trumka knows whereof he speaks.

Meet Eddie York. He was a workingman whose story will never scroll across Obama’s teleprompter. A nonunion contractor who operated heavy equipment, York was shot to death during a strike called by the United Mine Workers 17 years ago. Workmates who tried to come to his rescue were beaten in an ensuing melee. The head of the UMW spearheading the wave of strikes at that time? Richard Trumka. Responding to concerns about violence, he shrugged to the Virginian-Pilot in September 1993: “I’m saying if you strike a match and you put your finger in it, you’re likely to get burned.” Incendiary rhetoric, anyone?

A federal jury convicted one of Trumka’s UMW captains on conspiracy and weapons charges in York’s death. According to the Washington, D.C.-based National Legal and Policy Center, which tracks Big Labor abuse, Trumka’s legal team quickly settled a $27 million wrongful death suit filed by York’s widow just days after a judge admitted evidence in the criminal trial. An investigative report by Reader’s Digest disclosed that Trumka “did not publicly discipline or reprimand a single striker present when York was killed. In fact, all eight were helped out financially by the local.”

In Illinois, Trumka told UMW members to “kick the s**t out of every last” worker who crossed his picket lines, according to the Nashville (Ill.) News. And as the National Right to Work Foundation (pdf), the leading anti-forced unionism organization in the country, pointed out, other UMW coalfield strikes resulted in what one judge determined were “violent activities … organized, orchestrated and encouraged by the leadership of this union.”

Trumka washed off the figurative bloodstains and moved up the ranks. As AFL-CIO secretary, he notoriously refused to testify in a sordid 1999 embezzlement trial involving his labor boss brethren at the Teamsters Union. No surprise. Thugs of a feather: Trumka’s violence-promoting record echoes the riotous Teamsters strikes dating back to the 1950s, when the union organized taxicab companies to target workers with gas bombs, bottles and fists.

And now, Trumka is spearheading a Democratic Party get-out-the-vote campaign by far-left groups — publicized in the revolutionary Marxist People’s World — to “energize an army of tens of thousands who will return to their neighborhoods, churches, schools and voting booths to prevent a Republican takeover of Congress in November and begin building a new permanent coalition to fight for a progressive agenda.”

Take those as literal fighting words. The bloody consequences of compulsory unionism cannot be ignored.

chrisbrad: Red Sox (Default)
I am growing more and more frustrated with the so-called Net Neutrality nonsense. Net Neutrality is two-fold. The first part is something we can all agree with --- Basically, it calls for ISPs to allow all Internet content to be streamed or delivered at the same speed. As of now, individual ISPs can actually "slow" your connection to certain  sites if it wishes. While this is not as prevalent as it once was, it is an issue.  And I, for one, have no problem with the FCC cracking down on those who "slow" connections.

But it is the second part that is frightening. Google, cell companies and some left-of-center organizations (like Free Press) argue that broadband Internet be reclassified as a type II communication. Why? Because the FCC controls all type II communication. One would think we would want the government to stay out of the business of regulating broadband connections. But Google and other telecommunications corporations want broadband to be regulated the way they are regulated. To create a "level playing field" for Google, broadband connections would necessarily suffer. Rates would necessarily rise.

Worse, it will allow the very political FCC to determine what can be uploaded and downloaded via the "public" type II technology. A right-of-center FCC could ban pornography or gambling. A left-of-center FCC could ban religious sites and those depicting the military. Internet content would fall into the public realm where politicians can determine who gets to see what online.

This is an awful idea. As a conservative, I fear a left-of-center FCC/Washington barring me from blogging about their abuses. But I know this is a two-way street. I want my left-of-center friends to be able to "call out" the abuses of the right online as well. I always have and I always will. I don't just say "free speech" and then kill it when I disagree like the American left tends to do. I want it protected. But there is no place more sacred these days than the Internet.

Sadly, unions are now joining the cause of Net Neutrality. I just read with a deep heart that the Writers Guild of America has now signed on as a NN supporter. The Screen Actors Guild and others appear to be readying themselves to follow suit. As a  writer, it pains me to see the professionals sign on the dotted line that will, likely, end in the end of online freedoms in order to further their liberal masters.

Worse, non-entertainment unions appear to also be readying their members to rally to the cause of Net Neutrality.

What a sad day for America...

chrisbrad: Red Sox (Default)

For the last four years, Google has fought for net neutrality in Washington, and the right to aggregate and serve ads against other people’s content in the technology press. An open letter that the company sent to the FTC Tuesday, however, shows that Google is ready to engage in not one, but two regulatory battles on Capitol Hill.

Ironically, the company finds itself pushing for more regulation on the one hand, and less on the other.

“While we’re not wed to any particular legal theory to justify the FCC’s jurisdiction,” wrote Google counsel Rick Whitt in April before a circuit court struck down the FCC’s latest attempt to regulate Comcast, “we do believe some minimal oversight over broadband networks is essential.”

But in the letter it sent Tuesday to the FTC, which recently released a comment paper suggesting an aggregation tax on sites like Google News, Google argued that “Regulatory proposals that undermine the functioning of healthy marketplaces and stall the pace of change are not the solution. Indeed, the very innovation on the Internet that has led to so many improvements in the lives of consumers around the world is likely to be harmed by many of these proposals rather than enhanced by them.”

One can hardly blame the tech company for using its ubiquity to look out for its own interests: Google stands at the nexus of the two most important regulatory debates of the decade, and the company seems to believe that its own future is contingent upon loading its back pockets with as many legislators and regulators as will fit.

According to the Sunlight Foundation, Google and Microsoft have spent a combined $2.1 million lobbying Congress this year for the implementation of net neutrality. But now that Google is set to fight for a government takeover of journalism, it’s likely that the tech company will shortly begin losing allies on the broadband front.

Take Google’s partnership with Free Press, for instance. The notoriously volatile group of media reformists who not only want to pass net neutrality, but also want to regulate private media out of existence, have openly said that Google is just a temporary ally.

“Free Press wants the Internet to ultimately become a government-backed public utility,” National Journal’s Neil Munro wrote in March. “Google’s view of net neutrality is not nearly so expansive. Last August, Robert McChesney, who co-founded Free Press with [Josh] Silver, told an interviewer that the organization is getting ‘in bed with some media companies that on other issues we are mortal enemies with.’”

As of right now, it’s anybody’s guess as to how Free Press and other media reform groups will change their approach to broad band-reform after reading Google’s letter to the FTC, demanding that government keep its nose out of the journalism business.

“The ultimate solutions that will result in a new online equilibrium for the news industry cannot, however, be mandated by changes in the regulatory framework or a change to the copyright laws.The solutions, instead, must be driven by the industry itself, working with technology providers like Google and experimenting with its customers to develop new and innovative ways of delivering the news online,” the letter reads in part.

And Google’s insistence raises one other question: If the journalism industry can regulate itself, why can’t the Internet do the same?

chrisbrad: Red Sox (Default)
That's about as interesting as life will be for the remainder of the day. Sorry...
chrisbrad: Red Sox (Default)

This blog is by Neil Stevens about Google now wanting to be EXEMPT form the Net Neutrality laws it wants everyone else to live with:
 

Even as Google pulls out all the stops to promote Internet regulation, they’re whining like hypocritical little babies to keep themselves exempt from any form of regulation. Too bad. Too bad, I say. If ISPs have to be transparent and neutral, and route Internet packets according to what FCC Commissars say is best, then you have to do searches in a transparent and neutral way, and return results according to what FCC Commissars say is best. You chose to ride on the scorpion, and it’s going to sting you because that’s its nature.

Don’t like it, Google? Then switch sides on Net Neutrality. Because I’m going to laugh in your faces if your backing of Net Neutrality backfires, and so will all of us who are watching you collaborate with the big government Democrats in Washington. Yes, my wrist is aching and making me get more strident than I might, but too bad. If your core business is attacked by the FCC using the Title II powers you are promoting, then your suffering is just.

Oh, and a special scowl to the FCC today. Apparently our technical Commissars are unhappy that people in the real world are opposing their propaganda and responding to it. In any case, it’s nice that you guys have outed yourselves not as neutral regulators for the common good, but you are placing yourselves in direct opposition to the industries you are entrusted to regulate. You are looters, plain and simple, and you are exposed to shame for your implied threats against honest businessmen if they don’t “work with you” according to your dictatorial terms.

It’s the time FCC got neutered by the Congress, because these ideological goons are completely out of control.

chrisbrad: Red Sox (Default)
Well, friends, the Democrats have taken the first step in silencing speech. Under the guise of fighting copyright infringement, the Obama administration, Democratically-controlled Congress and liberal Justice authorities have taken down over 73,000 Wordpress blogs. Instead of targeting site with actual illegal material, these liberal hacks have used Obama's new Internet-control authority to shut down entire servers forever deleting material that even they acknowledge was legal.

Conservatives and libertarian web activists have been warning about this for months. Under the guise of criminal probes, "illegal" activity and tolerance-via-censorship, Obama and his minions have made their first foray into quelling free speech. It is very simple. They find material not to their liking, subpoena the servers the material is on, search for something that can be used as grounds for shutting down a server and cut the cord. It's the easiest way to end free speech without anyone knowing.

It's a dangerous first step, one that even the "evil" Bush and his Republican cronies refused to do. How interesting the President of  hope, change, honesty, transparency and tolerance happily orders this mess.

And it is yet another reason people need to be aware of how radical and dangerous Obama really is.

chrisbrad: Red Sox (Default)
I am according to the NAACP. The fine folks at that organization have voted to add the Tea Party to its list of racist organizations. Interesting, to say the least, since there has yet to be a single video or audio capture of anything racist at a Tea Party. Truthfully, this is simply a political maneuver  by the group to scare the growing minority participation in the Tea Party movement. It's sick. It's disgusting. But it's politics as usual coming from the Democratic-heavy organization.

Fun video included:




chrisbrad: Red Sox (Default)
A lot of those currently in charge would like for you to think that high unemployment was the fault of Republicans. But take a closer look. Unemployment under Republican Congressional control hit a high around 6% in late 2003/early 2004. But when Democrats took over Congress in 2006, unemployment skyrocketed to more than 10%. Weird...

PS. People DO remember giving the Democrats the reigns of power all those years ago, right? 



chrisbrad: Red Sox (Default)
So.... It is the first week of July. That means it is hot everywhere, especially on the small screen. This morning the Academy of Television  Arts and Sciences announced their nominees for the 2010 Emmy awards to be handed out on August 29. Below are the nominees in the biggest categories and some thoughts. Enjoy!

Outstanding Drama Series
Breaking Bad 
Dexter 
The Good Wife 
Lost 
Mad Men 
True Blood 
---Mad Men has won this twice so it was a shoo-in for this year. Breaking Bad is also a multiple nominee (that deserves to win). The Good Wife has been unimpressive to me, but the critics eat it up. I am also happy to see True Blood with a nod. A great show that is nothing if not a guilty pleasure. Lost intrigues me. It really did not deserve the nod, but it has the sentimental votes for the series finale. And Dexter. I love Dexter. It is a solid drama that always pleases.
What is missing from the nominee list: Friday Night Lights. It is easily the best drama out there, but it didn't even make the cut.

Outstanding Lead Actor In A Drama Series
Bryan Cranston, Breaking Bad
Michael C. Hall, Dexter
Kyle Chandler, Friday Night Lights
Hugh Laurie, House 
Matthew Fox, Lost
Jon Hamm, Mad Men
--- Cranston has won two years in a row for his awesome role as a meth-cooking, cancer-surviving, teacher/divorcee. He is brilliant. Hamm has also been nominated twice. He is great, but his role lack the depth of Cranston's. Hall is the titular Dexter and fully deserves the nod as well. Kyle Chandler was the surprise here. He is amazing, but his best performances as the coach in Friday Night Lights were in seasons past. Laurie, the titular Dr. House, is also very good. But, like Chandler, past season were better.
Who is missing from the nominee list: Timothy Olyphant for his role in Justified. But, he's an ass. And the critics don't like rewarding asses.

Outstanding Lead Actress In A Drama Series
Kyra Sedgwick, The Closer 
Glenn Close, Damages
Connie Britton, Friday Night Lights
Julianna Margulies, The Good Wife 
Mariska Hargitay, Law & Order: Special Victims Unit
January Jones , Mad Men 
--- Sedgwick, CLose, Hargitay, and Jones were all nominated last year. And they are very good actresses all deserving of another nod. Marguiles is also a critical favorite, but her series is just not on the level of the others. Connie Britton shines, not just as the new actress to make the list, but also in her role. Kudos to her!
Who is missing from the nominee list: Anna Gunn for her role on Breaking Bad. She is simply superb in every scene. Maybe next year.

Outstanding Supporting Actor In A Drama Series
Aaron Paul, Breaking Bad
Martin Short, Damages
Terry O'Quinn , Lost
Michael Emerson, Lost
John Slattery, Mad Men
Andre Braugher, Men Of A Certain Age
--- Aaron Paul is amazing on Breaking Bad. Short is brilliant on Damages. O'Quinn is brilliant AND won the award last year. Emerson is spookily good on Lost. Slattery is terrific on Mad Men. But Braugher? Really? Mediocre acting on a sub-par series. Weird.
Who is missing from the nominee list: John Noble from Fringe AND Zach Gilford from Friday Night Lights. Both light up the screen with their performances.

Outstanding Supporting Actress In A Drama Series
Sharon Gless, Burn Notice
Rose Byrne, Damages
Archie Panjabi, The Good Wife
Christine Baranski , The Good Wife
Christina Hendricks, Mad Men
Elisabeth Moss, Mad Men
---I am happy to see the surprise nominee was Gless. She, of Cagney & Lacey fame, does a tremendous job as the mother on Burn Notice. Panjabi and Baranski suffer for being on The Good Wife, but you never know. Hendricks and Moss both rock on Mad Men, but who doesn't? Byrne is an interesting choice. While she is great on Damages, her performance pales in this category.
Who is missing from the nominee list: Debra Ann Woll from True Blood. Her Jessica is a fan favorite.

Outstanding Comedy Series
Curb Your Enthusiasm
Glee
Modern Family
Nurse Jackie
The Office 
30 Rock 
--- 30 Rock has won three years in a row. Curb is getting stale. Nurse Jackie is well and good, but not good enough to be here. The Office, while I love it, suffered from a mediocre season. But HOLY YES! Modern Family and Glee both made it. Academy, I heart you right now.
What is missing from the nominee list: Community, The Middle, Big Bang Theory and Better Off Ted. Ted is gone having been canceled. But it was the most brilliant comedy of the past two years. Community is a strong freshman series that will likely prove to be a contender next year. The Middle is a simple yet fantastic comedy that deserved some attention. And Big Bang is one of the funniest geeky comedies on the air.

Outstanding Lead Actor In A Comedy Series
Jim Parsons, The Big Bang Theory 
Larry David , Curb Your Enthusiasm 
Matthew Morrison, Glee 
Tony Shalhoub, Monk 
Steve Carell, The Office
Alec Baldwin, 30 Rock 
--- Parsons, Morrison, and Baldwin deserve their nods. Carrel has a sub-par season. And Shaloub? No idea how he is on here.
Who is missing from the nominee list: Joel McHale from Community. Next year, Joel. Next year.

Outstanding Lead Actress In A Comedy Series
Lea Michele, Glee 
Julia Louis-Dreyfus, The New Adventures Of Old Christine
Edie Falco, Nurse Jackie
Amy Poehler, Parks And Recreation 
TIna Fey, 30 Rock
Toni Collette, United States Of Tara
---I have no idea how Falco got nominated. Louis-Dreyfus is also another head scratcher. She was good but not great. Poehler, Fey and Collette are all critical darlings, so they were no surprise. But Lea Michele? Hot damn!
Who is missing from the nominee list: Portia di Rossi from Better Off Ted. She was the best actress in a comedy, but she isn't here. And where is Patricia Heaton for The Middle?

Outstanding Supporting Actor In A Comedy Series
Chris Colfer, Glee
Neil Patrick Harris, How I Met Your Mother
Jesse Tyler Ferguson, Modern Family
Eric Stonestreet, Modern Family
Ty Burrell, Modern Family
Jon Cryer, Two And A Half Men
---Having Ferguson, Stonestreet and Burrell all being here tells you that Modern Family is a very strong comedy. Cryer, though....not so much. And Colfer? Score a good surprise!
Who is missing from the nominee list:  Nick Offerman from Parks & Recreation. His take on the conservative city employee is pitch perfect.

Outstanding Supporting Actress In A Comedy Series
Jane Lynch, Glee 
Julie Bowen, Modern Family
Sofia Vergara, Modern Family
Kristen Wiig, Saturday Night Live
Jane Krakowski , 30 Rock
Holland Taylor, Two And A Half Men
---Bowen and Vergara round out Modern Family's haul of nominations. Krakowski is also a great nominee. But Taylor confuses me...  I have no idea how she got nominated. But the big moment was for Lynch. Hand's down she is the best of the year.
Who is missing from the nominee list: Alison Brie for Community.

Outstanding Animated Program
Alien Earths
Disney Prep & Landing
The Ricky Gervais Show
The Simpsons
South Park
--- Alien Earths? Really? Disney Prep and Landing? Really? I get the Ricky Gervais Show. That is brilliant. But the real nominees are The Simpsons and South Park.
What is missing from the nominee list: American Dad

Outstanding Variety, Music Or Comedy Series
The Colbert Report 
The Daily Show With Jon Stewart 
Real Time With Bill Maher
Saturday Night Live 
The Tonight Show With Conan O'Brien 
--- All of these are the usual suspects, with the exception of Conan O'Brien. He got the nod even after the whole NBC debacle that sent Jay Leno back to late night and sent Conan to TBS this fall. Hope he wins just to screw NBC.

chrisbrad: Red Sox (Default)
I have about 40 websites (mostly news and blogs) that I visit every morning before I start work. One of my favorites, a TV-on-DVD site, is blocking my ISP. In fact, the error code seems to suggest that my computer was guilty of some sort of site infraction yesterday. Confused and concerned, I ran a full diagnostic and virus/spy check. Clean as a whistle.

I wrote an email to the one e-mail address I have to the site, but have yet to receive a response.

Anyone got any ideas?
chrisbrad: (Argument)
So, here's the deal:

Yesterday I had a long, sometimes arduous conversation with a great friend that quickly dived into the race pool. We've all been there. It is a place that is uncomfortable. It is a place that is wild. It is a place we'd really wish didn't exist. But it does.

For the most part we are an advanced people, capable of dealing with issues like race with relative care and, dare I say, a deft touch. Like it or not, we all walk a fine line of right and wrong. And there is nothing wrong with that --- it is just a fact of life. We'd all like to live in a perfect world where race isn't an issue. But that is not the case. And, sadly, it will never be the case. There are just far too many prejudices that are built in to us. Not, mind you, just by individual upbringing, but some of it is by nature. At our core, things that are different intrigue us, yes, but also have the capability to scare us. It is not a fault, but rather, I believe, a crack in our human condition.

That is why we walk the line. We try our damnedest to steer clear of racism. All the while, however, we can not help  but to be guilty of, what I like to call, raciality. Let me explain.

In our everyday lives we encounter people who are different from us. No matter if that difference is race, religion, sexuality, what have you, this is a big world. Today, though, we are focusing on race. I admit it: I am a white man. And, yes, I live in the South. But I was raised by parents who made sure my fears were based on the actions of others, not the colors of others. (For that, I am eternally grateful.) Even still, there are times when I fall victim to racial issues (locking the car door at an intersection or going to a gas station in a "better" area after dark, for example). Try as I might, I am not perfect. But when those fleeting moments occur, I feel guilty. Immediately.

And that, I believe, is the difference. When someone does something wrong (like my examples) because of race, they are the victim of raciality if they immediately realize their wrongs. But raciality has a tipping point that leads to out and out racism. When the feeling of guilt is removed, for example, that is racism. Committing a wrong on purpose without remorse is racism.

But wait, you say! What if someone kills another because of race and feels bad about it? That, of course, goes too far. Murder is murder, no matter the reason. But where do you draw the line of raciality and racism? That is a hard question; one even I struggle with. But I think common sense plays a part. We may disagree on what constitutes simple things, but we can agree as to what is clearly not a "simple" action of raciality.

Deny someone a loan or apartment because of race? That is racism.
Call someone an awful name? Racism.
Clutch your purse or bag but hate yourself for it? Raciality.

But why should there be a difference? Aren't all these action based on raced and, therefore, racist?

Yes. And no.

See, that fine line exists for a reason. There are times when something happens that has a racial component, but the action was not meant to be racist. The person in the wrong KNOWS he or she is in the wrong. He or she doesn't like being in the wrong. He or she would love to live free of that guilt by never having committed the wrong in the first place. So is that person truly a racist? Not likely. So why would society want to put that label on said person?

This is especially true knowing the reality of real racism is out here. There are people in every corner of every nation who are racist. They are white. They are black. They are this. They are that. There are people who have actual hate for other races. These, my friends, are the racists. These are the people that should be feared and scorned. They are the ones who should be labeled as the racists they are.

But it seems like we spend far more time arguing about Dale being a racist for sitting a few inches away from a coworker than we do about how to handle Amanda sending hate mail to a coworker.

And that is a problem. We as a people have come such a long way when it comes to race. We still have a long way to go, for sure. But there are a lot of folks who want to find racism. They find it in every action if they look close enough.  Like my mother told me, "You'll always find the flaw if you look long enough."

And, when it comes to race, that seems to be the mentality of the day. When there are real racists committing real acts of racism, I am amazed at the level of energy being used to create acts of racism that were never there. Here's where it gets fun. Most of these acts, of course, have some race included (which is why these people "see" racism). But when one gets past the victim mentality and really examines the issue, most of the time it is an issue of raciality not racism. And that is the thing: Every action between two or more people of two or more races will ALWAYS have an aspect of raciality. There is NO way around it. And, if one looks hard enough, he or she will ALWAYS be a victim of racism if he or she wants to be.

But why on earth would anyone want to be a victim of something that never existed? 

Good question. I have no idea. But I see it and read about it all the time. Actions that were never racist in the slightest are blown up to be so racially tinged that everyone wants to call racism. But playing that card is easy. It's holding back that card that is hard.

With actual racism bobbing around like the evil stench it is, I just wish we would all hold back on throwing the volatile race card on every fire --- especially those that were never really built.
chrisbrad: Red Sox (Abandon Hope)
Five Rights the Left Doesn’t Want You to Have
by Jason Rantz (cartoon by Brett Noel)

The far left in this country—politicians, talking heads, celebrities, faux-journalists—love to claim conservatives are stamping out American freedoms. Indeed, you still hear lefties claim President George W. Bush shredded the Constitution to spy on American citizens without warrants. You frequently hear concerns that Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas are practicing judicial activism and ignoring the law of the land. And you always hear complaints that talkers Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are using “hate” speech to incite violence against non-believers. 




The left loves the Constitution and freedom—but they only love it when they have the rights and can pick and choose who else gets to enjoy them. The far left in this country, at any opportunity they can, stomp on our freedoms, or simply ignore them, for what they perceive to be the greater good: political correctness, social justice, environmental activism, diversity. They seek to quash our freedoms, while utilizing them for their own purposes.

Here are five rights that the far left in America doesn’t want conservatives to have:

1. Free Speech Rights: The left loves to whine and complain about how evil Republicans are, but they sure don’t want anyone to talk back. On many issues, the left openly tries to prevent the right from speaking out. You need not look beyond what’s going on at our nation’s colleges to see how the left operates.

Often times, college campuses are overrun with Marxist professors and uninformed students who will try to stop invited conservative speakers to even open their mouth and utter a single sentence, without being interrupted, shouted down, or, in some cases, have the entire meeting be taken over by “protests.”

At the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the nutty pro-illegal immigration activist students prevented former Rep. Tom Tancredo from giving a speech. According to ABC News, “Tancredo didn't make it through his talk. In fact, he left campus early after protesters interrupted his speech and broke a window.” Over at University of California at Irvine, the Muslim Student Union repeatedly interrupted a speech by Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren, leading to eleven arrests. Think these are rare occurrences of over-zealous students so passionate about issues they can’t control themselves? Think again. There is a systematic effort across college campuses whereby liberal student groups repeatedly try to shut down anyone from speaking on campus that they disagree with.

2. The Right to Bear Arms: The left really hates guns—especially when law-abiding citizens own them. The far left thinks people who use guns are mostly redneck, oftentimes violent, and supremely ignorant of what it takes to create a happy society. If they had their way, all guns would be banned and violence would forever cease to exist in our great country. Why, look at Chicago where a ban on handguns was on the books for nearly 30 years. They’ve had no problems—except for the rampant killings by criminals with access to guns. Other than that, the ban has worked great!

What the left doesn’t seem to get—beyond their inability to understand the 2nd Amendment—is that banning gun ownership will not stop violence. Legitimate gun owners who are law-abiding citizens don’t go out shooting people because of a drug bust gone bad, or because the gangbanger down the street looked at their girlfriend funny. Law-abiding citizens use guns for sport and for protection against the bad guys who know how to score a gun illegally and use it against the saps who have local leaders making it too difficult to legally own a weapon.

3. Voting Rights: The left would love other liberals to vote—they may not even mind if you vote a few times so long as ACORN was in on the voter registration action. What they absolutely hate, however, is when conservatives vote because they keep voting in Republicans who will prevent them from passing whatever legislation they want.
During the November elections last year, the Black Panther Party in Philadelphia made headlines for their voter intimidation tactics. Two members in paramilitary garb, holding weapons, shouted racial epithets towards potential white voters. The Justice Department under the Liberal-in-Chief dropped the charges against those involved. Please imagine what would have happened if a WASP in a camouflaged-polo shirt tried to scare away black voters. Obama would have made an example of them.

In Port Chester, N.Y., voters were allowed to vote six times so that the heavily Hispanic population would be able to elect Hispanic candidates to office. Indeed, according to the Associated Press, “Although the village of about 30,000 residents is nearly half Hispanic, no Latino had ever been elected to any of the six trustee seats.… Most voters were white, and white candidates always won.” So in an effort to punish white candidates with a voting base that cares enough to show up to the polls, under the Obama Administration voters would be able to vote multiple times to guarantee that a non-white, presumably liberal candidate, would get elected. Again, please imagine what would have happened if in, say, Detroit, the Justice Department helped make it so more white Republicans would be able to represent the city.

4. Freedom of Press: The left really hates that Fox News has an audience; they loathe the existence of HUMAN EVENTS and writers like me. They actually have the nerve to call out Fox News as being “unfair” and “unbalanced” because the station’s analysts lean right. How often does MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann rant about how evil and dishonest Fox News is, all while hosting a show where he seldom, if ever, has a guest on who disagrees with him? How often did the New York Times shill for Air America radio networks, in a bid to gain them more listeners? Free press is good, so long as liberals can control the message (this is why Obama Administration officials tend to do more interviews with friendly news agencies—they’re guaranteed not to be asked tough questions and are better able to control what news gets out).  

5. The Rights of States. How often are our states shunned for trying to protect themselves against elements that are destroying their economy, their sense of safety or their sense of pride? We have Arizona under assault from the federal government because they have the gall to protect themselves from citizens entering their state illegally.

I’m hardly a state’s rights fanatic because I believe there are reasonable restrictions on what a state can or cannot do, and there is certainly a role for the federal government in overseeing some of what a state does (if my hippie state of Washington tries to ban guns or limit my speech because of some twisted state’s rights argument, I want the federal government stepping in). But, to always take the side of the federal government, the way liberals do, solely to hold on to power—power that would be kept away from conservatives who tend to overwhelmingly advocate for those rights—is petty. I know Senators Chuck Schumer or Patty Murray would love as much power as they can hold on to—because, after all, they know best—it’s just not the way the system works.

chrisbrad: Red Sox (Default)

My good deed for the day has been accomplished:

 

I drove [personal profile] celestinenox  batty with my razor-sharp wit and mind.
chrisbrad: Red Sox (Default)

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

chrisbrad: Red Sox (Abandon Hope)
Note: This is an article from a right of center news site, but it was the most concise I could find.

It’s official: Deem and Pass Internet regulation is the “Third Way”

By Neil Stevens

It doesn’t matter that nearly all House Republicans are against it, and a good number of Democrats besides. It doesn’t matter that ATR is against it, CNBC warns it could “kill the Internet,” or that we just don’t need it.

The FCC has gone ahead and put out a Notice of Inquiry to go ahead with Deem and Pass reclassification of ISPs away from being “information services” under the law, which was the plainly obvious intent of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. You see, in Comcast v. FCC, the courts have strictly limited how much regulation the FCC can do of information services. So, the FCC is going to declare that ISPs are now phone companies, and regulate accordingly.

 

I’m sure for some of us I’m sounding horribly repetitive on this. I know myself I’ve typed variations on the above sentences more times than I can count. But those were just the warnings. It is now beginning to happen. They’re just calling it the “third way” and not “deem and pass” as I do.

But make no mistake: It’s the same thing, and the neo-Marxists behind it are overjoyed. For Free Press, “Third Way”/”Deem and Pass”/Title II reclassification is a step toward not just “Net Neutrality,” but the broader “media reform” they’re after. Media reform of course is what Free Press calls state run media in America. Think of it as single payer socialized medicine, only for news reporting.

Oddly enough though, as Jon Henke points out they’re giving FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski very little credit for this, instead showering praise on their pet commissioner Michael Copps along with commissioner Mignon Clyburn. Is there a split here we need to exploit? Let’s watch for that.

Because this plan must be defeated, either by preventing its passage at the FCC or by passing a law to forbid it or (should it be accomplished first) passing a law to reverse it. Look, even the AFL-CIO, Communications Workers of America, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, League of United Latin American Citizens, Minority Media and Telecom Council, NAACP, National Urban League, and Sierra Club want the Congress to act on this, not the runaway FCC.

chrisbrad: Red Sox (Default)
Apple Collecting, Sharing, Storing and Selling iPhone and iPad Users "Precise" Locations

Apple Inc. is now collecting the "precise," "real-time geographic location" of its users' iPhones, iPads and computers.

In an updated version of its privacy policy, the company added a paragraph noting that once users agree, Apple and unspecified "partners and licensees" may collect, sell and store user location data. 

When users attempt to download apps or media from the iTunes store, they are prompted to agree to the new terms and conditions. Until they agree, they cannot download anything through the store.

The company says the data is anonymous and does not personally identify users. Analysts have shown, however, that large, specific data sets can be used to identify people based on behavior patterns.

An increasing number of iPhone apps ask users for their location, which is then used by the application or even uploaded to the app's maker. Apps like the Twitter application Tweetie and Google Maps make frequent use of location data, either to help the user get oriented geographically or to associate the user's action with a specific location (as when a tweet is geotagged).

Apple says in its privacy policy that it uses personal information to "improve our services, content, and advertising." 

On Monday, Apple also rolled out its new advertising platform, iAd, for the latest version of its iPhone operating system (iOS 4). The company may well be integrating the location information into its advertising system -- for instance, to help local shops sell coupons to users in the neighborhood.

The update to the privacy policy did not specify which partners or licensees Apple will share the data with or how long the data will be kept. Apple did not immediately return a request for comment.

Profile

chrisbrad: Red Sox (Default)
chrisbrad

February 2013

S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
2425262728  

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 11th, 2025 06:19 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios