Wednesday, January 18, 2012
The Internet Is Not .gov’s to Regulate
Cutting off phone lines is the closest familiar parallel to what Congress is considering in two bills nicknamed “SOPA” and “PIPA”—the “Stop Online Piracy Act” and the “PROTECT IP Act.”
One of the major ideas behind SOPA and PIPA is to cut Internet sites that violate copyright out of the domain name system. No longer could typing “elcato.org” get you to the Web site you wanted to visit. Much of the debate has been about the legal process for determining whether to strike out a domain name. The practical burdens on the law-abiding Internet service provider would be large. “Blacking out” an entire building—just like a Web site—would cut off the lawful communications right along with the unlawful ones. It’s through-the-looking-glass information control, with enormous potential to obstruct entirely lawful communications and impinge on First Amendment rights.
The Internet is not the government’s to regulate. It is an agreement on a set of protocols—a language that computers use to talk to one another. That language is the envelope in which our communications—our First-Amendment-protected speech—travels in hundreds of different forms.
Under the better view—the view of freedom behind opposition to SOPA and PIPA—these things are not the government’s to regulate.
__________________________________
Joe Knows Cake......
Navy Specialist ready Vice President Joe Biden for a portion of cake and ice cream at First Lady Michelle Obama's White House Birthday celebration Tuesday Night. Biden wowed the guest by besting his record of eating 7 wax candles from the cake, two more than last year.
__________________________________________________
The Lost Fossils of Charles Darwin
LONDON – British scientists have found scores of fossils the great evolutionary theorist Charles Darwin and his peers collected but that had been lost for more than 150 years. Dr. Howard Falcon-Lang, a paleontologist at Royal Holloway, University of London, said Tuesday that he stumbled upon the glass slides containing the fossils in an old wooden cabinet that had been shoved in a "gloomy corner" of the massive, drafty British Geological Survey.
The first slide pulled out of the dusty corner at the British Geological Survey turned out to be one of the specimens collected by Darwin during his famous expedition on the HMS Beagle, which changed the young Cambridge graduate's career and laid the foundation for his subsequent work on evolution."It took me a while just to convince myself that it was Darwin's signature on the slide," the paleontologist said, adding he soon realized it was a "quite important and overlooked" specimen. The slides -- "stunning works of art," according to Falcon-Lang -- contain bits of fossil wood and plants ground into thin sheets and affixed to glass in order to be studied under microscopes. Some of the slides are half a foot long (15 centimeters), "great big chunks of glass," Falcon-Lang said.
"How these things got overlooked for so long is a bit of a mystery itself," he mused, speculating that perhaps it was because Darwin was not widely known in 1846 so the collection might not have been given "the proper curatorial care.".....Read More
The first slide pulled out of the dusty corner at the British Geological Survey turned out to be one of the specimens collected by Darwin during his famous expedition on the HMS Beagle, which changed the young Cambridge graduate's career and laid the foundation for his subsequent work on evolution."It took me a while just to convince myself that it was Darwin's signature on the slide," the paleontologist said, adding he soon realized it was a "quite important and overlooked" specimen. The slides -- "stunning works of art," according to Falcon-Lang -- contain bits of fossil wood and plants ground into thin sheets and affixed to glass in order to be studied under microscopes. Some of the slides are half a foot long (15 centimeters), "great big chunks of glass," Falcon-Lang said.
"How these things got overlooked for so long is a bit of a mystery itself," he mused, speculating that perhaps it was because Darwin was not widely known in 1846 so the collection might not have been given "the proper curatorial care.".....Read More
____________________________________
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Eleanor Roosevelt She Ain't
Arianna To MO: Watch The Bel Air Trips
During the most recent edition of Both Sides Now with Huffington and Matalin, co-host Arianna Huffington used the airwaves to let Michelle know she has appeared indifferent to suffering in America, focusing instead on hobnobbing with wealthy donors in Bel Air and elsewhere. She wondered, why not visit South-Central Los Angeles during one of these fundraising trips?
I'd love Michelle to be more like Eleanor Roosevelt right now, because the country needs an Eleanor Roosevelt who's going to go around and at the same time that she's doing fundraisers in Beverly Hills and Bel Air, she should go to South Central [Los Angeles], I mean, if I were Michelle Obama right now, I would not go anywhere for a fundraiser without going and seeing the places where there is pain, where there is struggle, where there is homelessness, where there is unemployment. - ARIANNA HUFFINGTONThis begs the question: is ALL criticism of Michelle Obama off-limits to our media friends, even when it comes from the left? And within the gushing "progressive" movement, is she above even constructive advice? Expect the usual approach from the left to this type of development: silence.
______________________________________
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Educational Crash Course #92
Another Installment of Diogenes'
Public Service Educational Series:
Public Service Educational Series:
"Psychoanalysis 101"
Next in Series: 'Anger Management'
with Michelle Obama
Class Dismissed!
Educational Crash Course Series Archive
_________________________________________
with Michelle Obama
Class Dismissed!
Educational Crash Course Series Archive
_________________________________________
Friday, January 13, 2012
The Iron Lady Shall Live On
"She has the mouth of Marilyn Monroe and the eyes of Caligula."
President Mitterand of France
Hollywood is not known for sympathetic portrayals of political figures, often injecting rumored or unproven incidents and fictional conversations. So when a left-wing Hollywood star sets aside her dignity to portray a right-wing heroine, odds are the result will irritate everyone. But surprisingly, 'The Iron Lady' is far better than I ever expected, particularly given that virtually the entire entertainment community from the east coast to Hollywood is liberal, a bias gleefully acknowledged by Meryl Streep, who gives an convincing performance as three-term British prime minister Margaret Thatcher. “I'm an actor and, you know, politically we're all on the other side.”
When Margaret Thatcher was first elected to Parliament in 1959, she entered a House of Commons that had 630 members, of whom 25 were female, which is about 24 more women than you would think were ever in any House of Commons during her political life should you see The Iron Lady. The filmmakers have resolved whatever dilemma they had with Mrs.Thatcher as heroine by presenting her life as a feminist struggle. There are no other visible female members of Parliament, only a sea of men. Being female was a liability, although class was the greater obstacle for Thatcher. She was so very lower middle class, a grocer's daughter who never quite lost her regional accent, never mind her chemistry degree from Oxford and her successful studies as a tax lawyer.
The framework of the film is Mrs. Thatcher in her declining years. She appears to have multi-infarct dementia, a decline of memory and intellectual faculties caused by tiny strokes, and believes her husband Denis to still be alive. One of history's ironic gifts to the left is that their greatest opponents, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, both after leaving office suffered from a mental disease. Nothing in the film tries to derive any advantage from this, but the choice to play out her extraordinary life over three days of this decline, after she had ceased to be a public player, is telling when you consider other legitimate angles that might have been chosen.
The year before Thatcher became prime minister, the country was in chaos, the dead unburied, doctors on strike, no bread one day, no newspapers the next. Thatcher reshaped society with secret strike votes for unions, privatized industry (except for the health service and the BBC) and lower taxes, which under the Labor Party could be as high as 98 per cent. She stood her ground and never flinched. Thus her great quote that doesn't make the film: “To those waiting with bated breath for that favourite media catchphrase, the U-turn, I have only this to say, ‘You turn if you want; the lady's not for turning.
The film gives a moving glimpse of Thatcher's middle-England pillow-plumping kindness as she worries about Denis. She was the Iron Lady in power suits and evening gowns, even as she played a pivotal role in defeating Communism. But she remains more: a kind woman who forever overlooked the cruelty of her own children toward her and the cruelty of the world's caricatures. Now in her final years, she concentrates on small acts of kindness, real or imaginary.
Access to thousands of documents—many of them previously unpublished—relating to Margaret Thatcher and world events during the last thirty years.
President Mitterand of France
Hollywood is not known for sympathetic portrayals of political figures, often injecting rumored or unproven incidents and fictional conversations. So when a left-wing Hollywood star sets aside her dignity to portray a right-wing heroine, odds are the result will irritate everyone. But surprisingly, 'The Iron Lady' is far better than I ever expected, particularly given that virtually the entire entertainment community from the east coast to Hollywood is liberal, a bias gleefully acknowledged by Meryl Streep, who gives an convincing performance as three-term British prime minister Margaret Thatcher. “I'm an actor and, you know, politically we're all on the other side.”
The framework of the film is Mrs. Thatcher in her declining years. She appears to have multi-infarct dementia, a decline of memory and intellectual faculties caused by tiny strokes, and believes her husband Denis to still be alive. One of history's ironic gifts to the left is that their greatest opponents, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, both after leaving office suffered from a mental disease. Nothing in the film tries to derive any advantage from this, but the choice to play out her extraordinary life over three days of this decline, after she had ceased to be a public player, is telling when you consider other legitimate angles that might have been chosen.
The year before Thatcher became prime minister, the country was in chaos, the dead unburied, doctors on strike, no bread one day, no newspapers the next. Thatcher reshaped society with secret strike votes for unions, privatized industry (except for the health service and the BBC) and lower taxes, which under the Labor Party could be as high as 98 per cent. She stood her ground and never flinched. Thus her great quote that doesn't make the film: “To those waiting with bated breath for that favourite media catchphrase, the U-turn, I have only this to say, ‘You turn if you want; the lady's not for turning.
The film gives a moving glimpse of Thatcher's middle-England pillow-plumping kindness as she worries about Denis. She was the Iron Lady in power suits and evening gowns, even as she played a pivotal role in defeating Communism. But she remains more: a kind woman who forever overlooked the cruelty of her own children toward her and the cruelty of the world's caricatures. Now in her final years, she concentrates on small acts of kindness, real or imaginary.
___________________
The Margaret Thatcher FoundationAccess to thousands of documents—many of them previously unpublished—relating to Margaret Thatcher and world events during the last thirty years.
____________________________________________
Thursday, January 12, 2012
One Ticket for the Crazy Train, Please.
It's still 300 days till the 2012 election, but already I sense the crazies coming down the track, at full speed. The comments coming from the Democrat mouth pieces in the media are reflective of this observation.
Any casual political observer knows election years tend to create a level of frenzy concerning the selection of the nominees and the outcome. The media feed this in order to keep readers reading and viewers viewing. The history of American elections has always been one of invective language between the parties, so there is nothing new about this. Indeed, since so much depends on it, the political free-for-all is a healthy exercise.
It can, however, make for a difficult environment in which to go about one’s media observations; the air filled with charge and counter-charge, polls going up and down, bias commentators and a general sense that something is very very wrong with our politicans and the way the government functions.
On the bright side, a gridlocked Congress may bring a measure of relief to everyone. Writing about gridlock in January 2011, Marcus E. Ethridge, a professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin, noted that “By fostering gridlock, the U.S. Constitution increases the likelihood that policies will reflect broad, unorganized interests instead of the interests of narrow, organized groups.” In 2011, we saw what happens when advocates of “renewable energy”, wind and solar power, or electric cars, get priority over the needs of most Americans for reliable energy and transportation.
At the heart of the 2012 election will be the recognition that the economy is still not recovering, that government is seeking to extend and expand its control over our lives, and, even among former supporters of Barack Obama, that he has been a epic failure of historic proportions.
A recent Rasmussen Report said that “Voters right now give the edge to Republicans when asked which political party is likely to win the White House and control both the House of Representatives and the Senate in next November's election”, adding that “a lot of voters are undecided.” Those voters may actually wait until entering the polls to cast their vote.
Another bad piece of news for O' is a new comparative analysis of current voter registration data in key electoral states of Nevada and North Carolina. According to the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, there has been “a drastic drop from 2008 levels when a record-high proportion of young Americans turned out overwhelmingly to cast their votes to elect Obama as President.” This is significant because more than two-thirds of young voters supported the Obama/Biden ticket in 2008.
The President had a low moment following the passage of Obamacare that transformed itself into the Tea Party movement and an even worse one in 2010 when it propelled a large number of Republicans into the House of Representatives, causing its control to change hands. He has had, in fact, only one truly high moment and that occurred when he announced the killing of Osama bin Laden in May 2011. At the time, he typically took complete credit. In a speech at Fort Bragg to returning troops from Iraq, the word “victory” was never spoken.
Americans are not unmindful that the downgrade of the rating of the nation’s sovereign debt, the first in the nation’s history, was announced on Obama’s watch. The rate of “official” unemployment has receded to 8.6% but most Americans are well aware that it is far closer to 11% or more. America continues to experience that longest period of long-term unemployment since the 1930s.
For these and a myriad of other reasons, there is but little reason to conclude that President Obama has any good chance for reelected. The widespread contempt for Congress is also a hopeful sign for change. These are reasons to remain calm amidst the din of electioneering in the months ahead. As for me, I have reserved my ringside seat!
Any casual political observer knows election years tend to create a level of frenzy concerning the selection of the nominees and the outcome. The media feed this in order to keep readers reading and viewers viewing. The history of American elections has always been one of invective language between the parties, so there is nothing new about this. Indeed, since so much depends on it, the political free-for-all is a healthy exercise.
On the bright side, a gridlocked Congress may bring a measure of relief to everyone. Writing about gridlock in January 2011, Marcus E. Ethridge, a professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin, noted that “By fostering gridlock, the U.S. Constitution increases the likelihood that policies will reflect broad, unorganized interests instead of the interests of narrow, organized groups.” In 2011, we saw what happens when advocates of “renewable energy”, wind and solar power, or electric cars, get priority over the needs of most Americans for reliable energy and transportation.
At the heart of the 2012 election will be the recognition that the economy is still not recovering, that government is seeking to extend and expand its control over our lives, and, even among former supporters of Barack Obama, that he has been a epic failure of historic proportions.
A recent Rasmussen Report said that “Voters right now give the edge to Republicans when asked which political party is likely to win the White House and control both the House of Representatives and the Senate in next November's election”, adding that “a lot of voters are undecided.” Those voters may actually wait until entering the polls to cast their vote.
Another bad piece of news for O' is a new comparative analysis of current voter registration data in key electoral states of Nevada and North Carolina. According to the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, there has been “a drastic drop from 2008 levels when a record-high proportion of young Americans turned out overwhelmingly to cast their votes to elect Obama as President.” This is significant because more than two-thirds of young voters supported the Obama/Biden ticket in 2008.
The President had a low moment following the passage of Obamacare that transformed itself into the Tea Party movement and an even worse one in 2010 when it propelled a large number of Republicans into the House of Representatives, causing its control to change hands. He has had, in fact, only one truly high moment and that occurred when he announced the killing of Osama bin Laden in May 2011. At the time, he typically took complete credit. In a speech at Fort Bragg to returning troops from Iraq, the word “victory” was never spoken.
Americans are not unmindful that the downgrade of the rating of the nation’s sovereign debt, the first in the nation’s history, was announced on Obama’s watch. The rate of “official” unemployment has receded to 8.6% but most Americans are well aware that it is far closer to 11% or more. America continues to experience that longest period of long-term unemployment since the 1930s.
For these and a myriad of other reasons, there is but little reason to conclude that President Obama has any good chance for reelected. The widespread contempt for Congress is also a hopeful sign for change. These are reasons to remain calm amidst the din of electioneering in the months ahead. As for me, I have reserved my ringside seat!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)