Obama is the tech president. He’s the guy that finally got a Blackberry into the White House after all. And gadget nerds and tech geeks will always remain true to their hearts even if they do become president. So that being said it is no surprise that Obama made sure that America’s broadband strategy, or lack there of, was given a shout out. SiliconAngle picked up my post from Digital Society on the issue today. You can read about my thoughts on the Presidents comments at either of those sites.
In what may be the biggest upset since the Seahawks over the Saints two weeks ago, an Illinois court has determined that Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s ex-Chief of Staff, cannot run for Mayor because he does not meet the residency requirements. The decision is now expected to head to the Illinois Supreme Court.
If the Illinois Supreme Court upholds the decision, you’ve got to wonder if Rahm is calling and asking for his job back, right? I also hear that there is an opening on MSNBC, something called Countdown. Just sayin’…
Those of you that know I am from Atlanta and that I am a big time football fan probably could guess that my heart was smashed to tiny little pieces last week when the Green Bay Packers embarrassed my beloved 13-3 Atlanta Falcons in the NFL playoffs. Those that follow professional football understand the significance of home field advantage in the NFL. And while the winning percentage of the home team drops from roughly 70% to about 51% during the playoffs, the opportunity for a team to have home games and a friendly crowd on their march to the Super Bowl cannot be over looked.
My colleague James DeLong has an interesting piece up at Digital Society today regarding what amounts to NFL home field advantage in the court system. Verizon has recently field the first suit against the FCC’s new Open Internet rules regulating Net Neutrality on privately owned networks. DeLong explains the ins and outs of the importance of the forum in which a case is heard. The quirks are funny, but DeLong breaks down the importance and discusses which Court may get to hear the appeal.
At times the only thing that surprises me is the incoherent gullibility of many in the conservative and moderate movement. Either that or some liberals that were polled have found some renewed faith in the promised one.
Consider though a couple of stats from the latest poll outside of the 53% approval rating:
- Only 45% approve of his handling of the economy. Some states hit 18% unemployment this week.
- 56% believe the country is on the wrong track.
- 71% believe that we will have to eventually give up on Afghanistan.
And here are two that are off the charts bizarre:
- 40% polled believe Obama is a moderate.
- 11% polled believe Obama is a conservative.
Seriously, who are these people being polled and what cave do they live in that still have telephone service in which to be selected for polling? Bare in mind that 3 years ago 55% considered Obama a liberal and at current after selling out Europe’s missile defense to Russia, spending more money in 2 years than Bush did in 6, pushing through a health care bill, backing FCC regulatory control over the Internet, and attempting to push through a massive global warming based energy policy, only 45% consider him liberal. Explain that one…
So why does Obama suddenly come of as a moderate and receive a bump in approval rating? My personal guess is that he received a slight resurgence in faith from liberals by way of the missile treaty and allowing gays in the military to be more forthright in their *cough* preferences. Additionally, he’s probably re-captured some moderates and confused conservatives via his opinion editorial in the Wall Street Journal that came across as pro-business to some. And you’re welcome to disagree with me, but personally I felt that the Tucson memorial speech was simply another ra-ra campaign speech, which would certainly be seen as favorable by some.
In the end, Obama is a brilliant man, and he puts intelligent people around him. Everything he is doing to appear to be having a change of heart and open arms toward conservatives and the Republican Party is fake. And furthermore, it is strategically designed to appear that way. The reasoning is simple:
- It makes him look generally more favorable and increases his poll percentages (which obviously is the reason this is being written).
- If he makes nice then it increases the chance of conservative members of Congress letting down their guard and voting in favor of Obama goals oriented legislation in the future which is a win for his administration.
- He wins (for the most part) in any case. If Reps ignore his gestures of working together and finding middle ground, then he bashes the GOP in the next presidential election for working against him. If Reps work with him, then he uses that to his advantage during the next election and says that the GOP was not really doing anything different.
This is simply par for the course with Obama. Don’t let the rug get pulled out from under you.
Wanted to share a quote from my friend and colleague James DeLong on the free culture movement. I find it to be right on target and it needs to discover new eyeballs,
The movement has a blind faith that the crowd will provide, but offers little explanation how an internet-or a society-built on its premises would result in high quality physical or intellectual products. . . . No one in its world must make a living, or worry about a return on investment. Large companies don’t help solve problems in organizing human effort; they are malevolent entities. . . . The towering importance of markets as institutions that facilitate human cooperation is not part of their intellectual or moral arsenal. . . . Free and easy with the fundamentals of economic thought, blind to the illuminations of history, and enamored with the wisdom of crowds (which easily turns into the madness of mobs), the movement floats off into abstractions about net neutrality, universal generativity, communitarian sharing, and semiotic democracy.
A journo group has decided that the terminology “illegal immigrant” is not politically correct. It may be technically accurate by definition, but it could be conceived as “hurtful”. You know what’s hurtful? When I lived in Australia if you were caught in the country illegally you were detained in a camp and then deported. You know why? BECAUSE IT’S ILLEGAL! This is how Australia protects it’s borders and hasn’t had anything blown up.
It will always be my position that anyone that wants to can come to our country. But they must do it correctly and legally. This is because it introduces the immigrant to our language, our history, our laws, and our culture. It makes for a more lawful and prosperous society producing respect and greater opportunity.
And bare in mind that I have multiple relatives and extended family that have married into my family from Honduras and Mexico. All have done it correctly and have become citizens of these United States. And your welcome to ask them how they feel about those who skirt the process that they went through.
The phrase illegal immigrant is meant to reflect exactly its definition. It means you cheated the system, you broke the law, you are not supposed to be here, from wherever you are, point blank. The only reason for a drive to make the phrase un-PC is to take the sting out of the reality of the word and increase the prospect of amnesty.
There’s really not much to say here. CBS News was doing a special on book covers last week and they slipped this doozie in the mix:
The real cover on the bottom.
No liberal bias in the media.
Nothing boils my blood faster than a conversation on the “separation of church and state”. The temperature rating will quickly escalate to levels comparable to the surface of the sun when I am additionally “informed” that the phrase is in the Constitution.
Michael Prell has a great article today on dumb people who get pissed off at anything to do with Christmas because it has the word Christ in it. Which if anyone recalls is the reason the holiday began in the first place. Best Buy and Amazon did not establish the event, though we have had Santa and given gifts for a very long time. But the point really is that the anti-Christmas sentiment is quite perplexing. Everyone knows Easter is about the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. People know that Thanksgiving was established to give thanks to Jehovah. But Target isn’t banning its employees from saying, “Happy Easter”.
Anyway, Prell talks about this guy who failed at bombing the “Holiday Tree” in Portland. And he points out the irony in that this Muslim terrorist tries to go blow up a Christian symbol that was already neutered by the city government and wasn’t even called a Christmas tree anymore. So basically this guy just wanted to murder people. Why? Because Islam is a peace loving religion…
(By the way, Prell mentions that after this guy tried to murder people in Portland via a weapon of mass destruction the Portland Mayor increased security around local mosques…not Christian churches…the local mosques. He wanted to make sure there was no backlash on the local Muslim community that is “peace loving”. You can’t make this stuff up.)
The kid was Somalian, and their Prime Minister assures us that Somalia is a peace loving country with peace loving people. He apparently forgot about that little incident with Mohamed Farrah Aidid. They made a movie about it. It was awesome!
One thing that I think is very important that Prell points out is the double standard that Christianity is treated with. It’s really treated like a plague by most of our government. Like they don’t want the stench of it anywhere near them or someone will complain. Only in America does the majority rule until a fraction of the population gets their feelings hurt.
What exactly is so threatening about Christians, at Christmastime, celebrating a national holiday which was proclaimed by Congress back in 1870? This is the part where the Anti-Christmas Brigade will jump up and recite from its holiest of holy scriptures: Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists, in which he wrote of “a wall of separation between Church & State.”
The funny thing about that wall is: it appears to only be impervious to Christians.
Earlier this year, President Obama smashed through that wall when he, too, invoked the name of Thomas Jefferson — not to oppose, but to defend the expression of religion in the biggest town square in America: New York City and the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque.” He said “Thomas Jefferson wrote that ‘all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion’” and he upheld “the principle that people of all faiths…will not be treated differently by their government.”
But people of different faiths are treated differently by their government.
Just a few miles down I-95 from the Ground Zero Mosque, the government of Philadelphia banned (and then unbanned) “Christmas Village.” In Portland, the “Christmas Tree Bomber” had to settle for trying to bomb a “holiday tree,” because the government of Portland already got to the infidels before him and changed “Christmas tree” to “holiday tree.” And, lest you think that this targeting of Christianity is limited to Christmastime, recall the case of 12 Christian students in Washington State who were suspended for praying at school. By contrast, USA Today reports that “some public schools and universities are granting Muslim requests for prayer times, prayer rooms and ritual foot baths, prompting a debate on whether Islam is being given preferential treatment over other religions.”
Those that know me know that I am not a fan of Wikileaks. I am in full favor of the beat down of Julian Assange and fully believe the guy is a traitor to allied nations in the war against terror. And while in advance of the most recent leaks, I obviously wouldn’t have supported them, David Frum has made the case post leak that the latest leaks actually improve the positioning of the allied and U.S. case against Iran instead of hurting us in the worlds eyes and protecting Iran as it is assumed Assange was hoping.
Based on the information that is coming out, I have to agree with Frum. This doesn’t mean that there isn’t ogles of information contained within these leaks that could lead to the capture or death of many of our informants in the Middle East. It makes me ill to think that Assange knows that he is sending men and possibly their families and friends to death every time he releases these documents, and this just doesn’t seem to be a factor in him keeping secret documents…well, secret.
In the grand scheme though, this will likely pull in international support to put more pressure or possibly use military action on Iran. Check out Frum’s post here and you can decide for yourself.