Friday, October 30, 2009

Happy Birthday Internet!

History was made on October 29, 1969.

On this day, the first packet-switching network transmitted information between UCLA and SRI, in what was then known as ARPAnet, a project of the Advanced Research Projects Association, or ARPA.

In today's black box society, it's difficult to give just one person the credit for such an important milestone. Vinton Cerf was largely responsible for the logistics, but Leonard Kleinrock researched the theoretical math that made the data transmission possible. Of course, after some twenty years of being a wonky academic service, Tim Berners-Lee germinated the Worldwide Web at the particle physics labs of CERN. Each of these fine gentlemen also had help.

To all those at ARPA and CERN, to all those at the ISP's and telecom companies that make this wonderful and wonderfully uncertain world possible, Happy 40th Birthday.

Friday, October 23, 2009

Scozzafava = The Female Jack Abramoff

Dede Scozzafava is in trouble!

Big Abramoff-level accountint scandal brewing, involving RNC and NRCC money being funneled through shell accounts to family. More details available at Redstate.com.

Saturday, October 17, 2009

Reich, Sanger, and Scozzofava

Robert B. Reich, Margaret Sanger, and Dede Scozzafava all have something in common. As far as I know, despite the high-falutin sound of their last names, they are not looking to hang a shingle and start a law firm. One might even be able to make the case that they are ladies, all three, but I have it on pretty good authority that Reich is just this side of masculine (liberalism notwithstanding).

What these three have in common is their belief in a long-discredited pseudoscience called "eugenics." Eugenics seems innocuous enough. Who could possibly be against the betterment of the human race by way of "survival of the fittest?" Unfortunately, eugenics has justified some of the worst crimes against humanity up until WWII and the end of the nazi regime.

Reich was an associate of the Clintons. It should come as no surprise that he has no trouble letting the elderly or infirm die:

This is what the truth is and what a candidate will never say, but what a candidate should say...We are going to have to, if you're very old, we're not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It's too expensive. So we are going to let you die.


Whoa! From your mouth to God's ear, Mr. Reich.

Margaret Sanger founded the family planning advocacy that morphed into Planned Parenthood. What is lesser-known about Ms. Sanger is that she was a strident advocate of forced sterilization and sexual repression, as well as a cheerleader of policies championed by Hitler himself. To this very day, Planned Parenthood proudly continues in Sanger's finest eugenic tradition.

The final member of this unholy anti-life trinity is Dede Scozzafava. She was chosen by eleven party chairs of New York's twenty-third congressional district to run in a special election for John M. McHugh's seat after McHugh was appointed Secretary of the Army.

Scozzafava's credentials as a pro-choice, same-sex marriage advocate are well-established, moreso now that she won the 2009 Margaret Sanger Award from Planned Parenthood. Unlike that neo-socialist toad Reich, Scozzafava is a Republican, and has the full backing of Newt Gingrich as well as ACORN!

I have a message for Newt Gingrich and the rest of the epic failures that forgot their promises to the people on their first day in office back in 1994: Sit down, and shut up. If you can't find candidates that respect life, let the primary voters do it for you.

And to any of my listeners in a position to do so, check out Doug Hoffman's campaign website. Spare the nice man a few dollars of your morning coffee money if you can. Remember, it may be the twenty-third district of New York voting, but either Doug Hoffman or Dede Scozzafava are going to be part of a body of 535 people that make law by which we are all bound.

I aided in Tom Daschle's ouster in 2004. It can be done again, and with your help, it will.

Friday, October 16, 2009

AIG and Misplaced Outrage

Earlier this week, Neil Barofsky blamed Timothy "Tax Cheat" Geithner and the Treasury department for the travesty of yet more bonuses paid out to employees by TARP fund recipient AIG. It is worth noting that not all of these "outrageous bonuses" went to executives; indeed, there were bonuses across a wide range of amounts to employees at all levels of the organization...

But why do we need a TARP? I've always thought of a "tarp" as something you use to cover the load of trash that you're taking out to the landfill. Out-of-sight, out-of-mind, perhaps?

The United States of America pioneered one of the most efficient means in history of infusing cash into ailing businesses (financial and otherwise): It's called, "going public." Naturally, not all corporations are publicly traded. Most of the larger ones that do business nationwide are, and there are numerous reasons for it.

In a nutshell, trading in stocks not only means that private individuals gain an ownership interest in a corporation, but it also means that a corporation gets to borrow money from its shareholders. What do we, the shareholders, get in return? It varies from company-to-company as to the particulars, but the privileges can generally be boiled down to two categories: dividends and voting rights. If enough shareholders are dissatisfied about the direction a corporation is taking, they have the opportunity to either vote the offending parties off of the board of directors, or sell the stock in its entirety and get out, hopefully getting back all of the money they originally invested.

What recourse do we have the government? We've heard about how "we all own General Motors now," but do we have any say in how the company is run? Can we sell our stock in AIG and get any of our money back? When the government is involved, we have all the burden and responsibility of stock ownership, but we have none of the perks. The closest thing we have to a board of directors in the mighty Federal Government is Congress, which consists of 535 representatives and senators. The most populous (and arguably the most liberal) state among the fifty only has the right to vote on 55 of those seats, while the other 480 help to make rules which are just as binding. The smallest of the states can only vote on three(!) of those seats, leaving the other 532 to foist legally binding mandates on us all.

The continuing arrogance must be stopped. Don't wait until 2010 to do something.

Thursday, October 15, 2009

Oh no! They must be stopped!

This time, I am not talking about the Obama administration. I am not talking about the Democratic party apparatus, nor am I talking about that corpus of egg-sucking weasels we call "Congress." No, the enemy-of-the-hour is the United States Chamber of Congress. I know, because Eliot "Spits-her" told me so.

From an article published today on Slate.com:

The chamber remains an unabashed voice for the libertarian worldview that caused the most catastrophic economic meltdown since the Great Depression. And the chamber's view of social justice would warm Scrooge's heart. It is the chamber's right to be wrong, and its right to argue its preposterous ideas aggressively, as it does through vast expenditures on lobbyists and litigation. Last year alone, the chamber spent more than $91 million on lobbying, and, according to lobby tracker Opensecrets.org, it has spent more than twice as much on lobbying during the past 12 years as any other corporation or group.


Hmm...do you think perhaps the Chamber spends more on lobbying than any other corporation, because it is lobbying for its members interests? Do you think, Mr. Spits-her, that might be why a corporation voluntarily chooses to belong to the Chamber?

The problem is, the chamber is doing all this with our money. The chamber survives financially on the dues and support of its members, which are most of America's major corporations listed on the stock exchange. The chamber derives its political clout from the fact that its membership includes these corporations. Yet we—you and I—own the companies that support the chamber and permit it to propagate its views. Our passive, permissive attitude toward the management of the companies we own has enabled the chamber to be one of the primary impediments to the reform of markets, health care, energy policy, and politics that we have all been calling for. It is time for that to change.


No Democratic tax whore ought to be lecturing the American people about what the American Chamber of Commerce does with its voluntarily paid dues. When you hear a Democrat say "It will require sacrifice," what that really means is, "We will decide from the hallowed halls of congress how much you can afford to sacrifice, Peasant."

Client #9 is a national embarrassment,. His fellow liberals may be ready to give Him a pass for his indiscretions, but he is the worst kind of hypocrite. From the very moment he was caught patronizing a business of the sort he routinely prosecuted, Eliot Spits-her forfeited the privilege of being taken seriously on any important national matters. He violated the laws he swore to uphold, and I will not so much as entertain the idea of forgiveness until I believe that he is truly sorry.

In the meantime, I hope Slate.com is paying him well. Op-ed in a liberal E-rag is a more prominent job than he deserves to have.

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

Olympics Vs. Iran

Many of my colleagues felt ill-concealed glee at Obama's failure to chide the International Olympics Committee into putting the 2016 games in Chicago. Laying aside the conservative gloating for a moment, the liberals are once again conveniently ignoring the stubborn facts that do not fit their narrative.

Chicago was made a finalist in the IOC's voting in June 2008 before Obama had even clinched the Democratic presidential nomination. All Bush's fault, huh?

Even many conservatives thought that the IOC voting was all wrapped up. What kind of head-of-state would engage in diplomacy without knowing the outcome?

President Obama's speech as well as Michelle Obama's, were both laced with narcissistic self-reference bordering on the obscene. Nobody I've heard expressing an opinion has thought that could have possibly helped.

As an amateur sometimes-pundit, I'm glad that the Daley corruption machine won't be able to get their Chicago-thug mitts into the already corruption-laced Olympics. However, I also believe that Obama's failure with the IOC portends something far more important, and potentially far more disastrous.

Obama's willingness to discuss sporting events with a corrupt body of foreign individuals, while at the same time having no clue what he was wading into, should give all patriotic Americans pause when the subject of Iranian or North Korean nukes is a national topic-of-conversation. Failing in the little, inconsequential things is not a cause for relief when our very national identity and the lives of our citizens is on the line.

Obama will end up an international laughingstock. And I won't be laughing. I'll be digging a bomb shelter while I repeat "See, I told you so" just like a broken vinyl record.