Fox News: They Report, Obama Decides - HUMAN EVENTS

When it was learned that the reason for the administration’s animosity toward Fox News was based in part on the network’s coverage of Obamacare and Glenn Beck’s opposition to bringing the Olympics to the Chicago, Fox News’ Chris Wallace called Obama a “crybaby” and the battle began.

The last time such a war raged between the White House and a media outlet, Richard Nixon was President, and his V.P, Spiro Agnew, was doing all he could to blackball the New York Times over their unflattering coverage of the Vietnam War. This time, the war is between a President whose skin is at least as thin as was Nixon’s, but whose motives are far more self-serving.

Ryan Sager - Neuroworld – Obama, Peace Prizes, and Reciprocity - True/Slant

"Funny story: I was singing in the shower this morning, and Robert Gibbs called to tell me I’d won a Grammy. It was actually a little embarrassing, though, since all I’ve ever really done when it comes to music is tool around with a four track and some barely competent guitar playing. Still, I may have done more to deserve my Grammy than President Obama has done to deserve the Nobel Peace Prize."

I, Cringely: The Cybersecurity Myth

So this is the wrong approach entirely. It won’t work, the DHS probably knows it won’t work (if they don’t know that, well God help us all) but they see it as better than nothing.

Then God help us all. I seriously doubt they know how ridiculous that 1000 number sounds or what a security expert is.

We are at the mercy of ignoramuses, and that is true (regardless of party affiliation) with each new Federal pronouncement on the subject (Network Neutrality fits into the mold as well).

These people are “true believers” regardless of whether they support limited government or an ever expanding one.

Of course if you want to posit that those at the top are fully aware of the situations and are simply putting on a show to retain their safe, well paying jobs** at our and our children’s expense while accomplishing nothing of true value, then I’d say the situation is far far worse.

** not to mention creating up to 1000 new ones for family and friends.

And from the link CNN article:

Department officials could not say precisely how many cyberexperts now work at DHS and its various component agencies such as the Secret Service and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Napolitano said she doubts it will be necessary to fill all 1,000 of the authorized positions, but she is focused on making DHS a "world-class cyberorganization."

I'm watching the gravitas bleed out of this administration at an alarming rate. Que episodes of the keystone Cops.

At least this Janet hasn't ordered the fire-storming of any fringe religious groups. Yet.

Sounds like 2% unemployment in the DC area is safe though. I'm sure the nation appreciates this.

Oh, then there's this:

The Department of Homeland Security today appointed a senior Microsoft Corp. executive to head a section charged with protecting the federal government's computer networks from cyber attacks.

...

Still, critics say DHS cyber efforts have been characterized by inefficiency and leadership failures. Amit Yoran, a former cybersecurity czar at DHS before he left the department in 2004 after little more than a year on the job, said Reitinger has some tough work ahead of him.

Yoran cited as an example the current status of the U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT). Widely considered one of the most effective cyber components of DHS, Yoran said US-CERT has been ripped apart by years of political infighting and political stovepipes.

Oh, no business as usual there eh?

Don't miss the irony of hiring a former Microsoft employee (with vested options perhaps?) to look over security issues for a federal bureaucracy plagued with improperly installed and maintained Windows systems.

In congressional testimony his predecessor mentioned Windows issues multiple times. Maybe that's why he was compelled to leave. In any even all our federally installed malware will have nice generic designations now I'm sure. We don't want to hurt any company's feelings after all.

Finally, apropos of nothing other than federal incompetence in general:

$35 Billion Slated for Local Housing - WSJ.com

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration is close to committing as much as $35 billion to help beleaguered state and local housing agencies continue to provide mortgages to low- and moderate-income families, according to administration officials.

The move would further cement the government's role in propping up the housing market even as some lawmakers push to curb spending at a time of rising debt.

The effort, which could be announced as early as this week, is aimed at relieving pressure on government-operated housing finance agencies, which have been struggling to find funding amid the downturn. These agencies, or HFAs, are a small part of the housing market but are critical to many first-time and low-income home buyers, who can get lower-rate mortgages through an HFA than they could through a private-sector lender. Rates are typically 0.5 to one percentage point lower than commercial lenders.

In case there was any doubt that the current administrations IQ hovers safely in the two digit range, this is it.

One thing that is as inevitable as night follows day is that when the government subsidizes something, that thing gets more expensive, requiring larger subsidies, ad infinitum*.

The best way to have affordable housing, is to let housing prices return to rational levels, which in spite of the "housing collapse" they still have not. The Journal over the weekend described a rather fancy 20s era house (built by an auto industry exec) that recently sold for $10,000**. Now that's a reasonable price, and the house, once restored a bit, will certainly be worth more. Only problem is that it is in a part of Detroit that nobody in their right mind wants to live... reasons listed: high taxes combined with high crime and few services... duh! It sold to a church, who plans to do the renovation in hope of reselling the house at a profit. I wish them luck. And who knows, once Detroit and similar cities get over grieving over the loss of industries that they helped drive offshore, maybe there can be some sort of urban renewal that will last beyond the artificial pumping of funds into the area.


* It's tempting to mention health care here, but let's leave that for another time.

** Interestingly, that's about what the house was considered worth when it was built, only then, $10K was considered a fortune.

Rob Pegoraro - Fast Forward: FCC Takes Sides in Net-Neutrality Debate - washingtonpost.com

On Monday, the new chairman of the Federal Communications Commission said the agency would write rules requiring Internet providers to do something many of them already say they do: deliver online content without discrimination. So why were there so many long faces in telecom afterward?

I think I've posted about a thousand comments on this in various places, here is simply the latest, and maybe most succinct:

Several points:

You mention that new Federal monitoring would invite corruption down the road.

No, I'd say it pretty much guarantees it. And at considerable expense, only to prevent what is commonly accepted as a vendor infringement that has rarely taken place. Also consider that in the cases where it has taken place, existing laws have handled the situation.

You mentioned that you, as a consumer, would rather have usage caps than have a particular application you use stop working.

But what about ME, as a consumer? I hate usage caps and have stuck with DSL over Cable for my Internet primarily for that distinction. If I use any of the applications you refer to then I guess I've never noticed the difference. Now that's subject to change, as are usage caps. Suppose after such new legislation all carriers either established low caps, or cut their existing caps in half or quarter as a defensive measure? Would "network neutrality" be worth it still?

I resent the continued implication that all these still potential problems we face are the result of free enterprise and all we need is yet another government agency to make it all better. There is very little about cable, telephone or cell phone service that resembles free enterprise as all are heavily taxed, and government granted monopoly based.

If we all had a dozen high speed Internet providers to chose from I have little doubt that some would offer plans that satisfy my needs, and others would offer plans that satisfy yours. I'd rather see our legislatures try and figure out how to spur the existence of that many alternatives.

Let's just confess right now that the only way to have a single plan that satisfies everyone is for men from Mars for come down and offer us free unlimited Internet service. Any other option, whether government based or not will have to either limit choice (pleasing one customer but not another) or run at a loss that will have to be paid for unequally by the consumer base.

Not surprisingly this same solution set applies to many other things in our lives and ultimately the decisions we make will determine whether the first two hundred years of our country's history were a waste of time or not.

9/11 Attacks: New York Subway System Still Vulnerable Eight Years After September 11 - ABC News

New York City Deputy Mayor Ed Skylar said the situation is alarming.

"We are very concerned with the problems the MTA has had implementing the security plan they outlined," Skylar said.

But when questioned by ABC News, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano seemed unaware of the problem.

Wait, Where's Our Stimulus?

Yesterday, we were reminded that the government is writing a check to General Motors for $400 million so GM can develop better car batteries.

This check wasn't a loan. It was a "grant." Another word for "grant," of course, is "gift."

The GM news came a few hours before the Senate finally agreed on how best to give car-buyers and car companies $4,500 per new car. These payments aren't loans, either. They're gifts.

Notice that all the helping hands that have gone out are aimed at either those that are "too big to fail" or to those who "can't help themselves".

The formula for destroying a civilization by destroying the middle class is so well known and understood that I can only wonder at what point our President and Congress are accused not just of being wrong about these policies, but in fact of intentionally trying to make matters worse.

While companies like GM (and the banks) may be "hurting" there are many small and medium sized businesses that have already bled to death but aren't big enough to make headlines.

Yes, Microsoft and Google will pay more taxes and deal with more regulators than your average electrician or plumber, but those regulations, taxes and fees will represent the difference between survival or failure for these small companies, while to the big guys (even those not being bailed out) they are simply an inconvenience.

The Department of Justice should take a hint from the Microsoft suit: Don't go after Google.

Easy to agree with conclusion of this article at Slate, but not the premises...

“The antitrust prosecution against Microsoft was misguided. To be sure, the government had the facts right—in the late 1990s, the software giant looked unbeatable.”

You think they are beatable now? Apple, the only serious commercial competitor switched to Intel processors, and the majority of Apple computers now dual boot to Windows, or run virtualization software that runs Windows in a window. These copies of Windows which must be purchased separately actually make more money for MS than the copies bundled with a new computer. Apple isn't a competitor, it's a partner.

'When Gates learned that Intel was building a chip that would let programmers deploy enhanced graphics within non-Microsoft operating systems, he wrote to Intel CEO Andy Grove, "I don't understand why Intel funds a group that is against Windows 95." Intel stopped developing the chip.'

And what has changed now, other than they have learned to use the telephone rather than e-mail for these communications? Everyone now depends on Intel, for almost all computing where Microsoft has an interest. The exceptions are fringe, and not insurmountable. Yes, if everyone replaced every PC with an iPhone Microsoft would be in trouble, but that's not about to happen. I'm quite sure that everyone at the Department of Justice that has an iPhone (and there are probably quite a few) are using them to connect to machines running copies of Windows and Office that together cost more than the iPhone itself. While there is a huge infrastructure needed to earn Apple what it makes on that iPhone, for Microsoft, all they produce is a tick mark on a spreadsheet somewhere where DoJ keeps track of how many Windows/Office licenses they “need”.

“The theory behind the prosecution was that Microsoft's mobster tactics would raise the price of software and slow down innovation. But that didn't happen.”

How do you measure something that didn't happen? This reminds me of young people who say things like “If it weren't for Microsoft we wouldn't have the PC as it exists today.” Maybe not. Maybe we would have something more reliable, using less power, not prone to spyware or pop-ups, free from spam. There a lot of innovations that simply didn't happen because both Microsoft and Intel sucked all the oxygen out of the room. The threats posed to MS/Intel by either Google or Apple are all future tense and speculative.

“It got beat anyway. Many of Microsoft's assets turned out not to matter, because upstarts like Google and old foes like Apple found ways to innovate around them.”

With MS still holding majority share in all of these areas and making enough profit every year to buy thousands of small businesses, you have a very creative definition of “beat”.

“Windows and Office—that it was blind to opportunities in new markets. Microsoft couldn't make a Web e-mail system like Gmail, because that would have threatened Outlook.”

But that's exactly what they are doing. “Hotmail” as they used to call it is the equivalent of Gmail in almost every respect that matters... only your get a few more features from it if you happen to be using Windows and Internet Explorer. Office Live will give, again, steadfast Microsoft supplicants like the DoJ full online versions of their favorite applications. The advantage of Google products will evaporate overnight. What's the primary difference between the Google way of doing things and Microsoft way? Google doesn't lock you into a single OS or single Office suit. Microsoft does. Advantage Microsoft.

“Yes, the first iPod didn't work on Windows. In time, it would help render Windows irrelevant.”

Get back to us when Slate or the Department of Justice replace all their desktop PCs with iPhones.

“Google has the resources to keep fighting these fights, and eventually it may win. But nothing in Google's history guarantees success.”

Now you're talking sense. Google's market share could evaporate almost over night. Transition from Windows to Android or anything else could take years (ask the Europeans). Google has the resources to fight Microsoft's well entrenched monopoly now. But setbacks in search would see most of these efforts that threaten Microsoft starved of funding.

“Varney has said that antitrust enforcement is a key tool for regulators to keep the economy running smoothly. But in the tech business, antitrust regulators are often too slow, fighting battles long after they've ceased to matter to consumers.”

I don't know about Varney's politics, but her statements about technology smack of cluelessness. If DoJ is like other federal agencies I've worked with, the top several layers of entrenched bureaucrats are clueless about technology as well. It's not clear they understand the law either. As far as the economy goes, this is a bad time to accuse anyone in Washington of understanding it. Remember that unemployment in Washington is hovering around two percent.

What's the deal with the White House press corps? - wtop.com

"I don't fault the President for trying to control the press. But I ask you, why does the press go along? There is not one moment of spontaneity. The questioners are tipped off, in advance, by the White House and they behave accordingly.

No. Not one questions about Iraq. Not one questions about Afghanistan, where American troops have had the worst month of fatalities in eight years. These guys, and women, are not journalists. They're enablers."

American Thinker Blog: Feds issue guidelines to stay away from Vegas and Orlando for meetings

Following the embarrassment of video-taped scenes of federal bureaucrats boogying at the ultra-luxurious Arizona Biltmore Hotel to ‘relieve stress", it is understandable that agencies want to avoid the "appearance" of doing what they are doing: wasting taxpayer money on useless junkets.

We don't know when this guidance was supplied to federal agencies, but a sneaking suspicion is that it was after the Arizona Biltmore tape aired, and some genius in the White House reacted, not realizing that Harry Reid is up for re-election next year. Amateur hour stuff, it seems to me.

At some point the major media will take the trouble to report that before winning his party's nomination Obama hadn't won a major election outright. In previous contests his opponents had been forced to drop out for one reason or another. Hillary (and I'm no fan of hers either) had 15 years (count'em) of anti-Hillary material built up against her by both conservatives and liberals of one kind or another. McCain is considered a lefty among Republicans. "Acceptable" but nothing more. Meanwhile, Democrats who said things like "McCain is one Republican I could see voting for", voted for Obama anyway.

While Obama's term in office will most certainly hurt people who voted for him more than it hurts people who didn't, it will hurt all Americans in ways that will take a generation to recover from.

The empty suit in the White House isn't really all that hard to explain. It will be hard to forget.

CNSNews.com - Joe Biden: ‘We Have to Go Spend Money to Keep From Going Bankrupt’

Vice President Joe Biden told people attending an AARP town hall meeting that unless the Democrat-supported health care plan becomes law the nation will go bankrupt and that the only way to avoid that fate is for the government to spend more money.

“And folks look, AARP knows and the people with me here today know, the president knows, and I know, that the status quo is simply not acceptable,” Biden said at the event on Thursday in Alexandria, Va. “It’s totally unacceptable. And it’s completely unsustainable. Even if we wanted to keep it the way we have it now. It can’t do it financially.”

“We’re going to go bankrupt as a nation,” Biden said.

“Now, people when I say that look at me and say, ‘What are you talking about, Joe? You’re telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?’” Biden said. “The answer is yes, that's what I’m telling you.”

If statements like this by their own elected officials don't convince Democrats that they've made a horrible mistake, I don't know what will. Either these people are idiots, or they think you are. Which is it?

Ballmer Ribs Google's OS At Microsoft Conference (MSFT, GOOG)

"I don't know if they can't make up their mind or what the problem is over there. The last time I checked you don't need two client operating systems."

Only one of the readers at businessinsider came up with this list of MS operating systems (I don't know if they are all current):

* Windows XP
o Starter Edition (16 editions for each of 16 countries)
o Home Edition
o Home Edition N (European market)
o Home Edition K (South Korean market)
o Home Edition KN (South Korean market)
o Home Edition for Subscription Computers
o Home Edition for Prepaid Computers
o Professional Edition
o Professional Edition N (European market)
o Professional Edition K (South Korean market)
o Professional Edition KN (South Korean market)
o 64-bit Edition
o Professional x64 Edition
o Media Center Edition
o Tablet PC Edition
o XP for Embedded Systems
o XP Embedded
o Embedded for Point of Service
o Windows Fundamentals For Legacy PCs
* Windows Server 2003
o Small Business Server
o Web Edition
o Standard Edition
o Enterprise Edition
o Datacenter Edition
o Storage Server
o Windows Home Server
* Windows Vista
o Starter
o Home Basic
o Home Basic N (European market)
o Home Premium
o Business
o Business N (European market)
o Enterprise
o Ultimate
* Windows 7
* Windows Server 2008
o Web Server
o Standard Edition
o Enterprise Edition
o Datacenter Edition
o for Itanium-based Systems

Windows Mobile computing

* Windows CE
* Windows Mobile 6

Overhauling The Financial Regulatory System - John Stossel's Take

...it is ominous that a bright guy like Obama doesn't know this. He thinks he must regulate the system because it is so complicated and so important. In fact, those are the reasons why he cannot regulate it and had better not try. The relevant information is too ever-changing and widely dispersed.

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 32% of the nation's voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-four percent (34%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -2. That’s the President’s lowest rating to date and the first time the Presidential Approval Index has fallen below zero for Obama.

VDH's Private Papers::Why I Oppose Judge Sotomayor

I particulalry liked this quote from Bork:

Judge Bork describes post-modernism as follows:

This development can be seen in any number of academic, previously intellectual fields. Sometimes called post-modernism or post-structuralism, the denial of truth is, as Gertrude Himmelfarb says, "best known as a school of literary theory. But it is becoming increasingly prominent in such other disciplines as history, philosophy, anthropology, law, and theology..." It is also becoming increasingly difficult to call some of those subjects "disciplines." In every case — the attack on reason, on the concept of truth, and on the idea that there is an objective reality to which we must attempt to make our words and theories correspond — the impetus behind such assaults comes from the political left. … Nonsense these attacks may be, but, as the history of our century teaches, there is no guarantee that nonsense will not prevail, with dire results. In law, philosophy, literary studies, and history, among other subjects, we are raising generations of students who are taught by the "cutting edge" professors that traditional respect for logic, evidence, intellectual honesty, and the other requirements of discipline are not merely passé, but totalitarian and repressive, sustaining existing social, political, and economic arrangements to the benefit of white, heterosexual males. To change society in radical directions, it is said, it is necessary to be rid of the old apparatus. (Slouching towards Gomorrah, pp. 268-9)

Power Line - What's Happening In Tehran?

According to our private phone conversations with people in Tehran, hundreds of parents have gathered by a police station in Yousef Abad, now known as Seyyed Jamal Aldin Asad Abadi, with their hands raised to the sky saying "Obama, please help us, they are killing our young children."

Yeah. Right. A reader at The Corner makes a cogent point:

Obama has squandered [strategic opportunities] by demonizing Bush and the Iraq war for years.

Imagine how powerful it would be for Obama (or, more likely, a surrogate) to be able to stand up and say to the Iranian protesters, "Under the USA, your neighbor Iraq held free and fair elections. The government of Iran went out of its way to demonize the US and undermine those elections. We are now seeing the results of that mindset come home to Iran as you are denied a voice by your government in your own elections. The US government stands behind all who seek free and fair elections."

Of course, he can't say that with any legitimacy because he has spent years putting down Bush and Iraq. This is a classic example of why partisan bickering needs to be toned down; it hamstrings the new Administration. So frustrating to watch.

The Meaning Of Bing (MSFT)

"Since next week is the Global Issue of Advertising Age, first a word about Bing's supposed connotations outside the English-speaking world. Maybe you've seen the endlessly tweeted Twitter meme, 'Bing means disease in Chinese,' which usually points to posts at either TechCrunch or the Brand Infection blog, both of which included an image of a 'Learn Chinese' fortune-cookie slip that translates 'bing' as 'disease.' Brand Infection asked, 'Does Microsoft not research the meaning before introducing a new brand? Or will Microsoft rebrand the product in China? Or did Microsoft never intend to market it there? Or does Microsoft not care?'"

Probably sharing research assistants with our State Department.

Megalomaniac Surprises World By Fixing Elections

"In the most Iranian elections, voters have been allowed to choose between candidates hand selected by the ruling mullahs and whose differences largely boil down to those who prefer to chant “Death to Israel” before “Death to America” or vice versa. In this set of elections, Ahmedinejad was faced with a popular former Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi, who was in favor of reforms and closer ties with the West. While the election was expected to be close, the Iranian regime ignored its own election rules to quickly declare that Ahmedinejad had won in a landslide, providing numbers that even crooked gambling dens said were suspicious.

No doubt, President Obama is shocked (shocked!) to learn that someone he has personally offered to meet without preconditions and who has such close ties to world figures like Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Vladmir Putin of Russia would stoop to rigging an election. Thank goodness our Dear Leader won’t let the minor issue of legitimacy get in the way of… more talk."

Whitacre Vows to ‘Learn About Cars’ as Chairman of New GM Board - Bloomberg.com

June 10 (Bloomberg) -- Edward E. Whitacre Jr. built AT&T Inc. into the biggest U.S. provider of telephone service over a 43-year-career. By his own admission, he becomes chairman of General Motors Corp. knowing nothing about the auto industry.

Not to criticize his selection (I don't know enough one way or the other), but if you look at the history of AT&T you will see that it was for most of it's history a monopoly until roughly 1984 when it was busted up into several smaller regional monopolies providing local phone service. AT&T then proceeded to flounder around either merging with other companies or spinning off parts of itself in a desperate struggle to survive as a non-monopoly company.

The regional bells, continuing to rake in unearned profits wisely sought to diversify themselves, going into publishing, cable TV, cellular, and even the furniture business. It would be at least very difficult to catalogue where all the monopoly money ended up, except to say that some of it, if not most of it, ended up wasted on dead-end products and projects. In the process all the baby-bells as they cam to be called went on wild rebranding sprees yielding meaningless names such as Verizon, Qwest and SBC (which might have stood for Southwest Bell Corporation at one time but just stands for SBC (nothing ) now).

I certainly don't know what Whitacre's real resume would look like, but he was at least NOT with AT&T during most of this time, but when AT&T re-merged with SBC in 2005 (AT&T as the company being acquired) he was head of SBC, not AT&T.

Someone else can figure out to what extent he was responsible for the success of what was still a mini-monopoly, I'm more interested in the principle than the individual.

The principle being, as someone put it recently, that most of these companies are not too big to fail, they are in fact too big to exist. I personally think that busting the AT&T monopoly was a good thing, particularly as it wasn't just a big company it was almost an extension of the government in its monopoly powers.

Now, in saving GM (and some banking and investment businesses), we are moving in the opposite direction, that of combining more and more businesses into government run monopolies (including offloading of Chrystler to the Italians so that we at Government Motors only have one remaining private company, Ford, to deal with). Of course we are told that all of this is only temporary. Problem with that is that temporary can turn into a very long time.

The two most likely outcomes are that GM will succeed, at the expense of the only other large American car company, ending real choice, or that through gross mismanagement, it will fail, leaving taxpayers with a big bill to pay and also leaving Americans with only one company to chose from.

Very little that is good can come from this, but our die has been cast, and I will not let those around me forget who (which voters that is) are the responsible parties. Before anyone protests, no, the Obama administration didn't cause it all, they have just provided the "punch line" that shifts our course from heading toward simple socialism to something much much more sinister.

For the real punch in the gut, we should all remember that none of these recent course changes can be corrected during most of our lifetimes, assuming we start correcting them in 2010, which is still doubtful considering new high school graduates know almost nothing about this country's history or how its government was designed to work. Congratulations to all of you who "won".

Obama Tells American Businesses to Drop Dead

U.S. firms have nonetheless prospered because our tax code allows a business to set up a subsidiary in a low-tax country. When that subsidiary earns profits, they are taxed at the rate of that country, and don’t face U.S. tax until the money is mailed home.

The economically illiterate partisan Democratic view is that this practice is unpatriotic and bleeds jobs from the U.S. The economic reality is that American companies use this approach to acquire market share overseas. The alternative is losing the business to foreign competitors.

...

So the question is, why does Obama advocate a policy that so flies in the face of everything that economists have learned? How could Obama possibly say, as he did last month, that he wants “to see our companies remain the most competitive in the world. But the way to make sure that happens is not to reward our companies for moving jobs off our shores or transferring profits to overseas tax havens?” Further, how could Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner call a practice that top scholarship has shown increases wages and employment in the U.S. “indefensible?”