Gabby Gifford is back in D.C. lobbying for background checks at gun shows. The NRA points out:
— NRA (@NRA) March 5, 2015
Cue Slate to claim this as a “personal attack” and a “new low”.
DO IT FOR THE CHILDRENS!
People tend to get what they wish for, good and hard.
TechFreedom held a fireside chat on Feb. 27th with two FCC commissioners, Ajit Pai and Mike O’Rielly, and the two of them concurred that the new regulations are far-reaching, largely unchecked and pose a threat to consumer bills and to innovation in the industry.
Ajit Pai openly questioned what the problem was, saying, “There’s never been a systemic analysis of what the problem with the Internet is. In this order, you see scattered niche examples [Comcast and BitTorrent, Apple and FaceTime, others] all of which were resolved, mind you, through private sector initiatives.” He continued, saying that the FCC’s net neutrality regulatory regime is a solution that won’t work in search of a problem that doesn’t exist.” Essentially, this is, contrary to the assertion of activists and others, a vaguely justified power grab by a government agency.
Mike O’Rielly added, in a bit of humor that “there is a problem, and it’s the document we adopted [Feb. 26].” Neither of them were reticent in explaining exactly how and why the document was the problem. For one, the document was, as Commissioner Pai pointed out, written to solve a problem that wasn’t readily apparent. O’Rielly said the document is “guilt by imagination, trying to guess what will go wrong in the future”; instead of tackling a readily apparent and current issue, the FCC proposal is instead stumbling forward, trying to find future, hypothetical transgressions to retroactively justify its own regulations.
This conspiratorial and wide-ranging thinking on the part of FCC is not a bug, but rather a feature. O’Rielly openly said that “it’s intended to catch everybody”. Pai noted that the FCC was going to centralize powers over what infrastructure was deployed and where through the use of statutes and other laws; O’Rielly mentioned specifically that the FCC was going to “use Section 201 [of the Communications Act] to do it’s dirty work.”
Pai continued, saying that the FCC was largely focused on the ends of Internet regulation rather than the means, and that “a lot of these promises of regulatory restraint are pretty ephemeral.” O’Rielly mentioned that mobile data policies were likely to be subsumed by the new regulations into policies on the wider Internet as a whole. This one-size-fits-all approach ignores the differences in how mobile data is used versus the way the Internet is used by a normal computer or other devices. Many features of mobile service, the two said, could be construed as a company favoring one app or one site over another in terms of data, which would violate the FCC’s standards. […]
The net may be “neutral” but the FCC is most certainly not.
The wonderful enthusiasm and the absolute certainty of Clarke and Heinlein that the moon landing was just the beginning of new chapter of human exploration into outer space.
… oh, how much we have lost, how far we have fallen.
Not just fallen, but pissing on greatness.
The speech the Lamestream media – aka as Democrat Propaganda Corps – refused to broadcast
Bibi gives a more coherent, intelligent speech in a second language than Obama can in his first.
Predictable, disgusting Democrat meltdown.
Least we forget:
Just think of the horrors of bunnies with munchies!
Utah is considering a bill that would allow patients with certain debilitating conditions to be treated with edible forms of marijuana. If the bill passes, the state’s wildlife may “cultivate a taste” for the plant, lose their fear of humans, and basically be high all the time. That’s according to testimony presented to a Utah Senate panel (time stamp 58:00) last week by an agent of the Drug Enforcement Administration.
“I deal in facts. I deal in science,” said special agent Matt Fairbanks, who’s been working in the state for a decade. He is member of the “marijuana eradication” team in Utah. Some of his colleagues in Georgia recently achieved notoriety by raiding a retiree’s garden and seizing a number of okra plants.[…]
Fairbanks said that at some illegal marijuana grow sites he saw “rabbits that had cultivated a taste for the marijuana. …” He continued: “One of them refused to leave us, and we took all the marijuana around him, but his natural instincts to run were somehow gone.”
h/t Emily Zanotti
… because I’m just not seeing it.
Big Government used to have an advantage in its argument: whatever top-heavy program its proponents enacted to address whatever problem they claimed to perceive, it could take half a century or more before the world changed enough to make the program not merely unproductive, but counter-productive. In the meantime the politicians who foisted it on America enjoy the illusion of glory for their accomplishment.
The pace of social and economic change has accelerated within our lifetimes, though, to the point where even if a big government program ever could actually address whatever problem the politicians aim it at, increasingly that program does more harm than good before those politicians even leave office. In some cases the program doesn’t even get fully implemented before the landscape has changed utterly, and the program is now an obstacle to adapting to the new realities.
This is the challenge of the 21st century: government by definition is too ponderous and Jurassic in its outlook to be useful anymore in confronting the consequences of a constantly increasing pace of change. Even mavens of new media, having cut their recently gained baby teeth on the 140-character philosophical treatise, are a half-generation behind the loop and in many cases two full steps behind the news cycle.
The political establishment senses that it’s losing control of the decision loop, and that’s why it’s seeking increasingly to limit input, to make elections not matter. Or in some cases it’s why they’re trying to oust the people and elect a new one less adapted to the accelerated pace of change enabled by new technology.
They’ve been fretting for decades that America is becoming ungovernable, and today the reality — as they define it — looms on the horizon. “Governable” means they never lose a fight, no matter how wrong their side of the fight might be.
If that’s what it means to be governable, ungovernable is the way to be.
There is no other explanation for anti-Zionism.
from: Minion Factory
A rerun, but still fun: