Brown Win In Massachusetts Throws A Lifeline To Democrats

I suspect that the Scott Brown win in the race for Massachusetts senator will throw Democrats a lifeline. Unlike statements made earlier in the week that the Senate may delay seating Brown until they can pass a health care reform bill, I think Democrats will move to swiftly seat Brown.

The reason is simple: Democrats running for re-election in 2010 want out of the bill as fast as possible. They might push a watered down bill, which, like Keith Olbermann suggested, will only "mandate child-proof medicine bottles". I doubt they will even do that, as it will continue to keep the health care issue (which is now a Democratic albatross) in people's minds.

I also predict that the "tea bagger" jokes that have been repeated countless times by Democrats on television will suddenly fall out of favor. I bet making fun of the tea party movement Isn't going to be as popular with elected Democrats as it once was. This will leave it up to democratic mouthpieces (like Olbermann) to keep it alive. Eventually, even he'll be asked to tone it down, for fear that it will only serve to stoke voter anger against Democrats.

Silly Pseudoephedrine Law Captures...

Grandma. Good work. All the while, meth streams in from Mexico. Who would have thought?

So let's do the math: Grandma get's an arrest record, and our meth problem grows.

Brilliant.

Will The Economic Crisis Descend Into Violence?

It sure seems like it might. As the economy gets worse, politics it seems, is getting to be a rough business. American politicians have rarely had to deal with this sort of belligerent constituent rage, and it has appeared on the public stage suddenly and in a widespread fashion.

Nancy Pelosi and others blame these spectacles on conservative special interest groups. And to some extent, she's right. But it appears that all they are doing is tapping into a well of anger and distrust many Americans are obviously feeling.

I don't think the general public nor the politicians have caught onto how deep into an economic crisis we are. And in times of national struggle, such as we find ourselves, everyone must be on their best behavior to avoid widespread civil unrest. We can hardly afford that sort of thing now.

The Death Of (Online) News

Rupert Murdoch announced that all of his News Corp business will being charging for content. Let me be the first to say goodbye to News Corp.

The Financial Times is also floating the same ballon that within the next 12 months "news agencies" (Read: The Financial Times) will begin charging for content as well. At least the FT had a 120 + year run at it. I, personally, am looking forward to watching the prestige and power quickly and quietly drifting away from any news organization who walks this path.

What does all this talk of charging really mean? I think means that news agencies are realizing that the internet bubble of 2000 actually ended. It also means that the current financial crisis is bringing their empires to an abrupt end....and we've just caught a glimpse of the hand they're holding. If they're losing too much money, why not just shut the site down and avoid the embarrassing fade to insignificance? I have a theory....

First, lets take a look at the brief history of news:

1. First there was gossip/rumor
2. Then there was government controlled 'news'
3. Then the free press got in on the game to help form public opinion and foment revolutions...somewhere around the time of the American Revolution (with their pamphlets and all....)
4. Then people started charging pennies for pamphlets to cover their printing costs
5. Weekly/daily newspapers started popping up in populated localities, usually charging enough to cover the business costs
6. Advertising was introduced as a way to "make money" in these newspapers
   
7. Radio came along with no way to charge so the profit/expenses were all covered by advertising (and payola).
   
8. TV came along with the same problem, so the news was given for free (just like radio). It was done at a loss that was made up for by advertising on the 'entertainment' side of the business. This was done because the networks realized the news gave them leverage to use against the government. As a result, TV networks (and to a lesser extent, a few newspapers) gained power as the unelected mouthpiece of a nation, forming public opinion as they wished.
   
9. This bloody internet thing came along (to upset everything) and the established media saw it only as a way to extend their TV/newspaper reach.
10. Magazines and Newspapers get into the game thinking they can charge the same price for their electronic product as their paper product (and it costs almost nothing to distribute). It fails miserably (with few exceptions).
    
11. Everybody is happy with the results until the Great Depression of 2008-?
12. All the established news organizations realize they're going bankrupt because advertisers can't afford to pay the fees anymore. Desperation sets in.
13. People like Murdock float the idea that they'll begin charging everyone for what they used to get for free.

Sounds like a great plan in the midst of a massive global economic depress..err..recession. Day-dreaming of the good the old days won't help the bottom line of News Corp or any of the other faded, fat, greedy news media. If Murdock goes through with his promise, News Corp will quickly be reduced to insignificance.

I predict however that they will quickly change their mind, much like an airline trying to raise airfares by itself, when their page hits drop 99% [On a side note, I can't wait to see the look on a Fox reporter's face when President Obama answers one of the (last) Fox News questions by starting with "You can tell you 15 readers - it is 15 right? or did you guys get a new subscriber in the last week ?- that the reason..."]

But it won't happen, because charging won't happen. Because after all, what mass media is about is power. The power to sway opinion. And it's a power people like Murdock are willing to pay for, even if they have the audacity to try charging you for it.

Rupert and Friends would be smart to remember the Encyclopedia Britannica. Once a proud source of knowledge, for over 200 years, now relegated to a dark, seldom visited corner of the internet/library.

That all happened after this site showed up just 8 years ago: Wikipedia - Much maligned, but still triumphant.

Just wait until you see what the plan is for your kingdom. The free ride might be over, but that doesn't mean people will pay to ride. They might just go back to walking.

An American MP Scandal?

Looks like the Wall Street Journal is trying to follow in the footsteps of the Daily Telegraph in pointing out the misuse of taxpayer money by politicians. Let's see if the spark catches.

Don't Look Now...But The UK Is About To Catch Fire

If you haven't been following the growing scandal in the UK, now might be a good time to get acquainted with it. What's happened is a common product of when the easy money get's tight: All the fraud is exposed like coral at low tide.

Just like the Bernie Maddoff scandal here in the US, the Daily Telegraph has set alight a fire in England. The Telegraph leaked expense documents for Members of Parliament which show they were abusing their privilege of tax write-offs and government funded expense accounts. Some of the abuses border on criminal. But what did the Labor Party government of Gordon Brown do? They indicated that they would prosecute the person who leaked the documents! Never mind that it was the public's money.

Then the tide suddenly turned. Suddenly the MPs started to worry about the real possibility of pitchforks and bonfires. Now they're sheepishly announcing that they're 'paying back' the money, but all the while still claiming it was all on the up-and-up. Clearly it's not. And since when was agreeing to give back stolen goods enough to just walk away from a theft? I suspect Gordon Brown and the Labor Party will not recover from this one. Keep an eye on this, it might erupt into street violence....who knows these days.

Every day more details leak out. I wonder how long it will be before the same happens in this country?

Pelosi Says "We Don't Need Republican Support" For The Stimulus Bill

So I assume she's fine with the Democrats taking the blame when it doesn't work? Meanwhile, the public seems to be siding more and more with the Republicans, as support for the bill has slipped 12% in the last 3 weeks. Now only 51% think it's a good idea.

This is a huge gamble for the Democrats that's likely to be a loser. If the economy gets better, they win and the Republicans look stupid. If the economy gets worse, they'll have a tough time making the case that it would have worked if we had just thrown a few more Trillion $'s down the drain.

Why The Auto Bailout Should Die

This is an excellent article from Forbes showing why the automotive bailout is a huge con job.

When Did DIGG Turn Into An Obama-Biden LoveFest?

Of the top 10 stories on DIGG, 7 are pro Obama and anti-McCain. I'm pleased to see that 1 is a pro Ron Paul story. Now I know how all those people felt when the Paulites took over Digg.

Check out these current DIGG titles. I'll be happy when DIGG goes back to the nerd crowd (will it ever??)

• Palin's church says Jews deserve to be victims of terrorism

• FactCheck: McCain Ad Continues Lies about Obama's Tax Plan

• 8 More Shocking Revelations About Sarah Palin [Perhaps she is hiding other people's babies??]
  

• Palin Slashed Funding for Teen Moms

• McCain's New Palin Strategy: Blame The Media

• Sarah Palin's Corrupt Mis-Management of Dairy in Alaska

The Internet Finds A Conspiracy With Sarah Palin

So the latest tabloid story on the internet revolves around the seemingly odd time-line of the birth of Sarah Palin's most recent child. "Liberal" bloggers have really ramped up the story that Sarah Palin's most recent child was actually her grandchild, and that there's a massive conspiracy to cover up the teenage pregnancy of her own daughter. It's interesting to note that the allegations are not new. People were making them as early as March of 2008.

There are some unusual circumstances. True or not, we need to remember that it was the Daily Kos that pushed the story. It's a big gamble for them. If it's true, they'll look like the Drudge of 2008. If they're wrong, they'll be branded as the site that dragged a candidate's children into the fray (including an infant child with a serious health condition), which will make them look really, really sleazy.

Obama Picks A Loser. McCain Is Handed A Golden Opportunity

Let's face it, any way you could spin it, Joe Biden is a loser. He represents everything about politics that we all hate. A card carrying member of the old (white) boys club, a career politician with a history of ethics problems. It's hard to imagine a worse pick by Obama.

But now, McCain has been given a golden opportunity to upstage Obama. He could pick a woman VP like Kay Bailey Hutchison, who has strong conservative appeal and, well let's face it, she's a woman.

Unfortunately, while this would be the smart choice, I have little faith that McCain will make the right choice. Instead he'll probably pick a dark horse with a brief history of Klan membership (which will come out right before the election). I guess we'll see soon enough.

Did Mitt Romney Have Help At The Florida Debate?

When I watched the Florida debate, Romney was asked if he would do the same thing that Ronald Regan did for social security (which was apparently, raising taxes). Right after the question was asked, I heard what appeared to someone whisper near Romney "raise taxes". I brushed it o ff as a whisper from one of the other candidates...but that does seem unlikely. Apparently everyone else heard it too, and now this story is getting a lot of press on the internet. Watch the video for yourself and see what you think. Was Romney getting help with his questions??

On another note, there's a lot of talk about how that the 'talk time' of the candidates was anything but equal. Here's the breakdown:

Total Times

Romney: 21:11, during 13 times
McCain: 16:00, during 13 times
Giuliani: 13:50, during 11 times
Huckabee: 12:11, during nine times
Paul: 6:31, during six times

So with Mitt Romney getting almost (3) times the 'face time' as Ron Paul, Romney 'won' the debate according to many analysts. Much of this was out of his control however, as the segment where candidates were allowed to ask each other questions, Romney was questioned more than once.