Posted on 03/04/2005 2:57:34 PM PST by watchdog_writer
Senator McCain – tear down this wall
The good senator from Arizona, the Honorable John McCain who co-sponsored the Campaign Finance Reform bill still doesn’t get it. Senators McCain and Feingold now want to regulate the Internet, bloggers and e-mail. McCain started all this. I can’t say if he was misled or pressured to sponsor the bill. Anything is possible, but didn’t everyone know at the outset that finance reform only favors the democrats, and quite frankly, McCain should have known that as well. So the real question is why did he do it? We might also ask why he stated he had no confidence in Rumsfeld, or why he defended Kofi Annan, or why he criticized the White House on environmental issues. Come to think of it maybe he would make a good running mate for Hillary; after all she did support McCain for VP alongside Kerry? Some say McCain might run as an independent. They’re a little late. He’s already independent.
They call it campaign finance reform, but it’s just another clever way to control the voting public so that they remain ignorant liberal automatons. Programmed by liberal talking heads, liberal spin-doctors, and the MSM, voters pull the democrat lever like garbles pulling a lever for more feed.
U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly a Clinton appointee gave McCain what he asked for, and her decision has the potential to silence bloggers. "The commission's exclusion of Internet communications from the coordinated communications regulation severely undermines" the campaign finance law's purposes, Kollar-Kotelly wrote.[1] The “purpose” is to keep important information from the voting public so that they can be brainwashed by liberal news and television? They say it’s not a democratic plot to silence conservatives? Then why is it that three republican commissioners wanted to appeal the decision to keep the Internet free, but the three Democrats would not go along?
Actually Judge Kollar-Kotelly is only the most recent culprit. The finance bill actually exempted the Internet. I haven’t read her decision, but somehow she came up with some legal theory to invalidate the exemption. I’m quite sure she wasn’t’ thinking of “moveon” when she rendered her decision. The fact is that only under-financed websites need the protection, and moveon has plenty of money to do whatever they want, and they don’t need to function on a hope and a prayer. Not that anyone at moveon believes in prayer anyway.
Why do you suppose this liberal judge allowed the exemption for news organizations to remain? What if every time the NY Times published an editorial favorable to a democrat it would amount to a political contribution? Since the ratio of liberal outlets to conservative outlets is probably 100 to 1, or even more, naturally the democrats don’t want to shut down their operatives. And since the democrats, and I blame the republicans for this, control most of the judgeships, the democrats control the country, and it’s about time that everyone besides freepers understands it.
The campaign finance law limits the press exemption to a "broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication”. What about a newspaper or periodical that has an online website, like the NY Times? I’m not so sure how the army of liberal judges will get around it, but you can bet the NY Times website will be able to say whatever it wants. I’m not as confident however that the Weekly Standard will enjoy the same exception?
By the time the liberals finish with McCain he will have been responsible for the most incomprehensible, anti-conservative legislation since the internal revenue code. I’m looking for McCain to step up to the plate and correct his error, but I’m not holding my breath.
The issue is not that the Internet favors republicans and therefore the democrats are against it. They have the same, and even greater access to the Internet than do republicans. The issue is that the DEMOCRATS DON’T NEED THE INTERNET. Get it, general public? They have everything else.
Democrats may be the minority party at the moment, but they are still running the country through the media and judiciary, so get used to it friends.
As for walling up the bloggers, I say: Senator McCain, “tear down this wall.”
He might very well have said it... just not in "The Prince". He does have a couple of other books, but the prince is his "capolavoro" (masterpiece).
I think you are correct. I don't want to go into detail on this issue because it could give some a##hole Senator information on how bloggers can get around any U.S. regulations. But the sheer number of websites and blogs and the ease of creating new ones would make regulation essentially an impossible task.
My intuition tells me that most of the American public would be angered by any attempted regulation of bloggers and websites. The internet and email are regarded as an arena for free expression that is different from broadcast TV. Legislation to regulate free speech on the internet would generate a firestorm of revolt from the general public. I don't think such legislation can be approved in congress. If our lyin', cheatin' congress somehow passed this legislation by quietly sneaking it past us, then the attempted implementation would generate a firestorm of revolt and the legislation would be repealed quickly in a bill sponsored by someone like Ron Paul of Texas.
You know, if the Democrats on the FEC write regulations for the internet and actually try to implement them, that will generate a tremendous backlash against the Dems on the FEC and the Dem party as a whole. This could work out well for our side: no regulations will ever be implemented and the DemocRATs will get the blame for trying to silence free speech on the internet.
I agree. McCain gets stranger every year and more autocratic in his actions (if not his style). He's a major league crackpot at this point in time, and now is the time for him to retire and stop his assault of the First Amendment.
Whew... was that confusing? It must be the wine... oh and it's past my bedtime
---
lol - actually I think I understand what you are saying, but yea you did say it in a convoluted way. Basically your saying that your suspicious of over generalized and oversimplified conclusions.
If I understand it correctly the Elliot wave was a generalization made for stock price predictions, which is more or less regarded as quackery.
I find fractals very interesting, I've read most of Wolfrom's a 'New Kind of Science', which describes how pattern recognition etc.. will likely become a new focus of science. But I don't know what you are talking about regarding the inverse cryptology function... :)
The author of 'the Wisdom of Crowds" is James Surowiecki. And I understand your concerns about it, but I assure you it is a very, very, very good and interesting read. You will not be dissapointed. He does attempt to cover 'herding' and manipulation of the crowds, similar to the phenomena you descibe with your prof.
Alot of it deals with sociological studies of small groups and the value of markets, stock markets etc.. have in aggregating data.
For example, studies have found that if a small group starts with it's members in two polarizing group then the two groups tend to moderate their opinions. If a small group is formed where members start with very similar opinions then more extreme opinions will result. (this is all generally speaking of course).
The book is filled with interesting concepts like that, often applied to real life situations.
Yes, I don't believe that such robust fractals can work as a predictive method, however, the theory behind it is reasonable.
All living organisms and colonies when they interact, build structures which can best be described as robust fractals. For example, a coral reef. When you see one, you know what it looks like, in fact, you can use mathematics to describe it. However, you cannot use mathematics to predict how it will actually grow. This in effect is what the Elliott wave guys try to do.
They recognize that the actions of humans are also biological entities interacting, and the evidence they leave behind are charts of stocks... which follow familiar patterns.
Fibonacci first noticed that the Fibonacci series predicted many of the structures found in nature. This was the real beginning of fractals... the famous Fibonacci series (1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34...etc.).
I considered them to be the opposite of the algorithms used in cryptography, since they work in the opposite direction, as for example, "one way functions". In cryptography, it is easy to create the key, but almost impossible to decipher it. Fractals work in the 'opposite direction'. They are descriptive rather than predictive algorithms.
For example, even the amazingly simple "logistic growth equation" - which uses no operation more complicated than addition and multiplication - will produce two different results when the same input is run on two different computers - one of which is a IBM type PC, and the other an Apple.
Poodle boy Kerry!
Here's a link that explains better than I have so far: One Way Functions (By RSA Security)
Cryptography is based on such one way functions, the fact that the mathematics are easier in one direction (the forward direction) than in the opposite direction (the inverse direction). It might be possible, for example, to compute the function in the forward direction in seconds but to compute its inverse could take months or years, if at all possible.
Fractal mathematics seems to work in the opposite direction more easily. Whew! That's what I was trying to say.
For example, when you see a coral reef or a tree, the fractal you are viewing can be described mathematically, but the math to predict where the next branch will grow, or how big it will be, or when it will sprout is nearly impossible. Math can easily describe it though. Anyway, the Elliott Wave people recognized these biological patterns in stock trading, as the stocks and their charts represent graphic documentation of the actions of living organisms... just as a coral reef does. There is a sense to it, and math can describe it, but NOT PREDICT IT!
Hope that makes more sense...
"notice the face of the Sinatra character is blank.."
A chilling read is
THE RED PRESIDENT
by Martin Gross.
I read it last fall during the heat of the Kerry bid for the Oval Office. Absolutely "Manchurian" ... and awfully close to the bullet we dodged November 2, by the grace of God.
Wow, a new term," like garbles pulling a lever for more feed."
Like WWII Pinup Betty, this 'Garble' could grow LEGS....
(Grable...Greta Garbo...gotta go.)
The First Amendment has withstood numerous assults over its 222 years of existance, but McCain-Feingold may finally do it in.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.