TampaYankee

You need no further proof that, unlike Elvis, Jimmy is dead and buried. He'd never put feathers in his sausage. Kraft or whoever owns the label today has the nerve to put 'Original' on their package of precooked links but if you read the small print, it says made of pork and turkey. That ain't original at all. Like trying to sneak 50% lettuce past a committed life-long smoker or ten ounces of piss in a bottle of Jack Daniels.

Wasn't it Davy Crocket that 'grinned them bars' to death?

And some say greed doesn't lead to the downfall of the Republic.

Der milchwagen schwapt en die strasse... der ganze salat auf die strasse. Nus eis bitte... das schmect am besten! That is pretty much my total recall of German I.

The GOP is the party that is going to save the country in this 21st Century? This is an accurate and scorching assessment of the GOP that I have observed, post 43. Indicted by their own young!! That rings hopeful for the future of the GOP if it can survive the time it takes for the dinosaurs to die off. They are safe enough until 2010 when the next reapportionment legislatures are elected. This message of the GOP Youth will be dismissed by the current GOP as 'too young to know 'the truth' or as RINOs.

The GOP’s Huge, Growing Modernity Gap by mansplained to Fox News’ incredulous Megyn Kelly this week that “when you look at biology, look at the natural world, the roles of a male and a female in society, and other animals, the male typically is the dominant role.” Exhibit No. 3: Phil Bryant, Mississippi’s first-term governor, blamed working mothers for American illiteracy. Exhibit No. 4, Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss attributed rape in the armed forces to hormones.” The real problem, though, is not stray and scatterred comments. Rather it is that such comments speak to the party's discomfort with modernity. (1998 is the last time Silicon Valley sent a Republican to Congress, and 1988 was the last time it voted Republican for president.) One only needs to look at the technology gap between the Obama and Romney campaigns to see where things stand. On Election Day, Team Romney deployed ORCA, a failed, bloated and beached technology. By contrast, the Obama data-mining operation was revolutionary. As Sasha Issenberg described it, traditionally gauging public opinion “revolved around quarantining small samples that could be treated as representative of the whole.” Obama 2012, instead, created a pointillist portrait in which “the electorate could be seen as a collection of individual citizens who could each be measured and assessed on their own terms.” A mobile app used by the Obama campaign “allowed a canvasser to download and return walk sheets without ever entering a campaign office.” 

 One reason that the Obama campaign got it right was because of the campaign’s relationship with the world of high-technology. The late Steve Jobs of Apple and Eric Schmidt of Google, among others, tutored Jim Messina, the 2012 Obama Campaign Manager and former Deputy White House Chief of Staff on data, messaging and management. With Obama reelected, the relationship between Schmidt and the Obama analytics team has now morphed into a business venture called Civis Analytics, which stands ready to crunch data and advise businesses and not-for-profits alike. The GOP has shown little response to these developments. Liberty Works, a Karl Rove-affiliated company, recently won a contract with the Republican National Committee to create an “i-phone like” and “open-source voter data platform” Got that? Its nascent performance, however, has been wanting. Forget about projecting “cool,” Republicans can start by just being modern. According to Politico, “Liberty Works has gotten off to a shaky start.” Top techies complain of its narrow vision and “say the company’s outreach is underwhelming — as are its salary offers.” Apple, Google and DreamWorks it isn’t. The view from Dallas is not the same as the view from San Jose. Texas may be a testing ground, but it is in Silicon Valley that ideas germinate and incubate. But, in a hopeful sign, the RNC just retained Facebook and Google alumnus Andy Barkett, an actual engineer, as its Chief Technology Officer. Regardless, the symbiosis between the Democratic Party and Silicon Valley is, on a real level, disquieting. It reinforces the censoriousness and paternalism present among Obama and his allies. The NSA's data grab, Eric Holder’s war on the press and the IRS’s attack on the Right are not aberrations, as the Obamans have made clear. For example, Rayid Ghani, the Obama campaign’s Chief Data Scientist, told me that academics and the media should “self-regulate” what they write and say about campaign data. Likewise, in their new book, The New Digital Age, Schmidt and his co-author, Jared Cohen, the director of Google Ideas, announce that “most of all, this is a book about the importance of a guiding human hand in the new digital age.” The 32-year-old Cohen previously served on the State Department Policy Planning Staffs of both Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton. Politics is part of Cohen’s DNA, and so is technology. And that is the GOP’s problem. Forget about projecting “cool,” Republicans can start by just being modern. Since 1992 the GOP has lost the 18-29 vote in each presidential election. As the adage goes, “although people’s fundamental political views do not change much as they age, their propensity to vote does.” In other words, the GOP’s future could grow ever bleaker as today’s seniors and boomers are supplanted at the ballot box by Generations X, Y and Z. If Gohmert, Bryant, and Erickson have their way, the Republican’s modernity deficit will further congeal and fester, with the GOP relegated, at best, to a congressional party, one that specializes in oversight hearings and impeachment trials but not one actually tasked by America to govern. See original article at: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/09/the-gop-s-gaping-growing-modernity-gap.html

I hope my contributions here rise above the level of a sales jingle. It seems obvious to me that my posts are too long and too convoluted to be classified as sales 'jingles', good or bad. That being said, it was the lingua franca of the profession I worked in for 35 years. I walked the walk and talked the talk. To the extent that it may creep into my contributions at this site I'll leave for everyone else to decide. As with everything one reads, words and concepts need to be evaluated based on what is said and the facts and logic behind it, and on the motives of the author.

Maybe. I've found that words are often architected into such edifices to make someone or some program seem extra specially important whether he or it is or not. They try to portray a comprehensive understanding of, and solution to the dragon to be slain, all in one sentence -- to give the customer the warm and fuzzies. Think of it more as a technocratic sales jingle. Unfortunately, these guys are not Barry Manilow.

Sounds pretty sinister.

Thanks for that added info. Before that a gig, to me, was a pronged fork on a pole or trident used for harvesting frogs, mosty at night.

That corporate sales-speak-gobbledygook really didn't say what GIG is. We as a society really need to come to terms with what price we are willing to pay for security. We cannot engage in knee-jerk reactions one way or the other. I am still weighing those competing interests, to achieve a balance that we both can live with and that we can live with. It is not an immediately obvious balance given that administrations change over time as well as the specific nature of threats. For me, my Bill of Rights side says do not read my mail or listen in to my conservations without due process as we have known it. That goes for internet communications as well. My desire for safety and security says we have to demand and keep strong vigilance to forestall and interrupt terrorist acts or, if failing to do so, to apprehend terrorists carrying out or supporting such attacks. This side of me says I have to make compromises to my/our privacy to give the government enough visibility to monitor and investigate suspicious activities. Else, I cannot really expect them to provide that level of safety and security I want. Thus I have to be willing to live with some level of privacy intrusion. Where to draw the line? I guess it comes down to macro-inspection vs micro-inspection. Trying to recognize patterns of communication from anywhere to suspicious areas and all known or highly suspected target individuals, areas or sites seems a necessary and reasonable practice if we are really serious about proactive vigilance. Else, we must hope that all terrorists will be as hapless as the underwear and shoe bombers or we'll probably end up settling for keeping our first responders busy as well as our crime scene specialists. The problem is trying to achieve that level of scrutiny for that purpose only and to preclude potential abuses for illegitimate activities. Therein lies the risk and the challenge to meet both our privacy and security needs. It is proper to demand more transparency about these activities and to investigate how they are carried out, up to a point publicly anyway. It is appropriate to discuss the trades and compromises and sacrifices that may be part of it. What we expect our government to do about safety and security and what we are willing to pay for it. We cannot engage in knee-jerk reactions one way or the other.

What could possibly interest you in this blog!

You guys can't be serious that you just discovered The American Press sucks? On so many levels does it suck. I have been long disappointed in our press and rail against it constantly for following ratings and circulation numbers or courting on-air guests with soft ball interviews, all of it ginned up by controversy more than hard news. It infects all of our press including the big boys. That doesn't mean they are entirely asleep at the wheel but they follow distractions more than they should, which has to dilute their product. Most, if not all, of our press is fixated on domestic politics minutia, chasing controversies real or manufactured, he said/she said exchanges, conducting meaningless polls, etc. Being in the weeds so much of the time, our guys lack the view to see possible blemishes in the landscape that bear a little prospecting. Sort of like ants at a picnic scurrying around to find any source of sugar or starch they can carry off... to establish their 'rep' (everybody wants to be Woodward or Bernstein) or to please the bean counters at their organizations with ratings/circulation fodder. Some hope to turn a sad occurrence like Benghazi into a brazen Watergate with lives lost or seeking to inflate some other minor scandal into a bloody train wreck, if not high crimes and misdemeanors. I'm thinking more about ambitious reporters trying to polish their resume for the Pulitzer rather than authentic news organizations for which they report. Any organization pushing that type of story is more a political organ of one party or the other, and yes, the left does it too (it was prevalent in the Bush years.) If you have followed the UK domestic press then you know it has been a basket case of clowns and snakes. Their tabloids and Murdoch have stained the domestic product beyond imagination. But there are a few gems. For some time I've have respected the UK Press that covers this side of the Pond and world wide: Reuters, The Financial Times, The Economist, now the Guardian. They report real and substantial news in contrast to the crap passed off as real news over here. They have been covering us more in the last decade due, I believe, to the War on Terror which the UK has played a big role in and also due to the financial meltdown initiated over here that did even more damage there. Thus some of what we do here has consequence to them. I believe their success covering us compared with the domestic product lies in their distance to the landscape here. They are not mired in our silly fixations on Palin, or on votes repealing Obama Care for the 38th time or the hundreds of other breaking-news items of similar ilk over the last 6 years. They report many fewer stories and generally of some real importance. Because of their limited foot print over here they have to be big game hunters and make their shots count. Nobody needs the UK covering the House repealing Obama Care again! They understand that in the UK and here too. I'm thankful their reporting skills have been focused on this side of the pond.

I had a comment to make about Bevis and Butthead but given that people have brought family into it i'll just sum it by one word: vile.

It seems to me that more liberal Dems are taking Obama to task in a serious manner than are the GOP. In a serious manner, not in political attack opportunities for raising money or trying to kick dust on Hillary's coat -- all ticky tacky crap, the way they go about it. This has not been lost on some in the press that investigating issues as problem solving is dismissed in favor of scandal mongering, especially in the House and Conservative media. The Liberal Dems have attacked Obama for the Drone Program, Gitmo status quo, and the unwarranated extension of the Patriot Act and related actions like warrantless email scanning etc. Where has the GOP been chiming in on these purported excesses of power?

Lookin' you are never confrontational in a personal way, never. Sometimes you do confront a view with logic, reason and fact on your side and a dose of healthy concern for what is right and what is going on. You made me rethink my earlier post and I realize my concern, or better put 'ire', was directed at the author's attempt to conflate (in my head anyway) the drone program with waterboarding, Abu Ghraib, and renditions abuses. If the point trying to be made is that fast-and-loose procedures used overseas are being adopted or sanctioned for use at home then I'm all for investigation into that as part of this investigation, i.e. wherever it leads. That was happening long before any drone activity was undertaken, in some really serious ways (see prior paragraph). I do not believe that the majority of drone strikes have been of the fast-and-loose category, if any, and I do believe that it has been an essential tool fighting terrorism to date. I reject trying to hang the fast-and-loose concept around the drone program neck. I also believe that with the major wounding of Al Qaida in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen that time has come to create a more formal process for authorizing the use of drones, now that we are in less of an emergency action/reaction mode. That would include an oversight court to validate the need, in some circumstances. It is my understanding that all uses of deadly force must be investigated minimally by FBI Internal Affairs investigators or a DOJ Inspector General. It is also my hope that some of our esteemed media organizations would be chasing this story rather than the nonWatergate Watergate stories that the GOP is trying to sell. This story deserves attention, not only the actions of the individuals directly involved but the policies in place for oversight and execution of these interrogations. Why wasn't this interview taped?

I avoid all things Google except for search. Google is Big Brother. Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean that somebody is not watching me.

Does this mean that SM goes commando?

Yes, those shows (Carol too) were made by the performers, the quips, the glance, the pause, the comeback, the occasional pratfall at the right instance. They were all master showmen. They might have been known only as master writers had they remained behind the curtain but their talent was too big to be contained behind the curtains or by the writing..

Unfortunately, both links returned a Page Not Found Error.

Typical overboard left wing wacko rhetoric -- the title that is. This has notihing to do with drones or drone policy or drone operators. Just wacko hyperbole. To imply that Obama's 'lawlessness' (the author's words not mine) has permeated the government law enforcement institutions by osmosis or direct or implied command is just ludicrous self-serving crap. Are serious questions raised in the article? Most certainly. This needs to be investigated and not white washed. If inappropriate force was used it needs to be determined and those who used it prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law including for whatever crime was committed up to and including capital murder. In addition, management heads need to roll. The procedures involved in this case seem problematic at best and designed to obscure oversight at the worst. Management either approved or should have known what is going on in their investigation process by their personnel. I want to see heads roll but to conflate this with the drone program is just too much liberal wacko crap by people with an ax to grind. These people need to keep at least one foot on the ground.

These guys have it mostly wrong IMO. I grant them Cheers, TMTMS, MASH and All in the Family, in no particular order other that on the lower end. I put The West Wing and The Practice (the precursor to Boston Legal) at the top followed by Boston Legal. The Good Wife belongs in the list somewhere. Clearly, such a list is a matter of personal taste. Anything written by David E Kelly or Aaron Sorkin usually is excellent but may not always attract an audience. Such was the TNT master -- Monday Mornings, some terrific writing that explored some very practical medical dilemmas as well as abuses. I haven't seen the Wire and some of the others so I may have missed the boat on those. Deadwood is excellent writing but probably over the head of many. I refer to is as exquisite tedium mired in nastiness. To fill out the list is too hard to draw distinctions between, with at least 20 contenders with strong arguments in their favor. I see Adam Smith mentioned The Carol Burnett Show. Clearly one of the best shows of all time. As far as entertainment probably the the real 'Show of Shows' by a nose. However, as great as the writing may have been much of the show was not written, only sketched and those crazy people picked up the ball, ran all over the field and always crossed the goal line for a touchdown. Thus I reserve the 'greatest writing' for shows at least 90% dependent on the writing.

Gawd, this has to make her so f...ing happy. What better way to resurrect a movie career than to have the movies come to real life with her in the starring role! Her latest PR guy has outdone himself. I wonder if she repeated her infamous interview demeanor and had those cops sweating their suits.

Once again, you identify agreement in our views. As for slamming democrats, I believe your target should be 'them stinkin' Democrats'. Sometimes they do overproduce with legislation. One example is 'Ethanol'. But then they had some Republican help too. I'm sure many more examples could be produced without breaking a sweat. As for your final thought I hope that day never comes. As a general precept I like that idea of people helping people when they can and hope to see it flourish where it can. But that cannot be relied on as the only help because it may not be there always in sufficient quantity or timeliness. I don't think cutting support for programs like Meals on Wheels strengthens neighbor-helping-neighbor initiatives either. Also, when it gets down to specifics, the limitations of one neighbor helping another can be difficult if not insurmountable, if for no other reason than logistics. Consider Hurricane Sandy or the Gulf Oil Spill? Just too massive for the neighbor-helping-neighbor model. I see a desire and need for both types of aid and hope that we as a country will support both.

I'm not sure I take much away from your apathetic voters remark. Is a failure to vote a yes vote to the status quo. I think not. I believe it is more a statement of my vote won't change anything so why vote, or equally, a recognition that many many people really have no idea what transpires in and by their government unless whatever it is falls on their head or in their dinner plate and can be seen and smelled both. Otherwise, they are oblivious to it. And the remark still stands that the voters -- those who DO vote -- cannot easily do anything when majorities don't work. Legislation might not be able to solve all problems but that doesn't mean it cannot solve some and shouldn't be tried if the problem is significant enough to warrant and some type of legislation seems feasible from effectiveness and cost perspectives. Of course, this has to be weighed against the cost of doing nothing in order to assess those factors. This is a very general remark as was yours that it responds to. I agree that not every problem can be solved by legislation or should be, but there is a place for legislation that can problems deemed important enough to address. I do not believe this country is trying to be all things to all people. That is one of those charges easy to throw around. And maybe some wacko far left types who float above the plain of reality foresee such a Utopia in their delusional dreams. That does not validate the charge either. There will always be wackos and they even find their way into Congress, if too few in number to influence much. Rather than being all things to all people, I believe the government is trying to offer help those who need it and some do. Certainly many millions do not need much, if any, of that help. But some do whether it is temporary or transitional or permanent depending on individual circumstances. By definition, not everyone can be in the one percent. Not everyone can be a bank president. Free societies and economies necessarily have a pyramidal structure. That means everyone cannot be at the top. Of course Karl Marx envisioned a society where everyone was at the top. That theory was found to be fatally flawed. As for your fear of the direction this country is going in, I'm not sure what your fears are exactly. If one of them is income redistribution then fear not. We have engaged in that several times in the last 150 years from the break up of the Robber Barrons to the recent past. We didn't turn the rich into the poor, only the not as rich as they were headed. That money created market competition and the middle class over the long run. The rich remained extremely well off but not Robber Barron wealthy... until now. It is creeping back. When the one percent capture 90% of the wealth, guess what? And it continues to accelerate. Modern American history should comfort your fear that we can do income distribution without ruining the country or sending the wealthy to the Poor House. Your fear should lie in the circumstance about what happens to this country if this wealth accumulation trend continues. If you live in a closed room and breath up all the oxygen in that room that ultimately is very bad for you. Likewise, if the middle class disappears who will support the economy? Who will the rich use to increase their wealth from? The other rich? Does that give you comfort for the direction of the country? Keep in mind that just as nature abhors a vacuum, economies abhor imbalance. There is where your fear should lie, IMO