WTF? Really, I mean, WTF Is Next?

I don't frickin' get it and I can't stand much more of it, seriously. I certainly don't mean to disparage Carly Fiorina for having had breast cancer. But when I watched this video below, I thought, it must be from an old clip. It's not? Yes, there are important political points to take exception to here. But has it occurred to anyone in the GOP that someone having been treated for cancer so recently as to not even have their hair grown back in might not be the best candidate for the Senate right now? Certainly, it's an emotional issue. But we have to win on issues, not emotions every time. They are not good guideposts for difficult decisions. And then there's this, along with a costly gaffe in 2008:

"John McCain is a man who understands what the role of government should be, and what the role of government should not be."

Hellooo? Are you kidding me here? John McCain, of all people, knows the role of government? Need I go on? Great, she has the attitude of a DC insider and she isn't even there, yet? No wonder that she believes the Internet needs to be controlled - just like campaign finance, I presume? FYI - it has all the control anyone needs, assuming people can control themselves. You as an individual simply sign off.

Asked what she thought about regulation of the web, she said it was inevitable that there would be more regulation of it. Why, for instance, is there no protection of women and children on the Internet, when there is plenty in real life. She said this duality — where anything goes on the wild wild west of the Internet — would have to end.

Earth to the GOP. Buy a clue before it's too late. I want to fight to elect Republican politicians. Don't make it any harder than it already is. Geez, please wake up! I wish Carly nothing but the best. But the best to take on Boxer she don't appear to be right now. That isn't a crime, it's just common sense. Hopefully there is still some of that left in a party that has displayed all too little of it lately. Let's hope they do before it's too late.

We can not afford for NY - 23 to be the start of a trend and neither can the GOP if it wants to dominate in 2010. Trust the people again for a change, as they most certainly no longer trust you these days. And they won't until you listen to them. Start there. It can't be any worse than the decline you brought upon yourselves after too many years in power in DC. If you want to control something, control that. Or people are going to continue to do it for you. And that isn't the outcome I really want to see.

Comments

[crosspatch]

She is running for office in California. She needs to be elected by Californians, not a national electorate. She needs to frame things in a way that will get California Democrats and Independents to vote for her. Republicans are outnumbered enormously in the places that decide the elections such as the Los Angeles and San Francisco Bay area.

Take her statements as being for the consumption of a California electorate. She isn't going to care (nor should she) what anyone outside the state line cares about what she is saying because those people can't vote for her and she doesn't need their money.

[Dan Riehl]

If she can't navigate the lines better than that she doesn't have the skillz imo. If the argument is a conservative can't win. I'd like to see the people selling that try it for once, instead of dismissing it out of turn. We need leadership, not elitist players right now.

[crosspatch]

Well, she isn't technically running for anything yet, anyway. But still you have to put what she says in a very local context. Who the heck else can she say anything positive about? Ahnald???? That would be worse than McCain. She can't mention any other national Republicans as they are hugely unpopular in California.

Considering the fiscal crisis California is in, I believe she would be best served reading up on Pete DuPont and what he did in Delaware. DuPont has some rhetoric that I think will resonate in California. Delaware is a Democratic stronghold and DuPont was wildly popular there.

[Dan Riehl]

Then she had better get to school the bus is leaving my friend and NY - 23 will leave a bad taste in a lot of mouths. We do not need a civil war. I have yet to see what's impressive about her in purely political terms.

[crosspatch]

One other thing. What she says about the Internet is true. It WILL be more regulated and it will NOT continue to be the "wild, wild, west" and there isn't anything anyone can really do about that.

Consider this aspect:

People are able to do voice over IP. The government has the right, with a warrant, to intercept telephone traffic. So regulations are put into place to facilitate the interception of voice traffic on the internet. It is already built in to the network equipment that the traffic flows through. Do a google on Juniper and "lawful intercept" or Cisco and "lawful intercept" or Brocade and "lawful intercept" and you will find the "hooks" are there by law to allow traffic to be monitored.

Crooks are making millions every day ripping people off. Networks are broken into. Credit cards are stolen. In order to protect more of the infrastructure that relies on internet transactions, more regulations are going to be put into place. Why does your car have a unique license plate number? What if nobody was required to have one ... or a drivers license or any id at all. People expect a level of anarchy on the internet that they don't expect anywhere else in their life. Yet they want to be protected from thieves and people basically burglarizing their computers and private information. There is going to come a point where people ARE identifiable when on the internet just as they are identifiable when they are on the road. It WILL happen, it is just a matter of time.

As more and more of our really important stuff like banking and our work is done on the Internet, there will be more regulations designed to catch people who commit internet crimes or use the internet in the commission of any crime just like we can put out a warning to look for a car with a license number, we will someday put out a warming to look for traffic from a certain "traffic ID" or something. Traffic you originate will be traceable back to you. The average person might not be able to trace it back but the government will be able to. It is just a matter of time.

[Dan Riehl]

True, but you are talking about dedicated networks. She wasn't talking security, she was talking about protecting women and children. Sorry, but it is the parents job to protect their children, or perhaps even responsible others providing public access and such, as in a library. And how is it that adult women need protecting? From what, virtual rape?

I've been on the net for 20 years or so with no reali threat to my security or safety. What is it the Feds can do in that regard that would absolve me from taking responsibility for myself? That, in a nutshell seems to be the crux of her protecting women argument. Adult women are somehow incapable of protecting themselves, so the Fed must intervene. I call BS on that. It's a nanny state mentality in a thin disguise. What else could she possible mean by mentioning those specific groups?

[crosspatch]

Dan, a candidate like Hoffman would fail miserably in California for a statewide seat. There are about three or four districts where a real conservative could win a House seat.

Tell you what, there is a real conservative running in CA-10 for the special election to replace Ellen Tauscher's seat. The district is in Contra Costa County in the SF Bay area. His name is Harmer and his website is here:

http://www.harmerforcongress.com/

That election would be a good test of the theory. He is actually doing surprisingly well and I have donated to his campaign. I just don't believe a "real conservative" can win statewide election here unless things get a lot worse than they are.

[crosspatch]

"She wasn't talking security, she was talking about protecting women and children"

All I saw was a short snippet so forgive me, I don't have the whole interview in context. But I have a young daughter in junior high. If someone is bothering her over the Internet, I want the authorities to be able to locate that person if something illegal is done. My point is that as we become more connected to the internet and it becomes a line of communication just as important as the telephone (you have a unique phone number that doesn't change every time you pick up the receiver) or the highway (license plate on your car that doesn't change every time you drive) or other ID (drivers license number) then we will see a demand from people to be protected by criminals. One of the mechanisms to find criminals is being able to identify people in some way ... even by fingerprints if needed. We will eventually develop the same mechanisms to identify and locate people via their internet traffic just as we can now by their phone traffic or automobile traffic or any other means.

Anything that is "anonymous" ends up being abused out of existence.

Even you have my email address every time I post here. At least you don't require a registration with $0.10 credit card payment to verify home address :)

The notion that people can be completely anonymous on the Internet is going to go away and I think that is what she was getting at.

[Dan Riehl]

Frankly, I don't know as I'd back Hoffman anywhere, even NY - 23. But he seems to be on the menu today. I've stayed out of endorsing anyone, as I can't see supporting Dede. From some reports on the ground I've gotten, Hoffman may not be all that and a bag of chips. My first post on the entire issue was, beware the intel as there is big money in play.

As for Carly, Californians will get to decide. I'll live with what they choose. But personally, I remain unconvinced Carly has what we need in DC. She wasn't runniong for anything when stumping for McCain and has seemed to be a pal of his. I can see no reason to embrace that, especially as to anyone thinking he knows the role of government. He is a big government republican. It's as simple as that, no matter how he positions himself. He thinks he and his fellow Senators always know better. I call BS on that. And it seems to be Carly's view given her spoken words. I doubt very much if she would take them back if she could.

[crosspatch]

"we will see a demand from people to be protected by criminals"

Freudian slip. Meant, of course, protected from criminals but hey, Congress is the only inherently criminal class according to Twain.

[crosspatch]

"I can see no reason to embrace that"

Well, other than if just to get Boxer out of her seat. That is the only reason I would vote for Carly. If it is Carly vs. Boxer, Carly wins with my vote. She does have a lot of business experience and frankly, we need someone with that perspective in Washington. Even if she is "chummy" with Biff and Buffy at the country club, we need to have someone in Washington that is pro business and less concerned with what they can take from business to give away.

[Dan Riehl]

As best I can tell, the mechanisms you suggest are in place right now. Child predators and pedophiles are taken down every day. I have no issue with that. ISP's have the data required and a subpoena can force it to be produced.

[Dan Riehl]

Updated to replace Feinstein with Boxer btw. Been way too tired for too long now. Long day, up since 6AM - time to crash. lol Busy bee today on and off da blog. Ciao!

[crosspatch]

The dumb ones are taken down, but someone with half a brain can get around that. Drive up to a wifi hotspot for a few minutes, then drive off and use another ... you can tell that someone was at a location at some point but you can't tell who they were and with so many "throw away" email addresses available to people if someone wants to be sneaky, they can be. With "bot nets" it is even possible to tunnel traffic through someone else's computer. I believe it is going to get to the point where computers don't have an IP address anymore. People will have one or more that belont only to them. You will use your own IP address whenever you log on to a computer and the network will learn the route to you. IPv6 is the first step towards this but I can see a next step where you have an address that represents the user and a prefix that represents the physical location for routing purposes.

But this is beyond the scope of the post. The main problem is that I really don't see any decent candidates out there. And besides, what decent human being would want to run in today's political environment?

[smitty]

What part of "this is an aristocracy" did you not apprehend?
I'm telling you, Dan:
- If you have the cash,
- If you speak Correct Thought,
- If you know the proper people,
- If you supported the right jerks,
- If you've waited your time in line,
then you're good to go.

[crosspatch]

- If you've waited your time in line,
then you're good to go.

That is a major part of the problem right there. It was McCain's "turn" just like it was Dole's "turn". The party leadership needs to think on a different level. They need to have the strategists and the "talent". It is obvious that the "talent" has no strategy and the strategy has no "talent".

[unseen]

cross,

I disagree with the need for regulation. Freedom is messy. No matter how much regulation you have the thieves will find away around it. Just like the criminals have the guns in anti-gun cities. regulation will only allow the government to watch the citizens more.

I simply refuse to give up anymore of my freedom because of economic reasons. The seat belt law is a prime example. the deal the government made with the people to give up their freedom within their cars was if you allow us to pass this law it will lower your insurance payments. Well the law passed freedoms where given up and the insurance premuims are as high as they ever were. If there have been any savings economically it has gone straight to the insurance companies. the increase fines and court costs have gone to the government and the avg citizen has less freedom and nothing to show for it.

The internet is the same way. Regulation will only serve the government over the freedom of the individual. you reference Plate numbers. think about all the cars on the road. 100's of millions. Out of those cars how many "identifications" are made by the plate number during normal traffic stops? That's right almost none. The police officer in a high speed chase or on a look out of a specific car is not looking at plate numbers in as much as they are make, model, and color. It also allows the state to tax you, charge fees for the plate, and track you with cameras etc.

Be that as it may...I think Dan is trying to say that it is the thought process of Carly that is bugging him. It is that thinking that there "should be a law about that" that strikes a discord in people. Not everything needs a law, not everything needs regulation. Simply because you don't like something or think something is a problem does not give you the right to take others freedoms away that have no problem with it. It is that thinking of Carly that pushed for bans on video games, on gambling, on drinking, drugs, tobacco, soda pop, chips, twinkies etc etc. Freddom requires personal responsibility. If carly thinks the internet is dangerous she only needs to stay the hell off it. She doesn't need to make it more regualted to settle her case of the vapors. I think the government should preach more personal responsibility instead of rushing to pass law after law that takes our freedoms one after the other. If they need to make laws they they should make laws that punish the misuse of something not try to ban the something in the first place.

For example underage drinking. Why ban it for those 18 to 21? why make it illegal for parents to teach teenagers how to drink responsible? Instead of banning it for younger kids the government simply could have increased the punishment if you misused it. Get in a fight when drunk more time/fines then if you were not drinking? Drink and drive lose the ability to drive till 21, fines even jail time. make an ass outr of yourself in public 10 days in jail etc. that way the freedom of individuals are not sacrifice to the community yet the bad behaviors that the community wanted to get rid of are reduced. the same thought process can be used IRT to the internet? Don't like the crime make it a life sentence instead of a slap on the wrist. idenity theft? make it a crime of up to 40 years of hard labor. or the parents lose everything if the child does it. Put the responsibility on the individual and the family to police themselves instead of the government to police us all. the government does not need more power and regulation.

[unseen]

one final thought anyone that watches an hour of c-span and still thinks it is better to give up your freedoms to 535 of the dumbest, self serving, elitist creeps i have ever seen needs to have a rethink. I mean are you comfortable with a Pelosi/Reid/Newt/McConell knowing what is "better for you"? Pelosi and the other 535 "people in Dc could give a rat's ass about you and your life. they care only for power, wealth and more power. Out of all 535 i might be able to come up with 5 or 10 that have anything close to the public's interest or country at heart. and out of those 10 I wouldn't trust the care of my dog to them for more than a day. and i sure am not going to trust them to "do the right thing" when it comes to my or my family's freedoms

[kids water shoes]

This entire admiastration looks like unregulated, out of control orgy of dumbness!

Kim :-)

[seekeronos]

534 crooks in congress.

I'm inclined to believe that Congressman Ron Paul (TX-14) has principles and is a least a bit less of a dumb, self serving, elitist creep than most of his co-workers on Capitol Hill.

[unseen]

seekeronos,

I will say Ron Paul is one of those 5 or 10 that i mentioned above but he is still a career politician and carries all the baggage a career politican carries. The back room deals made, the funding accepted for certain votes, the pork brought home while the budget implodes. If you want to say he isn't as big a creep fine i'll go with that.

[crosspatch]

"I'm inclined to believe that Congressman Ron Paul (TX-14) has principles and is a least a bit less of a dumb, self serving, elitist creep than most of his co-workers on Capitol Hill."

Personally, I believe he is somewhat of a lunatic. Well, maybe not him, but a good number of his followers. He seems like a second phase of Lyndon LaRouche. The stuff he says is emotionally appealing to many people but is completely unworkable in the real world. The days of America being some island of self-sufficiency who can wall herself off from the rest of the world are long gone. I mean, we COULD do that, but at great cost. We are no longer the world's largest producer of anything except debt. If we wall ourselves off, we end up increasing the cost of everything we buy, reducing the markets for our goods that we produce, and end up going from a second rate producer as we are currently to a third rate producer as China and Brazil will then kick our asses in the world markets.

We aren't in a post WWII market anymore where we are the behemoth in industrial production. We have been surpassed by China and will soon be surpassed by Brazil and India.

We aren't the 800 lb gorilla we once were in global economics. Maybe a 600lb gorilla, but not the 800lb gorilla.