Let me present to you the amazing amount of scrutiny that apparently needs to go into a Barack Obama campaign ad, just to understand what it actually means. Level Minus One . This is the scrutiny that is done by the creators of the ad itself (that is to say, none at all). Summary of said ad (second video at this Hot Air link ): this Brian Slagle fellow from Ohio was in the auto industry; he got laid off; but he has a job, now; and thank God for that nice Obama fellow, who made it all possible. Level Zero . This was the scrutiny done by ABC News . They discovered that the company that Mr. Slagle works for now (Johnson Controls) apparently frittered away a lot of its stimulus money then ; is actually laying off people now ; and is currently being investigated for employee health violations. As in, lead poisoning. In other words; it’s not that great a job, and there’s some question about whether its employees are better off with the company still being in business. I mean. Lead poisoning . Level One . This is the scrutiny done by The Weekly Standard : in short, actual fact-checking. It turns out that Mr. Slagle has been employed by Johnson Controls… since 2006. This information could be found via the arcane method of “looking up Brian Slagle on Facebook:” the information has since been removed, but TWS took screenshots, of course. Translation: Brian Slagle did not actually get a new job from Obama’s stimulus program. They want you to think that he did, but he didn’t*. All of which means that the actual message of the ad is “I had a job in the auto industry until about six years ago… and then I got a new job. Which is apparently one with a bad environmental and fiscal record, but that doesn’t matter! That’s because Barack Obama really, really needs me to get on the screen and tell you how great it is for me as a spectator to see the auto industry get bailed out. So I figure that I’m golden… oh, crud, Facebook. But… they promised me that Republicans couldn’t read !” Which, admittedly, doesn’t really sing as a campaign message. Moe Lane ( crosspost ) *This is, by the way, what campaigns do when they don’t actually have anything useful to run on.
Read this article:
Obama’s new Ohio ad: just making stuff up at this point.
An auditor visiting Earth from another planet might be gobsmacked at what our society considers to have economic value. Indeed, the nearly $100 billion envisioned IPO of Facebook could capture the attention of an inquisitive stranger from a distant galaxy, causing him to wonder not only about capital formation, but about social values. With that valuation, the upstart social media enterprise would suddenly be about equal to Abbott Laboratories or Citigroup in value, with only 26 of the Fortune 500 having greater market capitalization. The need to communicate is as old as homo sapiens . Since the Stone Age, our species has needed to reach out and touch others. Hirsute, carnivorous prehistoric Man may have felt loneliness in his own way, hoping to relate socially in caves and at campfires. Much later and over the centuries, inventions such as the printing press, telegraph, and telephone permitted more widespread social interaction. And now, at the outset of the 21st century, the art of communication is made even easier. The expected valuation of Facebook shows how powerful is the human desire to liaise and interface. Once the hype quiets down, it may be worthwhile to ponder why a huge array of software, servers, and electrons traveling at the speed of light could be worth so much, while other American companies in basic industries are imperiled by competition and loss of market share. Why is it that smart, young geeks can suddenly become so rich, while those smart, tried and true folks who work hard and retire to bed early struggle for economic stability and fulfillment? A principal value proposition of Facebook is to allow the shy to assert themselves. A socially awkward person can blossom into a digital socialite, with a few clicks of a mouse. Where else can a minnow look like a whale, a solitary extremist look like the Chinese Army, and a clumsy person look like a tango instructor? Indeed, phalanxes of the social hermits of yesterday now sit mightily in their comfortable high tech enclaves, the bland, light gray cubicles that Dilbert championed. Some even manage to eat several meals a day there. Facebook is their triumph and confirmation that intellectual capital is worth as much or more than time honored physical capital formed the old-fashioned way — with distribution having enormous potential for advertising revenue. And so one generation trumps another. Facebook is indeed the affirmation of the erstwhile undemonstrative, and their numbers could be in the billions. The market is of course not just in the United States, as there are many timid people in Brazil, Russia, India, and China, known as the BRIC countries, where there are massive youthful populations yearning to copy, connect, and join the mainstream of globalization. The ascent of Facebook should also be seen in a broader context: a new technology-focused generation values the ability to liaise and conduct self-display more than privacy. Part of this culture is the obligatory panoply of digital kit, designed to amuse and release the human spirit. Packing iPods and Velcroed iPhones, they glide effortlessly from Facebook page to Facebook page. When not downloading the latest new apps, they may listen to music and text simultaneously on a handheld, even while crossing against the light — all the while thinking it new found productivity called “multitasking.” With fingers pounding in a furious atavistic dance, they immerse themselves in a digital frenzy, limited only by telecommunications capacity and their number of thumbs. And ease of access to cyberspace allows the conflating of data with information with knowledge with wisdom. Add some hypercaffeination with macadamia lattes and extra foam, and you have a heady brew of technology and consumerism. Finally, another value proposition of Facebook is to promote democracy, as it makes it more difficult for governments to assert control and repress their populations. One dissident with a popular message going viral can create a tidal wave against an established order. The 20th century was unkind to despots, and the 21st is no different, as we see from the Arab Spring. But there is also a dark side: snooping governments can find out who peoples’ friends are, and recruiters can search Facebook to see who has outlandish behavior in the public domain. The potential of Facebook is as vast as the universe itself, about which we thus far know relatively little. In the event that there is life elsewhere — in the Milky Way Galaxy and possibly in billions of other galaxies — Facebook has massive export prospects. The only trouble is that instead of instant gratification, it will take many light years to reach out and touch.
Visit link:
Facebook: Where a Minnow Can Look Like a Whale
From the diaries. More than in any past election, online digital technology will be essential to a winning 2012 campaign. For the Republican National Committee, it is not enough simply to imitate the standard practices of the day. We want to raise the bar—identifying and developing new technology to compete in the digital sphere. That entrepreneurial spirit led us to create the GOP Social Victory Center, a first of its kind online application that revolutionizes the way volunteers and activists take part in elections. The SVC, which launched yesterday, puts all the important tools in one place, breaks down geographic barriers, and instantly connects users with our grassroots network across the country. And it’s all right on Facebook. No other campaign or committee—neither the Obama campaign nor the DNC—has done what we have: leveraged the popularity of Facebook to empower Americans to be directly involved in the political process. Welcome to the new frontier of digital activism. Whether we admit it or not, Americans are glued to what is happening on Facebook. 161 million Americans are active users of the site. Fifty percent visit daily. Every day, posts are “liked” or commented on 2.7 billion times. The average user spends six to seven hours on Facebook a month. It only makes sense to offer a one-stop shop for political activism here, rather than asking users to hassle with visiting other sites and creating multiple accounts. After logging into the Social Victory Center—in the same way one uses any Facebook application—users find political news and videos that are customized to their interests and location. They can engage and organize with voters across the country through discussions and event planning features, and they can find ways to volunteer—in their communities or from home. Without leaving the Facebook application, a volunteer can make voter-identification or Get Out the Vote phone calls to pivotal battleground states right from home. We’ve streamlined and simplified a process that was often clunky and frustrating—but one that is critical to voter turnout on Election Day. As volunteers read and watch, discuss and volunteer, their friends are alerted to their actions. Sharing is automatic, allowing us to immediately expand our reach. Time and money will not have to be spent asking people to view our multimedia. Thanks to their friends’ use of the SVC, previously unengaged users will see it all right on their Facebook Newsfeeds. The SVC is not the first time the RNC has developed and deployed cutting-edge technology. In 2011, we launched a video mobile message system, our “mobile army,” with which we can send videos and other exclusive content directly to subscribers’ smart phones anytime, anywhere. With the relationships and following we have built on social media in the last year, we will immediately connect thousands of energized activists with the Social Victory Center. And in no time, countless others will have heard of it—and decided to sign up. The SVC will allow us to do an even better job of listening to our supporters and to conservative grassroots activists across the country. We have worked hard to encourage and support the important conversation and bottom-up activism that the Internet allows. With the SVC, we hope to facilitate more of those conversations and create more connections and relationships. The RNC will, of course, continue with our successful online advertising, our web videos, and our news-driving Twitter campaigns. We unrelentingly hold President Obama accountable to his record and his words, and when news breaks we make sure it breaks through the noise to reach the average voter. Social media has dramatically changed politics in recent years, giving more power to the individual voter and disseminating information at record speed. Now, with the GOP Social Victory Center, Republicans will use this resource to its fullest potential. And that’s certainly something to “like.”
The rest is here:
Social Victory Center and the GOP’s Tech Advantage
It’s no coincidence that the least taxed and least regulated sector of the American economy, high-tech, is also the most dynamic and successful. Think Apple, Google, smart phones, e-book readers, and electronic tablets. The economic benefits of American high-tech innovation are significant. High-tech has dramatically lowered transaction costs, while effecting a big increase in workplace productivity. So it’s not surprising that our progressive elite and other denizens of big government have high-tech in their crosshairs. They’re concerned, you see, that Apple and other high-tech companies don’t pay their “fair share” of taxes. Why, high-tech is even (brace yourself) “‘ sidestepping’ billions of dollars in taxes by setting up subsidiary companies in tax-free or low-tax states and countries .” Of course, companies have always sought to minimize their tax burden; but instantaneous communications and digital technology mean that capital today is more mobile than ever . Consequently, companies — and especially high-tech companies such as Apple — are increasingly able to move their money and operations overseas and across state lines: to places where the confiscatory arm of the state is less onerous and less burdensome. The result has been a technological boon, which has benefited people the world over. There has, however, been one big loser in all this, and that is the bureaucratic state, which can’t seem to gets it hands on elusive high-tech money. So it is that the pied piper of liberalism, the New York Times , has published a long and lengthy lament of the government’s failure to confiscate high-tech wealth. The Times editorializes against high-tech under the rubric of “objective journalism.” This means simply that it quotes the right people to give voice to its prejudices — people such as De Anza College President Brian Murphy. “When it comes time for all [of] these companies – Google and Apple and Facebook and the rest — to pay their fair share, there’s a knee-jerk resistance, Mr. Murphy said. “They’re philosophically anti-tax, and it’s decimating the state [of California]. “But I’m not complaining,” he added. “We can’t afford to upset these guys. We need every dollar we can get.” In other words, America’s high-tech sector is responsible for California’s fiscal crisis and economic decline, because high-tech companies don’t pay enough in taxes. And, worse yet, high-tech companies are holding the state of California hostage to their own selfish economic interests. That well encapsulates the liberal worldview: The problem is never that the state spends too much and over regulates; it is that entrepreneurs such as Steve Jobs, and innovative companies such as Apple, are insufficiently patriotic. Of course, this isn’t true. The truth is that Apple, Google, Facebook and other high-tech companies generate untold billions of dollars in economic activity. And these billions of dollars certainly are taxable and taxed, even if the companies themselves use legal means to avoid taxes so as to grow and prosper. But California’s liberal big-government policies are driving the entrepreneurial class away in droves, thus precipitating the state’s fiscal train wreck. “In recent years,” report economists Michael J. Boskin and John F. Cogan, “the number of upper-income earners in California has radically shrunk — by a third between 2007 and 2009 alone.” “Apparently, they note, “wealthy Californians are either fleeing to nearby no-income-tax states or have become less well-off after years of economic downturn, higher taxes, and overregulation of business.” Many Silicon Valley CEOs,” add Boskin and Cogan, “say they won’t expand in California because of high taxes and burdensome regulation.” The result: “Just 1 percent of California taxpayers are already providing 45 percent of the state’s income tax revenue,” writes Victor David Hanson. “And such income taxes now fund half the budget.” In short, contra the Times, taxing and regulating high-tech isn’t the answer; taxing and regulating high-tech is the problem. And it’s a problem created by the politicians’ inability and unwillingness to limit spending and to rein in an out-of-control state budget.
Go here to see the original:
NY Times Misfires Targeting Apple and High-Tech Sector
Just as it was gaining momentum and attracting attention, Twitter shut down and silenced an account that promoted a free market vision for environmentalism timed with Earth Day. Special credit here belongs to Eric Bolling, who used his own twitter account and his program “The Five” on Fox News to bring attention the cause. The account, @FreeMarket_US , a project of Americans for Limited Government (ALG), went live a few days before Earth Day and proceeded to pick up considerable steam. On Earth Day, the official website for Free Market America was launched and its Facebook and Twitter components started to come to life as well. The first video put out by Free Market America , “If I wanted America to fail,”
