Has the White House been influenced by a convicted domestic terrorist for its attack on the Chamber of Commerce?
The latest assault on the Chamber has been spear-headed by none other than the President himself and picked up by David Axelrod, MoveOn.org and all the usual Astro-Turfers who receive marching orders from the DNC. It’s become part of the standard talking points for cable-news pundits and their well-programmed guests and has been the new rallying cry for the left as they try their best to explain the imminent electoral disaster that looms on November 2nd.
But one group was well ahead of the curve on this movement to stop the Chamber of Commerce. In fact, they even own the URL “StopTheChamber.com”. That group is the infamous Velvet Revolution headed by convicted violent criminal and bomber, Brett Kimberlin. In her extensive and detailed article on Kimberlin and his past violent crimes, Liberty Chick noted that left-wing blogs and main stream media organs routinely site Kimberlin and his partner, Brad Friedman as legitimate sources and as normative “watch-dogs” over-seeing right-wing election shenanigans. The problem is, Kimberlin is a convicted domestic terrorist who has been described as a habitual liar by those who have looked into his past.
And yet, the mainstream Democrats clinging to any strategy to stop the bleeding over the next two weeks are latching on to the Stop the Chamber narrative that was first hatched at Kimberlin’s Velvet Revolution site last year.
At first glance, the StopTheChamber page looks like a clearing house for various, unfounded attacks on the Chamber of Commerce by Velvet Revolution and by politicians who repeat their assertions. But, it doesn’t take you long to see the prominent “Donate Now” button in the center of the page. And, it looks like it’s working. The bottom of the page lists over 4,000 names of individuals who appear to be supporters of the movement (we have no idea if any of them realize they are putting money in the pocket of a convicted violent felon). Interestingly, the first name on this list of individual supporters is Bill Moyers.
The Stop the Chamber campaign appears to be nothing more than a fund-raising operation that solicits donations and then produces press releases and an advertisement in the style of a Wanted poster soliciting “tips” on the CEO of the Chamber, Tom Donohue. It seems to be a two-pronged fishing expedition: One is fishing for “tips” that prove “criminal behavior” by Mr. Donohue and the Chamber (an expedition that has proven to be fruitless as of now), the other is fishing for donations to continue the campaign’s valuable work.
How Kimberlin has been able to pass himself off as a legitimate and respected part of the national political dialogue is a question that deserves exploring, if not some serious soul-searching from our friends on the left who appear to be ready to latch-on to anyone who might be effective for them regardless of how many disgraceful skeletons inhabit their closets. But what is truly outrageous is how eagerly our President and his associates have followed this man’s lead in pursuing this fruitless enterprise of demonizing the Chamber, demonizing Karl Rove and demonizing the Tea Party despite the lack of evidence to substantiate the obscene charges they are leveling.
We have already heard David Axelrod’s new standard for making these accusations. When asked if he had any proof that the Chamber was involved in campaign fraud, he responded by asking CBS’ Bob Schieffer: “Do you have any proof that they aren’t?” That is the President’s closest advisor turning the Constitution and the Magna Carta on its head for the sake of winning a vote or two.
If they are willing to do that, then they are surely willing to align themselves with a habitual liar and convicted bomber like Kimberlin. The question is: Other than this site, who else will be willing to call them out on it?
Google’s recent push into tablets and mobile, along with offering new search services such as Google Instant, are pushing up the company’s capital expenditures, which are slotted to grow almost 184 percent in 2010 compared to last year. Next year, that amount is going to go even higher. This spending is a good thing, because it allows Google to leverage its inherent advantage: infrastructure.
A few years ago, I noted in a post that infrastructure was Google’s key competitive advantage. It’s what allowed the company to innovate and outpace its rivals. It allowed the company to give us results faster than our broadband connections could offer, making us more subservient to its search in the process. In the end, we all forgot the directories and instead focused on the search-box as the start of our Internet journey. Today, Google is a gigantic, $7.3-billion-in-quarterly-sales business.
One thing Google knows: It needs to keep spending money on this infrastructure in order to stay competitive and current. The company recently introduced Google Instant, a new feature that allows you to get results even as you’re still typing the search term. It’s a service akin to the days when an Intel chip got multimedia extensions.
In many ways, Google Instant demonstrates the evolution of a product in order to keep up with times; today’s faster broadband means that the search results need to come up faster than one could type. More importantly, Google Instant is a search product optimized for a brave new world where the user interface is touch rather than keyboards, and devices aren’t your classic computer, but instead mobile and tablet-like.
One of the reasons Google was able to launch Google Instant is because it can afford to spend a lot of money on its infrastructure. During the third quarter of 2010, the company spent nearly $757 million, the highest amount since the first quarter of 2008, according to investment bank J.P. Morgan. (In comparison, Google spent a total of $810 million on capital expenditures in all of 2009.) In a conference call with Wall Street yesterday, Google VP Jonathan Rosenberg told the analyst community:
From a revenue standpoint, its impact has been very minimal; and from a resource standpoint, it’s actually pretty expensive. So why did we do it? Well, we believe from a user standpoint, Instant is outstanding and the data that we are seeing actually bears this out.
Google’s spending on capital expenditures (mostly on data centers) had been on a decline. That is about to change. According to J.P. Morgan, the company is going to spend $2.3 billion on capital expenses in 2010 versus $810 million last year. For next year, the investment bank is forecasting $3.2 billion in capital spending.
Some Wall Street analysts are going to view this increased spending and wring their hands. They’re idiots and short-term thinkers. I see the growth in capital expenses as a sign of health, and that things are going well for Google –actually, really well.
Let me explain; until recently, Google had to focus on a small subset of actions to satisfy its end customers – all of us – and thus make money off of advertising. Throw in YouTube videos and Gmail, if you want, but browser-based search and search-based advertising were its bread and butter.
Google is said to be the single biggest source of traffic on many of the world’s networks and that’s with only a handful of offerings. Now imagine how big Google will be as a percentage of the source of Internet traffic once we start taking their new initiatives into account. That also explains why they need to build their own networks and lay their own fiber pipes.
Now the number of consumer interactions has grown multifold. Google’s Android mobile operating system is an Internet-enabled OS peppered with Google services that are used more frequently because we have access to them in our pockets. This overall growth in data center capabilities is only going to go up as the company becomes more successful with its Android push. By spending on data centers and networks, what Google is ensuring is that Google Android will always have a great user experience. Remember, in a world dominated by cloud clients, nothing matters more than instant access to various Internet services.
Related content from GigaOM Pro (subscription req’d) about Google, and its Mobile Efforts:
- Why Google Should Fear the Social Web
- Report: Google’s Voice Possibilities
- How Mobile Cloud Computing Will Change Tech
Sharp to stop selling and manufacturing PCs from now on <b>...</b>
The good news however, is that Sharp will continue to provide ultra compact devices including their Netwalker series. Also, Sharp underline that this is just a “Strategic” move from now on and that the company may one day come back into ...
Scripting <b>News</b>: The Juan Williams controversy
I always thought he was pretty liberal, but then also shows up on Fox News. When he's on Fox, it's as if he's a different person. Very odd. Permanent link to this item in the archive. He said something on Fox that caused NPR to fire him ...
Is Fox <b>News</b> more tolerant than NPR? « Hot Air
The right-wing intolerants of Fox News' audience didn't complain as much about an explicitly liberal commentator on Fox as the tolerant, diverse audience at NPR did? Barone has to be joking, right? Not according to NPR, where omsbud ...
eric seiger eric seiger
Has the White House been influenced by a convicted domestic terrorist for its attack on the Chamber of Commerce?
The latest assault on the Chamber has been spear-headed by none other than the President himself and picked up by David Axelrod, MoveOn.org and all the usual Astro-Turfers who receive marching orders from the DNC. It’s become part of the standard talking points for cable-news pundits and their well-programmed guests and has been the new rallying cry for the left as they try their best to explain the imminent electoral disaster that looms on November 2nd.
But one group was well ahead of the curve on this movement to stop the Chamber of Commerce. In fact, they even own the URL “StopTheChamber.com”. That group is the infamous Velvet Revolution headed by convicted violent criminal and bomber, Brett Kimberlin. In her extensive and detailed article on Kimberlin and his past violent crimes, Liberty Chick noted that left-wing blogs and main stream media organs routinely site Kimberlin and his partner, Brad Friedman as legitimate sources and as normative “watch-dogs” over-seeing right-wing election shenanigans. The problem is, Kimberlin is a convicted domestic terrorist who has been described as a habitual liar by those who have looked into his past.
And yet, the mainstream Democrats clinging to any strategy to stop the bleeding over the next two weeks are latching on to the Stop the Chamber narrative that was first hatched at Kimberlin’s Velvet Revolution site last year.
At first glance, the StopTheChamber page looks like a clearing house for various, unfounded attacks on the Chamber of Commerce by Velvet Revolution and by politicians who repeat their assertions. But, it doesn’t take you long to see the prominent “Donate Now” button in the center of the page. And, it looks like it’s working. The bottom of the page lists over 4,000 names of individuals who appear to be supporters of the movement (we have no idea if any of them realize they are putting money in the pocket of a convicted violent felon). Interestingly, the first name on this list of individual supporters is Bill Moyers.
The Stop the Chamber campaign appears to be nothing more than a fund-raising operation that solicits donations and then produces press releases and an advertisement in the style of a Wanted poster soliciting “tips” on the CEO of the Chamber, Tom Donohue. It seems to be a two-pronged fishing expedition: One is fishing for “tips” that prove “criminal behavior” by Mr. Donohue and the Chamber (an expedition that has proven to be fruitless as of now), the other is fishing for donations to continue the campaign’s valuable work.
How Kimberlin has been able to pass himself off as a legitimate and respected part of the national political dialogue is a question that deserves exploring, if not some serious soul-searching from our friends on the left who appear to be ready to latch-on to anyone who might be effective for them regardless of how many disgraceful skeletons inhabit their closets. But what is truly outrageous is how eagerly our President and his associates have followed this man’s lead in pursuing this fruitless enterprise of demonizing the Chamber, demonizing Karl Rove and demonizing the Tea Party despite the lack of evidence to substantiate the obscene charges they are leveling.
We have already heard David Axelrod’s new standard for making these accusations. When asked if he had any proof that the Chamber was involved in campaign fraud, he responded by asking CBS’ Bob Schieffer: “Do you have any proof that they aren’t?” That is the President’s closest advisor turning the Constitution and the Magna Carta on its head for the sake of winning a vote or two.
If they are willing to do that, then they are surely willing to align themselves with a habitual liar and convicted bomber like Kimberlin. The question is: Other than this site, who else will be willing to call them out on it?
Google’s recent push into tablets and mobile, along with offering new search services such as Google Instant, are pushing up the company’s capital expenditures, which are slotted to grow almost 184 percent in 2010 compared to last year. Next year, that amount is going to go even higher. This spending is a good thing, because it allows Google to leverage its inherent advantage: infrastructure.
A few years ago, I noted in a post that infrastructure was Google’s key competitive advantage. It’s what allowed the company to innovate and outpace its rivals. It allowed the company to give us results faster than our broadband connections could offer, making us more subservient to its search in the process. In the end, we all forgot the directories and instead focused on the search-box as the start of our Internet journey. Today, Google is a gigantic, $7.3-billion-in-quarterly-sales business.
One thing Google knows: It needs to keep spending money on this infrastructure in order to stay competitive and current. The company recently introduced Google Instant, a new feature that allows you to get results even as you’re still typing the search term. It’s a service akin to the days when an Intel chip got multimedia extensions.
In many ways, Google Instant demonstrates the evolution of a product in order to keep up with times; today’s faster broadband means that the search results need to come up faster than one could type. More importantly, Google Instant is a search product optimized for a brave new world where the user interface is touch rather than keyboards, and devices aren’t your classic computer, but instead mobile and tablet-like.
One of the reasons Google was able to launch Google Instant is because it can afford to spend a lot of money on its infrastructure. During the third quarter of 2010, the company spent nearly $757 million, the highest amount since the first quarter of 2008, according to investment bank J.P. Morgan. (In comparison, Google spent a total of $810 million on capital expenditures in all of 2009.) In a conference call with Wall Street yesterday, Google VP Jonathan Rosenberg told the analyst community:
From a revenue standpoint, its impact has been very minimal; and from a resource standpoint, it’s actually pretty expensive. So why did we do it? Well, we believe from a user standpoint, Instant is outstanding and the data that we are seeing actually bears this out.
Google’s spending on capital expenditures (mostly on data centers) had been on a decline. That is about to change. According to J.P. Morgan, the company is going to spend $2.3 billion on capital expenses in 2010 versus $810 million last year. For next year, the investment bank is forecasting $3.2 billion in capital spending.
Some Wall Street analysts are going to view this increased spending and wring their hands. They’re idiots and short-term thinkers. I see the growth in capital expenses as a sign of health, and that things are going well for Google –actually, really well.
Let me explain; until recently, Google had to focus on a small subset of actions to satisfy its end customers – all of us – and thus make money off of advertising. Throw in YouTube videos and Gmail, if you want, but browser-based search and search-based advertising were its bread and butter.
Google is said to be the single biggest source of traffic on many of the world’s networks and that’s with only a handful of offerings. Now imagine how big Google will be as a percentage of the source of Internet traffic once we start taking their new initiatives into account. That also explains why they need to build their own networks and lay their own fiber pipes.
Now the number of consumer interactions has grown multifold. Google’s Android mobile operating system is an Internet-enabled OS peppered with Google services that are used more frequently because we have access to them in our pockets. This overall growth in data center capabilities is only going to go up as the company becomes more successful with its Android push. By spending on data centers and networks, what Google is ensuring is that Google Android will always have a great user experience. Remember, in a world dominated by cloud clients, nothing matters more than instant access to various Internet services.
Related content from GigaOM Pro (subscription req’d) about Google, and its Mobile Efforts:
- Why Google Should Fear the Social Web
- Report: Google’s Voice Possibilities
- How Mobile Cloud Computing Will Change Tech
Sharp to stop selling and manufacturing PCs from now on <b>...</b>
The good news however, is that Sharp will continue to provide ultra compact devices including their Netwalker series. Also, Sharp underline that this is just a “Strategic” move from now on and that the company may one day come back into ...
Scripting <b>News</b>: The Juan Williams controversy
I always thought he was pretty liberal, but then also shows up on Fox News. When he's on Fox, it's as if he's a different person. Very odd. Permanent link to this item in the archive. He said something on Fox that caused NPR to fire him ...
Is Fox <b>News</b> more tolerant than NPR? « Hot Air
The right-wing intolerants of Fox News' audience didn't complain as much about an explicitly liberal commentator on Fox as the tolerant, diverse audience at NPR did? Barone has to be joking, right? Not according to NPR, where omsbud ...
eric seiger eric seiger
No comments:
Post a Comment