Twitchy, the right wing site created by Michelle Malkin to "debunk" tweets, has an interesting story up accusing MSNBC of using spambot accounts on Twitter to promote their shows. You can view the post here.

Now Twitchy is saying they have investigated these accounts and this is their finding:

Twitchy looked at about a dozen of these accounts and noted some common characteristics. First, most (not all) have small numbers of tweets and small numbers of followers, suggesting that they probably are not bona fide Twitter users.

Second, most (not all) of the profiles link to a service called Followers Delivery. The service claims to sell 100,000 Twitter followers for $320. It also sells Facebook likes and YouTube views.

So who is Followers Delivery? Well, if you go to their webpage, you are taken to a HostGator suspended account page. So that avenue of investigation is dead. Now let's go to another one. I asked "who is" Followers Delivery, so I will do a whois on followersdelivery.com:

Registered through: GoDaddy.com, LLC (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: FOLLOWERSDELIVERY.COM
Created on: 26-Feb-13
Expires on: 26-Feb-14
Last Updated on: 04-Mar-13

Registrant:
FOLLOWERS DELIVERY
P.P. 226, HR
Zagreb, - 10002
Croatia/Hrvatska

So this domain was just created last Tuesday and already got business from MSNBC? Damn, they are quick! Must have been someone in the MSNBC Croatia bureau.

But there are other interesting things in this post. Let's look at the first few tweets they highlight.

Oh boy, Michael .E.Dyson is here-time to get my dictionary! #edshow

— Ammie Mckerchie (@Ajahlmc) March 3, 2013

That user has 7 tweets, 0 followers and following 0 people. The first tweet was on 3/2.

Oh boy, Michael .E.Dyson is here-time to get my dictionary! #edshow

— Ethelene Cofer (@Marielthft) March 2, 2013

This account has 10 tweets ,following 278 people and has 5 followers. The first tweet was on 3/1.

Oh boy, Michael .E.Dyson is here-time to get my dictionary! #edshow

— Sherril Paar (@Ashelysiof) March 2, 2013

Again, 6 tweets, 0 followers, 0 following and created on 3/2.

And finally:

Oh boy, Michael .E.Dyson is here-time to get my dictionary! #edshow

— Valery Tegethoff (@releqedop) March 2, 2013

9 tweets, 315 following and 3 followers. This account was also created on 3/1.

So the first few tweets the article mentions were all created since last Friday and appear in Twitchy's article that came out yesterday.

I know this may be getting confusing, so let me put together a quick timeline:

• Tuesday (2/26/13) - followersdelivery.com is registered.
• Friday (3/1/13) - Saturday (3/2/13) - Tweets are published by new accounts pushing MSNBC shows. These accounts link to followersdelivery.com.
• Sunday (3/3/13) - Twitchy embeds these tweets and accuses MSNBC of spamming Twitter.

Something in this timing seems very curious, almost like those accounts and that domain could have all been created just to go after MSNBC.

So, here's what I'm wondering. Twitchy is owned by right-wing darling Michelle Malkin. As we all know, Malkin is also a contributor to Fox News. Also, Fox News has seen a huge loss in ratings to (you guessed it) MSNBC over the past couple of months.

I think of that and I can't help but wonder if Malkin went out and had her people create some fake twitter accounts, use them to spam for MSNBC shows and create a fake company just so she could help out one of her employers?

The evidence is there to suggest that, as much as there is evidence to say that MSNBC paid a spam service to promote their shows. Maybe someone should ask Fox about their possible involvement in this as well.

If you visited Crooks and Liars Thursday evening you may have had an unpleasant surprise. Instead of being able to read your most favorite blog, you were quickly taken to this Facebook page:

Even if you clicked the Okay button on that page you still weren't brought back here. Instead you just ended up on a blank page. You can actually see this in action on this YouTube video.

I noticed the problem early on and decided to remove the only Facebook code we had running on our home page, which was for the Facebook Like button that used to appear on the bottom left. As soon as that code was removed things went back to normal. Within minutes of fixing the problem on Crooks and Liars, I decided to look into the problem a little more and saw an article isolating it to Facebook Connect:

On Thursday, many major websites were taken down by an error that stemmed from Facebook, as Internet mainstays like MSNBC.com, CNN, Yelp and New York Magazine all sent users to redirect pages almost immediately upon loading.

Upon visiting the sites, users were redirected to an error page inside of the Facebook website, which seems to suggest that the error lies in Facebook Connect, the software platform that snakes Facebook’s reach throughout the entire backbone of the Internet. Connect is seen on many third-party-publisher websites in the form of the “Like” button — especially BuzzFeed, the viral news site which relies primarily on social media to spread throughout the Web.

Facebook Connect and Facebook Like are two separate beasts. Connect allows you to sign into a site with your Facebook login. We have that capability here at Crooks and Liars, but we don't use the traditional Connect method. Instead we have a custom implementation that works better with our user management system.

Continue reading »

Bob Cesca points to this interview Chris Christie gave about gun control.

Christie was asked about specific gun control measures, and instead talked about violent video games. “We don’t allow those games into our house…we think it desensitizes children to all the effects of violence,” and added that all of the issues related to gun violence needed to be dealt with.

When pressed on why he couldn’t answer whether he supports a ban on assault weapons, he said that it depends. “These are complicated issues,” he said. “I’m willing to have that conversation.”

As Bob says, it sure sounds like Christie is toeing the NRA line.

But how good is that line?

Yesterday marked the two-year anniversary since a member of Congress was shot. Gabby Giffords, along with 19 other people, were shot on that day, leaving six dead, including a federal judge. In the days following the shooting there was a lot of finger-pointing going on. Some of that came from the left. They pointed to gun violence in political ads as a possible motivator, including this map Sarah Palin had posted on her website that includes a target over Gifford's district.

Quickly the right went into defensive mode, calling it "crazy" that anything could influence someone to do something so horrendous. They launched into the "personal responsibility" meme to defend Palin and any other political ads that portray violence. It's much the same as we hear when someone is arrested for planning or executing a serious crime and we find out their reading list was Bill O'Reilly, Michelle Malkin and Sean Hannity. They believe it's not them influencing the person, but just the person themselves.

So how does the same not apply to video games and movies? Are we to believe that video games and movies can create violent people, yet the images and words used by our leaders, both political and media, can't? If there was ever a definition of hypocrisy, it would be right here.

And speaking of hypocrisy, let's talk about a video game. The one I want to talk about is where you play a brave Christian soldier charged with the mission of ridding the world of non-believers. How do you do that? Well, by shooting them, of course! Here's the trailer from the game.

And did the right start condemning this video game for its violence and say it would provoke our people to go out and kill? Absolutely not. Instead, they went into a full force embrace of the game. Even the Department of Defense, under George Bush, was linked with sending the game to soldiers in Iraq. And you thought that war had something to do with religion!

Then there's the red herring of this argument. Our nation holds some sort of patent on these mass shootings, yet these games and movies are available in other countries as well. Ever wonder why something might be released in Japan or the UK and then take a couple of months before we get it here? That's because they are cleaning it up, removing language, sexual content and violence. They have to censor it for Americans.

So with more violent games and movies appearing overseas, why don't we see the shootings over there like we do here? Sure, you can point to tougher gun laws, but I thought gun laws didn't work. So why is it Americans are so influenced by this kind of media, yet no one else in the world is? That's a serious question that should be asked of the NRA.

All Christie, the NRA and the right in general is doing here is creating a straw man. They hope we will take our focus off their promotion of looser gun regulations and more guns in society and place that focus where it isn't due. Hopefully we can have some logic surface, and more people will realize that blaming movies and video games just doesn't add up.

A growing outbreak of fungal meningitis has claimed 7 lives and infected up to 64 people across 9 states. The rate that the outbreak is growing is also alarming:

The total number of cases has also grown to 64 people in nine states, the CDC said. That is 17 more cases and two more states than the day before.

Patients contracted the deadly meningitis after being injected in their spine with a preservative-free steroid called methylprednisolone acetate that was contaminated by a fungus. The steroid is used to treat pain and inflammation.

The steroid is manufactured by compound pharmacies. Compounding is used to create special blends of medications that aren't available on the market, as well as to custom tailor drugs to fit a certain patients needs. According to a 2003 GAO report, nearly 10% of all drugs administered in the Untied States are compound manufactured. But how safe are these drugs? Well it depends on the state they are manufactured in:

Drugs manufactured by compound pharmacies do not have to go through FDA-mandated pre-market approval. Instead, oversight and licensing of these pharmacies comes from state health pharmacy boards.

The steroid causing this outbreak was manufactured by The New England Compounding Center, a pharmacy based in Massachusetts. When federal inspectors did come in to the plant last week, they found unopened vials of the steroid that contained foreign particles. After testing one of these vials, the particle was determined to be the fungus causing this meningitis.

Reading about it, I can't help but think back to the healthcare debate. When the Affordable Care Act was being debated in Congress, one of the issues was allowing people to buy their prescriptions from Canada and other countries. The opponents to that argued that those countries don't have the same safety screenings that our country does. Ironically, I don't recall reading about such an outbreak happening in Canada.

So if we are going to prevent our citizens from getting their medications from Canada, simply because our safety standards are higher, then shouldn't we be sure that is the case? Shouldn't these compound pharmacies be regulated by strict federal standards and not just state regulations? It seems that should be the case. Institute tough oversight and regulations on the federal level, coupled with inspections of facilities, and maybe we wouldn't be talking about this deadly outbreak today.

This Fall, the Supreme Court will be taking up a case that can really affect all of us. The case will determine if you actually have the right to sell a used product that was made or contains parts from overseas:

At issue in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons is the first-sale doctrine in copyright law, which allows you to buy and then sell things like electronics, books, artwork and furniture, as well as CDs and DVDs, without getting permission from the copyright holder of those products.

Under the doctrine, which the Supreme Court has recognized since 1908, you can resell your stuff without worry because the copyright holder only had control over the first sale.

Put simply, though Apple Inc. AAPL -0.62% has the copyright on the iPhone and Mark Owen has it on the book “No Easy Day,” you can still sell your copies to whomever you please whenever you want without retribution.

That’s being challenged now for products that are made abroad, and if the Supreme Court upholds an appellate court ruling, it would mean that the copyright holders of anything you own that has been made in China, Japan or Europe, for example, would have to give you permission to sell it.

Continue reading »

Yesterday, Eric Holder addressed the NAACP. Of course a hot topic issue was Voter ID and now the right wing bloggers have a new outrage, being pushed by Townhall:

Earlier today, Attorney General Eric Holder addressed the NAACP Nation Convention at the George R. Brown Convention Center in Houston, Texas. What did media need in order to attend? That's right, government issued photo identification (and a second form of identification too!), something both Holder and the NAACP stand firmly against when it comes to voting. Holder's DOJ is currently suing Texas for "discriminatory" voter ID laws.

A quick look on Memeorandum reveals that the wingnuts are taking this issue at full force. Perhaps we should take sometime out from our busy schedules to educate these misguided individuals.

Voting is a RIGHT!
Seeing the AG speak is a PRIVILEGE!

There's a fundamental difference between these two and one that many on the right seem to forget, so I decided to take this lesson a bit further with one of the best educators of our time, the late George Carlin:

I really hope that they can understand this fundamental difference, but sadly I doubt they will...

Yet Fox was alone among the cable news networks in losing viewers — down 8 percent in prime time and 5 percent for the full day, Nielsen said. The 2010 midterm election year was particularly engaging for Republicans, who make up a big part of Fox's audience.

CNN was up 17 percent in prime-time viewership with a revamped lineup that includes a double dose of Anderson Cooper and Piers Morgan replacing Larry King. CNN is third behind Fox and MSNBC in prime time but second for the day as a whole.

CNN's rivals acknowledge its gains but are quick to point out that last year represented CNN's worst year ever in the ratings.

MSNBC can take pride in surviving the exit of its most popular prime time personality, Keith Olbermann, who defected to Current. The network is up 2 percent over last year in its prime-time average, Nielsen said.

An 8% loss for prime time translates to a lot of money for the big advertising time slots. It would be interesting to see a deeper analysis of what could be the cause here. Fox has maintained the same prime time line-up for quiet awhile now, so perhaps people are just getting tired of hearing the same old Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity. On the other hand, perhaps people are just finally getting tired of being spoon fed a bunch of b.s.?

There was one other loss worth mentioning here. MSNBC did see their 8:00 time slot drop 11% after the departure of Keith Olbermann. They still managed to fair well though with Rachel Maddow continuing her rise and the 10:00 hour no longer being a rerun of Countdown.

All this makes you wonder what we might see in 2012. I'm sure the ratings overall will increase with the election upon us, but will CNN and MSNBC see a bigger increase than FOX? We'll find out this time next year.

We are one week from the Iowa caucuses and things don't look good for the GOP:

If I were running the Iowa Republican Party, I would be seeking to vastly increase the turnout at the Jan. 3 caucuses. After all, those who turn out can be recruited to help in future Iowa Republican campaigns. I would be especially interested in attracting new young voters; the median age of 2008 caucusgoers was nudging up toward 60.

Yet despite polls showing that Republicans are enthusiastic about the coming campaign and determined to defeat Barack Obama, Iowa Republican insiders are predicting that turnout will not exceed and may not even reach the 119,000 of 2008, when Republicans were dispirited about their party's chances. Puzzling.

Low turnout is indicative of an enthusiasm gap and also coincides with what recent polls have shown us - a Republican base that isn't that excited about the election. Sure Republicans want to see President Obama voted out of office, but the problem is who they are going to replace him with?

Can they stomach 4 or even 8 years of Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney?

Would it be better to suffer through another 4 years of President Obama, at least knowing what they got, then spend that 4 years regrouping to find a better candidate?

If I were a betting man I would place my money on the second option. 2016 doesn't seem that far off, but 2020 does. If the GOP ends up putting a Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich in the White House that means the Democrats could come out with Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden in 2016, then the Republicans may likely be screwed until 2024.

The GOP is facing a real dilemma right now and that dilemma could end up really helping President Obama. The key take away from all of this is to not watch who wins the upcoming primaries, but rather check out the key turnout number. That will be the best indicator of what will happen in the fall.

Newt has constantly denied that he once supported Mitt Romney's health insurance mandate in Massachusetts, but the wayback machine has something else to say about that. Here's a letter written by Newt in April of 2006:

The most exciting development of the past few weeks is what has been happening up in Massachusetts. The health bill that Governor Romney signed into law this month has tremendous potential to effect major change in the American health system.

We agree entirely with Governor Romney and Massachusetts legislators that our goal should be 100% insurance coverage for all Americans. Individuals without coverage often do not receive quality medical attention on par with those who do have insurance. We also believe strongly that personal responsibility is vital to creating a 21st Century Intelligent Health System. Individuals who can afford to purchase health insurance and simply choose not to place an unnecessary burden on a system that is on the verge of collapse; these free-riders undermine the entire health system by placing the onus of responsibility on taxpayers.

The Romney plan attempts to bring everyone into the system. The individual mandate requires those who earn enough to afford insurance to purchase coverage, and subsidies will be made available to those individuals who cannot afford insurance on their own. We agree strongly with this principle, but the details are crucial when it comes to the structure of this plan. Under the new bill, Massachusetts residents earning more than 300% of the federal poverty level (approximately $30,000 for an individual) will not be eligible for any subsidies. State House officials had originally promised that there would be new plans available at about $200 a month, but industry experts are now predicting that the cheapest plan will likely cost at least $325 a month. This estimate totals about $4000 per year, or about 1/5 of a $30,000 annual take-home income.

Continue reading »

Newt Gingrich invoking Pearl Harbor in comparison to his not appearing on the Virginia GOP primary ballot wasn't the first time he has done such a thing. It turns out that last year Newt invoked that day of infamy for something completely different:

On a day when Americans remember the lives that were sacrificed during the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, Gingrich reminded us all what this momentous occasion is really all about when he chirpily tweeted, “The 69th anniversary of the japanese [sic] attack is a good time to remind folks of our novels pearl harbor and days of infamy newt.”

Newt did later delete that tweet, but not before the Twitterverse saw how he wanted to exploit such a tragic day in American history for his own personal gain. This really speaks a lot about someone who wants to be President and does beg the question - where is Rudy Giuliani?