Darryl

You may remember that Ishmael ran against Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA-01) in 2006 and 2008. According to his video, he was busy working on a Ph.D. in Economics in 2010 (at the University of Stellenbosch, Western Cape, South Africa, according to his bio). He expects to finish his PhD in December, 2012.

But for now…Heeeeee’s Baaaaack!

The “breaking” news is that Larry Ishmael is running for congress again in the 1st CD!

The “not so breaking” part about it is that Ishmael announced his candidacy sometime in mid-December. His You Tube announcement is dated December 12th.

A Google news search in the past month on his name reveals:

No results found for “larry ishmael”.

No announcement in a blogosphere search either. Huh.

How did I find it? While working on my Friday Night video thingie, I stumbled across his trove of seven campaign videos released since his announcement.

Sheesh!

Yo! Media…let’s pick up the pace a bit! Or maybe it’s…Yo! Larry…get some PR help!

Ishmael’s entry probably means there will be three Republicans in the race.

As an aside, when he ran in 2006, Goldy noticed that he was living in the 8th CD. That doesn’t violate the laws of man or nature or anything…it just a sign of political tone-deafness. So…it’s probably the latter. Sorry about giving you a hard time Media! Love ya! xxoo

Gregoire puts the 2/3 majority question to the courts

by Darryl — Friday, 1/6/12, 8:55 am

It will be worth listening to Governor Christine Gregoire on KUOW this morning at 9:00. Cool stuff is the table.

One big issue is yesterday’s Supreme Court decision that:

The State has failed to meet its duty under article IX, section 1 by consistently providing school districts with a level of resources that falls short of the actual costs of the basic education program. The legislature recently enacted sweeping reforms to remedy the deficiencies in the funding system, and it is currently making progress toward phasing in those reforms. We defer to the legislature’s chosen means of discharging its article IX, section 1 duty, but the judiciary will retain jurisdiction over the case to help ensure progress in the State’s plan to fully implement education reforms by 2018. We direct the parties to provide further briefing to this court addressing the preferred method for retaining jurisdiction.

As Publicola points out, this feels like

…one of those damning federal court orders to put a bankrupt business or corrupt union in receivership

The real problem isn’t that lawmakers somehow dislike funding education. Rather, the education funding problem arises from four issues:

The worst economy since the Great Depression that has resulted in drastic shortfalls in projected revenue
Another Constitutional duty, a balanced budget, that has resulted in massive cuts in numerous state services
Republican obstructionism in adequately funding the government
Lawmaker’s inability to raise new revenues with a simple majority to a great extent because of the 2/3 majority requirement in Initiative 1053

Many of us believe I-1053 is unconstitutional, and a July court case is pending. The Supreme court has previously weaseled its way out of making a decision about whether an initiative can impose a standard on lawmakers that trumps the state Constitution.

Yesterday Gregoire announced that:

…she plans to bypass the state attorney general’s office and seek court guidance on the constitutionality of a law limiting tax increases.

Gregoire, who is technically listed as a defendant in the lawsuit, said she is working with outside counsel to petition the courts for a ruling on Initiative 1053, which requires lawmakers to have a two-thirds majority to raise taxes.

Gregoire says, “fuck you, Rob McKenna,” and goes straight to the Supreme Court.

Given that I-1053 is one of the biggest impediments for lawmakers to adequately fund basic education, and given that the Supreme Court is now playing an active role in forcing lawmakers to meet this Constitutional duty, Gregoire’s request is an offer the Supreme Court cannot refuse.

Oregon’s “sex scandal” special election

by Darryl — Thursday, 1/5/12, 12:21 am

When Rep. David Wu (OR-1) resigned amid scandal last summer, Republicans smelled blood:

Several factors give newfound hope to the GOP: Wu resigned amid a sex scandal, damaging the Democratic image in the district. The party’s main candidate, Tualatin businessman Rob Cornilles, is returning as a more seasoned campaigner after losing to Wu last year. And Democrats face a potentially divisive primary race that could hurt their prospects in the January 2012 special election.

Yeah…not so much. Yesterday SurveyUSA released a poll for the race that shows Suzanne Bonamici (D) with 50%, Cornilles (R) at 39%, James Foster (L) at 2%, and Steven Reynolds (Oregon Progressive Party) at 2%.

Bonamici’s +11% lead shouldn’t be too much of a surprise…a mid-December Public Policy Polling poll also found Bonamici leading Cornilles by +11% (52% to 41%).

So…it looks pretty likely that Republican hopes in OR-1 will be dashed on January 31.

What Republicans just don’t get, is that, beyond the implicated politician, sex scandals tend to harm Republicans more than Democrats. The broader impact isn’t about what one person does. It’s about the fuckin’ hypocrisy.

Post-Iowa thoughts

by Darryl — Wednesday, 1/4/12, 8:54 am

That was fun. Seriously…we had a terrific turnout with lots of new faces last night at the Montlake Alehouse. And the contest itself was quite amusing. So here are the thoughts that I came away with.

Mitt wins by the slimmest of margins—eight fucking votes! Eight votes!
I couldn’t really hear Santorum’s victory speech. Based on how long it went on, I assume he was just filibustering or trying to put people to sleep before Mitt’s victory speech.
My favorite (straight) MSM post-game quote (so far) comes from CBS, “Santorum pulled off a stunning come from behind performance in Tuesday’s Iowa caucuses….”
How much of a fucking loser must Mitt Romney feel like now? Four years of nearly continuous campaigning since the 2008 Iowa caucus…Mitt goes from 30,021 votes in 2008 down to 30,015 in 2012.
In the mid-December debate open thread I wrote :

And how ’bout that Ron Paul at 18%!?! Most of the other nutberger candidates have had their fling with the pole position…Ron Paul should get his shot, too. And to top the whole thing off like a layer of creamy chocolate frosting, we should get Rick Santorum [the] next week.

So…the MSM meme that the Santorum surge was totally unexpected isn’t quite right.
This is almost pathetically sad:

Michele Bachmann told a small group of supporters Tuesday night that she’s staying in the presidential race as the only true conservative who can defeat the sitting president, despite a bleak showing in the Iowa caucuses.

This borders on delusional—Bachmann currently polls worse against Obama than even Rick Perry.

And either she was “misunderinforming” people or needed time to sober up or chat with God. Because this morning she surrenders.
Rick Perry, either more sober or with God on speed dial, surrendered last night.
The real winner last night: Barack Obama. Really, he won both caucuses.

More fun next Tuesday!

Live blogging the Iowa Caucuses

by Darryl — Tuesday, 1/3/12, 5:00 pm

Well…here we go. At least I think so. I have a few errands to run this afternoon, so I wrote this post well in advance and scheduled it to fire off at 5:00 pm, when the Iowa caucuses start. So…I might still be stuck in traffic or fixing a flat tire or even dead right now.

So…feel free to go on (and on and on) without me, and I’ll catch up right after I order myself a beer. I mean, unless I’m dead.

We will mostly focus on the Republican caucus this evening because, as the LA Times points out:

For Democrats, the process will be simple since President Obama is the party’s de facto nominee.

(And for the benefit of our “low-information commenters” [a.k.a trolls] I’ll point out that, no, “de facto” is not some kind of racial epithet.)

The LA Times does a pretty good job of describing the Republican caucus. But…the Republican Party of Iowa does a better job…they have it down to bullet points:

All caucus participants arrive at their precincts where they will sign in at the door upon arrival. Caucuses will begin at 7:00PM CT.

That would be 5:00 our time.

The caucus meetings begin with the pledge of allegiance. A caucus chair and secretary will be elected by the body to run the meeting and take notes.

What! No reading of the Constitution?!? What a bunch of Constitution-hating reactionaries! (And shouldn’t the second sentence be its own bullet point?)

After the chair and secretary are elected, candidate representatives from each campaign are given time to speak on behalf of their candidate.

Here is where uncomfortable things might happen—like, say, Santorum getting smeared by a Paulinista.

Once the speakers have finished, sheets of paper are be passed out to every registered Iowa Republican from the precinct. Voters then write down their candidate preference.

Wait…where is the part where they check for government-issued photo ids?

All votes are then collected.

Every vote is counted. The caucus chair and secretary will count the votes in front of the caucus and a representative from each campaign is allowed to observe the counting of the votes. The results are recorded on an official form provided by the Republican Party of Iowa and are announced to the caucus.

A caucus reporter is chosen to report the results to the Republican Party of Iowa, accompanied by campaign representatives to verify the results reported to Iowa GOP officials.

Republicans sound so distrustful of Republicans!

RPI officials do not count results; they aggregate them from around the state and report them to the media. To ensure consistency in reporting, campaign representatives have the opportunity to be present with RPI officials as votes are reported to the public.

I hope they at least add them up (which is kind-of like counting). I mean, I don’t want to listen to the reports from all 1,774 precincts.

We will be reporting the votes for Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Buddy Roemer, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, “No Preference,” and “Other.”

“No Preference” votes include those who vote “present,” “no preference, “uncommitted,” or “none of the above.”

That’s the process…enjoy!

5:31: I got here a bit late, and there were three new attendees to chat with. CNN is on the teevee, but I might be totally antisocial and put headphones on to listen to NPRs coverage of the ~~circus~~ caucus.

5:40: I cannot really hear what is going on, but the whizbang graphic on CNN suggests that born-again evangelical Christians rate Santorum as number 2. That sounds about right.

6:07: It is a three way race between Paul, Romney and Santorum, so far. With something like 14,000 votes in…Huntsman has 106.

6:22: That is one hairy-ass microphone cover I see on CNN.

6:25: Santorum slides right by Romney to number 2!

7:04: Romney puts Santorum behind him!

7:05: ….and Santorum surges ahead of Romney!

7:06: I’m getting pretty excited about a last minute Huntsman surge!

7:08: With Santorum in the lead, one must ask: Don’t they have Google in Iowa?!?

7:12: It’s loud…I cannot hear the TV. People are talking to me. Santorum is all over the teevee. I don’t know how much longer I can hold out!

7:25: Promoted comment from Michael: “Romney 23%, Paul 23%, Santorum 23%. The Republicans are having themselves a three-way.”

7:30: Santorum may come out of this in the pole position!

7:38: Okay…so Michele Bachmann isn’t going to win this one. At least she has her Aimes Straw Poll victory to propel her into the lead. Go Michele!

7:40: Gingrich is going to win. I mean, just look at the numbers!

7:44: I heard on the news this evening that Gov. Gregoire has some sort of big announcement tomorrow related to gay marriage. Does this have anything to do with Santorum’s Iowa showing???

7:46: New update. Santorum is sandwiched in the narrow gap between Romney and Paul.

7:49: And, once again, and to Romney’s great shame…Santorum percolates to the top!!!

8:00: James Carville missed his calling in life. He should have been an evil villain in a Batman movie. The Snake™ (says N in Seattle and Rebecca, independently).

8:13: Wow…all night, Romney and Santorum have been swapping positions. Mitt’s on top the Rick’s on top, Mitt’s on top then Rick’s on top.

8:17: Newt speaks. “We are at the beginning of an extraordinarily important campaign.” Yes…there are books to sell!

8:29: Santorum squeaks ahead of Romney. Yeah…well, I cannot wait for next week’s New Hampshire primary, because I want to see Mitt Romney lick Santorum.

8:34: Michele Bachmann says thanks to the 5,891 people of her “home state” of Iowa that voted for her.

8:51: I just tweeted Dan Savage: “As Seattle’s Drinking Liberally organizer, I want to express our deep gratitude 2 u for making tonight so fucking enjoyable”

8:53: Now I just tweeted Dan Savage: “As the person liveblogging at HorsesAss, I want to thank you on everyone’s behalf for making tonight so fucking entertaining!”

8:55: Is that Rick Perry’s daughter standing behind him??? She has his eyes and Steve Tyler’s mouth. My GAWD! The Perry rumors are TRUE!!!!

9:08: My vision of a Santorum—Brownback ticket may yet be realized!

9:09: A decade and a half ago, I voted against Santorum. Even then, long before Dan Savage’s neologism, there was something really, really icky about the man and the candidate.

9:22: Santorum is on the teevee spreading his philosophy….

Drinking Liberally — Seattle

by Darryl — Tuesday, 1/3/12, 3:34 pm

Please join us tonight for our first 2012 evening of politics under the influence at the Seattle Chapter of Drinking Liberally.

Tonight is also the first of the Republican nomination contests. I’ll be there way early, for some liveblogging. I should be there shortly after 5:00 pm. So stop by early if you wish, or just swing by at our normal starting time of 8:00 pm.

We meet at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E.

Can’t make it to Seattle? The Tri-Cities chapter of Drinking Liberally meets every Tuesday night, and Drinking Liberally Tacoma meets this Thursday.

With 231 chapters of Living Liberally, including twelve in Washington state and six more in Oregon, chances are excellent there’s one near you.

Poll analysis: Obama v. Romney

by Darryl — Monday, 1/2/12, 1:31 pm

Here we go. This is the first in a series of analyses for the 2012 elections. For this analysis, I am including all state head-to-head polls collected over the past two months as “current” polls, or the most recent poll before that if there are no “current” polls. There are still eight states and D.C. that have not been polled yet.

Obama	Romney
88.6% probability of winning	11.4% probability of winning
Mean of 306 electoral votes	Mean of 232 electoral votes

Electoral College Map

Following 100,000 simulated elections, Obama wins 88,623 times and Romney wins 11,377 times (and Romney also gets the 468 ties). Obama receives (on average) 306 to Romney’s 232 electoral votes. This suggests that, if this election was held now, Obama would have a 88.6% probability of winning and Romney would have a 11.4% probability of winning.

[Read more…]

2012 election predictions are coming

by Darryl — Monday, 1/2/12, 11:39 am

Were you reading this blog during the 2008 election season? If so, you may remember my election prediction posts that took you over to Hominid Views. This year, I’ll post the election predictions here.

I’ve spend the past week collecting polls, updating the software, creating a clickable cartogram for the 2012 electoral college, updating the FAQ, and figuring out how to make it all work on Horsesass. The first analysis for the presidential election will be posted later today.

At this point, I am only doing analyses of an Obama versus Romney general election. As much as I would like to see one of the weaker candidates take the G.O.P. nomination, I’m pretty certain Republicans will, as they did in 2008, act rationally, and chose the candidate that performs best against Obama in head-to-head polling. That is currently Mitt Romney. As the Republican primary circus continues, I’ll reassess. If, say, Santorum trickles on up to the front (eww!) or there is a crazy surge for Ron Paul, or the Mittster takes a tumble after unintentionally tweeting a photo of his underwear, or Rick Perry challenges the rest of ’em to a duel (and wins), I’ll switch do doing analyses for the new front-runner(s).

Later in the election season, I add senatorial and gubernatorial analyses as well.

When I post these analyses, there are occasionally naysayers. They complain that polls are meaningless, the analysis is flawed, or the results are not predictive, or “can’t we just wait for the ‘real poll'”, blah, blah, blah. I’ll repeat my counterargument.

It works the same way as the score at a sporting event. The first quarter score in, say, a basketball game doesn’t typically allow you to determine the eventual winner. The score, the spread, the amount of playing time remaining, and the recent changes in scoring momentum gives a good feel for how the game has progressed, who might win if things continue in the same vein, and what each team needs to do to attain victory. Somehow I think fans would not appreciate basketball scores being hidden until the the game has concluded.

Same with the election analyses. They aren’t predictions of the outcome on election day. Instead, they show the score so far. And the currency is a probability of winning, if the “game” ended now.

Another point from the naysayers in 2008 is that Nate Silver, now at the NY Times, does similar analyses, and everyone knows he is the best. Mr. Silver is an entertaining writer, and does a very nice job with graphics and site design. And since he does this stuff full time, he is quite prolific. Here is the problem I had with his 2008 analyses. He used a complicated (nearly proprietary) analysis that involved using information beyond simple polling data. This ancillary information was included as a pseudo-poll in his analyses. My preference is for a straightforward, data driven analysis that makes the fewest assumptions necessary.

But the proof of the pudding is in the eating…so how did we each do in 2008? Here is his last pre-election post and here is mine. We both missed a single state—Indiana. The late polling in Indiana gave McCain a sliver of a lead, and the “big poll” came down in favor of Obama by a 1% margin.

For the electoral college, Mr. Silver projected a 349 to 189 victory for Obama and I projected a 364 to 174 victory for Obama. The actual result was 365 to 173. I was off by one vote.

This one vote discrepancy, in fact, reflected a weakness of my analysis. I ignored the possibility that either Nebraska or Maine might split their electoral votes. Nebraska’s 1st district did split in 2008, giving one of the state’s electors to Obama. If I had included this little detail, my projection would have been spot on. For the 2012 elections, I have already added separate analyses of Nebraska districts, and will do so for Maine when some district-level polling data becomes available.

For more information on the methods used, please visit the draft of the new simulation FAQ. Also if you have recommended changes or have additional questions for the FAQ, please mention them in the comment thread.

Update: The Obama-Romney analyses can be found here. There is now a side-bar blurb, too.

Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza!

by Darryl — Friday, 12/30/11, 11:54 pm

Young Turks: FAUX News’ curious Christmas poll.

Thom debates Horace Cooper on voter fraud.

Jennifer Granholm ponders how Republicans get people across the country to vote against their own interests:

Newsy: Unemployment hits a three-year low.

Young Turks: What Americans think about socialism.

Alynoa’s Tool Time: Capital One is greedy.

Thom with The Good, The Bad, and The Very, Very Ugly.

Ed: Obama campaign lays out multiple pathways to victory.

The G.O.P. Primary Reality Show:

Maddow: Iowa chaos!
Sharpton: Who is more dangerous for America?
Buzz 360: Iowa polls are all over the freakin’ place.
Maddow: Going rogue in Iowa.
The Obama campaign lays out multiple pathways to victory.
The ~~nutcases~~ caucus for Sarah Palin in Iowa.
Buzz 360: The I’s that really matter.
Thom: …then THEY came for Newt & then Perry!!!
Young Turks: Newt chokes up over his mother.
Newt considers Sarah Palin for his Energy Czar (via Right Wing Watch):
[audio:http://www.rightwingwatch.org/sites/default/files/mp3/Newt Gingrich Palin VP 12-29-11.mp3]
Lawrence O’Donnell: Newt’s disorganized campaign.
Newt intends to pack courts with judges from Regent & Liberty University, Federalist Society (via Right Wing Watch):
[audio:http://www.rightwingwatch.org/sites/default/files/mp3/Newt Gingrich WallBuilders Judiciary Regent 12-28-11.mp3]
Young Turks: Newt’s energy flip-flops are a case study in corruption.
Thom: Did new voter I.D. laws bite Newt in the ass?.
What is Mitt hiding?
Young Turks: Bachmann’s Iowa State Chair jumps ship to Ron Paul.
Ed: Bachmann’s campaign implodes. Accusations fly.
Newsy: Bachmann’s campaign manager jumps ship.
Newsy: Romney takes aim at Big Bird.
Mitt Romney takes aim at Big Bird.
Young Turks: Mitt wants to turn Big Bird into a corporate whore.
Ezra Klein: Republicans self-disenfranchisement.
The Romney Rule (via Crooks and Liars).
Newsy: Perry’s part-time Congress idea.
Young Turks: Racism isn’t the worst thing about Ron Paul (via Crooks and Liars).
Young Turks: Ron Paul’s more sinister than ‘peace, love and no jail for pot’
Ed, Pap and Lizz: Michele meets metal man.
WTF??? Michele reads speech from iPAD (i.e. teleprompter) (via Crooks and Liars).
Animated Santorum.
Newsy: Santorum surges from behind!
Sharpton: Santorum’s solution for joblessness.
Lawrence O’Donnell: G.O.P. establishment efforts to destroy Santorum are on!

Buzz 60: A weekend left in Iowa.

Young Turks: Crazy right wing group’s ad with straight couple in cross-hairs.

Newsy: Very bad news for Republicans—Unemployment hits three-year low.

Sharpton: Oddly…Republicans have no concerns about voter fraud in Iowa caucus.

Thom to US Senator Ron Wyden (D- OR): “You’re fired!”

The Obamas wish you and military families “happy holidays”.

Young Turks: Larry “wide stance” Craig IS BAAAAAAACK.

Seattle protesters do a Christmas foreclosure on Bank of America (via Crooks and Liars).

Thom with some more Good, Bad, and Very, Very Ugly.

Year In Review:

The top 10 G.O.P. moments of 2011:
Mark Fiore: The year in crazy.
Ann Telnaes: Year in Review.
2011: Year of OWS
Ezra Klein: The year in repealing and replacing:
Lawrence O’Donnell: The year in political comedy.

Pap: The Republican’s war on voting.

Not exactly Rick Snyder (R-MI).

Young Turks: Good riddance, Sen. Ben Nelson.

Thom: NE Democrats…take back your state!.

White House: West Wing Week.

Mark Fiore: Aggregating Arianna.

Alyona: TSA needs more intel, less groping.

Newsy: Ben Nelson retirement to hurt Democrats?

Cenk: Has Obama beaten Republicans at their own game?

Ed: Justice Department blocks SC voter suppression laws.

Thom: TSAs Security Theater is going on the road!

Last week’s Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza can be found here.

McKenna: Slick campaigner, failure as a politician

by Darryl — Thursday, 12/29/11, 1:56 pm

Current Attorney General and gubernatorial wannabe Rob McKenna is feeling the heat over an early December AP piece showing the “State payouts up threefold under [him]”:

During his 2004 campaign for attorney general, Rob McKenna vowed that he would use the position to curb how much state agencies pay out for major lawsuits. Instead, those costs have grown rapidly under his watch.

Today’s TNT has a letter defending McKenna from Rob Costello, a deputy AG, and Howard Fischer, a senior assistant AG:

The Washington attorney general and the men and women of the Attorney General’s Office who defend the state in lawsuit deserve a more balanced telling of the story regarding lawsuit payouts than they received in this Associated Press article.

They go on to blame it on the legislature that eliminated immunity to lawsuits…in 1961. I don’t think so. A non-immunity bill passed before Rob McKenna was conceived could be used to explain a higher lawsuit burden in Washington compared to states with immunity provisions, but not the three-fold increase under McKenna since he was elected in 2004.

But that isn’t what caught my eye. This is (emphasis added):

In 2004, as a candidate for attorney general, Rob McKenna promised to reduce lawsuits by seeking reforms to state liability laws. If any significant savings are to be achieved, this is absolutely the right place to look, and McKenna has consistently done so. He has worked to inform legislators and has repeatedly invited the Legislature to revisit and reform state tort laws. Every major proposal, however, was killed in committee.

Two points. First Rob McKenna didn’t keep his 2004 promise. He had grand ideas about what an agent of change he could be, and he engaged in some slick campaigning to let everyone know. But he failed to live up to his promises. Perhaps I am being unfair…I mean, McKenna didn’t have complete control over it. He had to work with the Legislature. On the other hand, he knew he would have to work with the Legislature when he made the promise.

The second point. McKenna failed to succeed in working with the Legislature. Keeping his promise required him to be highly skillful in working with the legislative and executive branches. It required him to go beyond being a slick campaigner to actually get something he promised done. He couldn’t and he didn’t. He failed as a politician.

And now he wants to be Governor?

Remember this when he makes slick promises that sound too good to be true.

Either he hasn’t thought through what he must do to make it happen, or he isn’t a skillful enough politician to see it through.

Drinking Liberally — Seattle

by Darryl — Tuesday, 12/27/11, 5:15 pm

Please join us tonight for an end-of-the year evening of politics under the influence at the Seattle Chapter of Drinking Liberally.

We meet at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. Starting time is 8:00 pm, but some folks will show up earlier for dinner.

Here’s what you need to know about Iowa:

Can’t make it to Seattle? There are also meetings tonight of the Tri-Cities chapter and the Bellingham chapter of Drinking Liberally. And tomorrow the Burien chapter meets. Also next Monday, there are meetings of the Olympia chapter, the Yakima chapter, and the South Bellevue chapter.

With 232 chapters of Living Liberally, including twelve in Washington state and six more in Oregon, chances are excellent there’s one near you.

Kindles and iPads and crashes, oh my!

by Darryl — Tuesday, 12/27/11, 2:27 pm

NY Times tech blogger Nick Bilton has a thorn up his ass about the FAA prohibitions on electronic devices during take-off and landing. Bilton just cannot understand why some pilots are now being allowed to use iPads in the cockpit for paper flight manuals but he cannot use his Kindle for the take-off and landing parts of the flight.

As it happens, this is one of Goldy’s pet peeves as well. Neither person seems to believe that electronic devices can affect flight safety during critical (take-off and landing) phases of flights. At least Goldy leaves it at complaining and denial. But not Nick Bilton.

Bilton decided to do something about it. You know, use science and technology to “prove” that electronic devices are safe.

What he did, however, amounts to horse shit. As I show below, Bilton, sets-up and then destroys a straw-man argument.
[Read more…]