By now, many people should have seen the coverage of what’s being dubbed Weinergate… if you haven’t, here’s a good primer from the PJ Tatler.
Now, Weiner started off claiming that it was a hacking job, but there’s several problems with that explanation. First, it would have had to be two hack-jobs… one to hack the yfrog account and post the picture in question, and once to hack the Twitter account and send the tweet. Just one account being hacked is problematic enough, but two stretches the imagination to the point where “Weiner goofed and is now desperately trying to cover up” becomes more likely than a double-hack.
The fact that it may have been a mistake has some technical merit, as well, as pointed out by Lee Stranahan, from the Twitter support files about tweets from a cell phone:
Note: If your message is longer than 140 characters and Twitter receives it intact, we will send your message in two parts for you. But, beware: if your service provider breaks up long messages into two parts before sending the message to Twitter, we will only see the d+username attached to the first message! The second part will post to the public time line as a regular update because it doesn’t have the d+username preceding it.
Now, the pic in question looks like it could easily have been a cell phone photo, so if Weiner got a bit wordy in his message accompanying the pic–and he is a Congresscritter, after all–it could easily have caused the message to be split.
And, secondly, Weiner has refused to say whether or not the person in the pic was him, which leads to the question, if it wasn’t him, why wouldn’t he say so loudly and often?
Occam’s razor is definitely pointing to a mistake by Weiner that he’s now desperately trying to cover up because it points to some very inappropriate behavior.
UPDATE and BUMP: A very good point raised by commenter “Black Sabbath” over on the PJ Tatler (comment #4):
And we’re still supposed to believe the hacker just handed the Weiner the keys back to the accounts after messing with him for a little while.
How did Weiner regain access to his Twitter account so soon after the hacking? You’d think that the first thing a malicious hacker would do would be to change the password so that Weiner couldn’t do any damage control… like deleting the offending tweet. If Weiner used the “forgot password” routine to regain access, there should be a record of it on the Twitter computers… those things are frequently used to hack accounts so it’s highly likely any reputable company is going to keep a record of them. Has Twitter been asked if Weiner did that–or perhaps contacted the company directly–to regain access to his own account?
The more I think about this, the fishier the “hacker” story smells.
I’ve never seen it explained better:
If you read the histories of journalists over the past 40 years or so, certain patterns emerge. Most of them — like the folks at Slate — are liberal and got into the business to “change the world.” Further, most of them are losers who did not play sports and could not get dates in high school and college. When Fox came along, with its chutzpah in allowing conservatives an actual voice, its bombshell anchors, its joyful ridicule of the self-righteous left, its outright sense of fun — well, this was just too much. Liberal journalists — now there’s a redundancy — didn’t just see their empire collapsing. They saw the cheerleaders who ignored them. They saw the conservative jock they hated and his country-club parents. They saw these people, these ogres, moving into their turf. And they went absolutely batshit.
And they continue to do so. Liberals can’t just ignore Fox; they find it too fascinating. They are like the kids in high school who absolutely despise the pretty, popular girl, then spend hours on the phone every night talking about her. At the core of it is jealousy, as well as the rage, paranoia and resentment that Tim Dickinson attributes to Fox. I mean, journalists were going to help the left change the world. And you can’t do that by giving dissenters a voice.
In fact, this also explains why lefties get so upset when any conservative wins anything, especially elective office.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz demonstrates her grasp of doublespeak:
“We have 12 million undocumented immigrants in this country that are part of the backbone of our economy and this is not only a reality but a necessity,” she said. “And that it would be harmful–the Republican solution that I’ve seen in the last three years is that we should just pack them all up and ship them back to their own countries and that in fact it should be a crime and we should arrested them all.”
Gee, one might think that illegal immigrants were… well… breaking the law!
Here’s something for everyone to do while waiting for the steaks or burgers to barbecue…
First, go to PajamasMedia and read this moving story about how the mom of a fallen soldier started an organization and managed to get a CD/DVD combo put together with basically no money.
Then, go to America’s Mighty Warriors and buy that CD/DVD. Maybe get a t-shirt as well!
And pray for those who have lost loved ones to keep us all safe… not just in the current conflicts, but from the Revolutionary War forward.
Rick Perry is starting to sound like a candidate:
Gov. Rick Perry today gave his strongest indication yet that he may run for president.
“I’m going to think about it” after the legislative session ends Monday, Perry said. He added, “But I think about a lot of things.”
For years, Perry has said that he would not run for president and that he had no interest in the job. He has often said that he has said no to the presidential question in as many ways as he could.
But he and his advisers have inched closer to saying he may run all week, following the announcement that Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels would not enter the GOP field. A couple of days ago, he told Greta Van Susteren on Fox News that a run was tempting.
Gov. Perry would certainly shake up the current crop of hopefuls, and might even stand a good chance of winning the whole thing.
Bombarded with questions following his talk at the Greater Des Moines Partnership’s Presidential Forum Speaker Series, the former Massachusetts governor told the gaggle of press and fans today that he supports the production of ethanol.
“I support the subsidy of ethanol,” said Romney, working his way through the Des Moines crowd, where he shook hands and doled out autographs. “I believe it’s an important part of our energy solution in this country.”
If I had one question to ask Mitt, it would be, “if ethanol is such a great fuel, why can’t it compete on its own without government subsidies?”
The Wall Street Journal lays out the difference between what the Democrats say the Ryan plan will do and what ObamaCare is already set to do if it’s not repealed:
Last August, the Office of the Medicare Actuary predicted that Medicare will be paying doctors less than what Medicaid pays by the end of this decade and, by then, one in seven hospitals will have to leave the Medicare system.
But suppose the law is implemented just as it’s written. In that case, according to the Medicare Trustees, Medicare’s long-term unfunded liability fell by $53 trillion on the day ObamaCare was signed.
But at what cost to the elderly? Consider people reaching the age of 65 this year. Under the new law, the average amount spent on these enrollees over the remainder of their lives will fall by about $36,000 at today’s prices. That sum of money is equivalent to about three years of benefits. For 55-year-olds, the spending decrease is about $62,000—or the equivalent of six years of benefits. For 45-year-olds, the loss is more than $105,000, or nine years of benefits.
In terms of the sheer dollars involved, the law’s reduction in future Medicare payments is the equivalent of raising the eligibility age for Medicare to age 68 for today’s 65-year-olds, to age 71 for 55-year-olds and to age 74 for 45-year-olds. But rather than keep the system as is and raise the age of eligibility, the reform law instead tries to achieve equivalent savings by paying less to the providers of care.
The GOP needs to make this case loudly, strongly, and often. Democrats wanted ObamaCare, it’s time to really hang that lead weight around their necks.