Board unanimously pans LightSquared

February 1, 2012

Forbes reports:

A special board formed to advise the federal government on the clash between Global Positioning System receivers and LightSquared’s proposed cellular/satellite communications network has concluded there are “no practical solutions or mitigations” that would allow the two to coexist on adjacent segments of the radio spectrum.

The National Space-Based Positioning Navigation and Timing Committee, in a letter released this afternoon, said it had reached the “unanimous conclusion” that the LightSquared network would “cause harmful interference to many GPS receivers” as well as a GPS-powered ground-alert system overseen by the Federal Aviation Administration.

Based upon this testing an analysis, there appear to be no practical solutions or mitigations that would permit the LightSquared broadband service, as proposed, to operate in the next few months or years without significantly interfering with GPS. As a result, no additional testing is warranted at this time.”

Recall that LightSquared’s business strategy is based not on new technology, but on using its political connections to obtain a competitive advantage. That’s why they aren’t giving up despite all the technical findings against them: they think their politicians still might prevail.

(Previous post.)

Democrats take dirty tricks to a new level

February 1, 2012

It takes a lot of context to fully appreciate this story, so I’m going to pull a long quote from Power Line:

A few years ago, as part of its strategy of facilitating voter fraud as a means of winning close elections, the Democratic Party undertook a campaign to secure as many Secretary of State offices in swing states as possible. From those perches, the Democrats would be in a position to oversee elections and enforce (or decline to enforce) election laws. That strategy has been quite successful, but the Democrats suffered a setback in Iowa in 2010 when conservative Republican Matt Schultz won an upset victory in the Secretary of State race. Since then, Iowa Democrats have targeted Schultz.

That targeting has taken a sinister turn–a criminal one, in fact–as the Des Moines Register reports:

A Des Moines man has been arrested after police say he used, or tried to use, the identity of Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz in a scheme to falsely implicate Schultz in perceived unethical behavior in office. . .

Edwards is a former Obama staffer who directed “new media operations” for Obama in five states during the 2008 primaries. Thereafter, he was Obama’s Director of New Media for the State of Iowa. In the Democratic Party’s lexicon, “new media” apparently includes identity theft.

Edwards now works for LINK Strategies, a Democratic consulting firm with extraordinarily close ties to Iowa Democrat Tom Harkin.

POSTSCRIPT: For a media failure angle on the story, Newsbusters notes that the Des Moines Register sat on the fact Edwards worked for a prominent Democratic consulting firm until it could safely report that he had been fired.

New Yorker fact checking

February 1, 2012

The New Yorker refuses to issue a correction, despite an inarguable error. By the end of the farce, the New Yorker is reduced to arguing semantics and contradicting the dictionary.

Inferring the order

February 1, 2012

It’s always interesting when we can learn new edges in the priority order of causes on the left. Coyote Blog looks at the contrast between the government’s handling of Toyota’s accelerator problems (which turned out to be imaginary), and its handling of the Chevy Volt’s tendency to burst into flames (which turned out to be real).

The only question is which factor it is that trumps consumer safety. It could be crony capitalism (labor unions own GM) or it could be environmentalism (greens love electric cars).

(Via Instapundit.)

More copyright trolls?

February 1, 2012

Righthaven is circling the bowl, even that I’ve stopped bothered noting its well-deserved legal woes, but now the Associated Press looks as though it might be getting into the copyright troll business.

(Via Instapundit.)


February 1, 2012

In another example of how utterly lame Politifact (and most “fact-checking” columns) are, Politifact rated this statement “mostly false”:

New energy standards will take away “our freedom of choice and selection in the light bulbs we have in our homes.”

Which is entirely true, of course. Politifact argues that it is mostly false because consumers will be able to buy different (and more expensive) bulbs in place of the current light bulbs. That’s no rebuttal at all. The existence of other remaining choices hardly means that one of your choices isn’t being foreclosed.

James Taranto adds:

By PolitiFact’s logic, people who think abortion should be outlawed are pro-choice because they would allow other choices (childbirth, adoption, avoiding pregnancy via abstinence or contraception).

POSTSCRIPT: People defending the light-bulb ban keeping talking about these high-efficiency incandescent bulbs that we can supposedly get. Even setting aside the higher price, are these bulbs actually available? Has anyone ever seen them for sale? I haven’t.

And do they actually produce the same quality light as a traditional bulb? I’ve never seen one, so I can’t say.

Because that’s where the money is

February 1, 2012

Jon Corzine (who misplaced $1.2 billion that wasn’t his) is still raising campaign money for Barack Obama.

(Previous post.)