Money aside, what do you care about?
People are already speculating about the iPhone 13. Will Apple’s next flagship lose the notch? Here’s what we know.
Well, well, well.
Talk about a coverup.
Recall this story, as headlined in BizPacReview?
Pelosi appoints Swalwell to Homeland Security Committee again, despite recent Chinese spy scandal
The story begins thusly, with bold print supplied for emphasis:
“House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has reappointed her California Democratic colleague, Rep. Eric Swalwell, to the Homeland Security Committee despite revelations that he may have been compromised by a Chinese spy with whom he may have allegedly had sexual relations.”
Forget Swalwell. He’s not the subject here. The subject is the process. Just how did the Congressman get “reappointed” to the Homeland Security Committee, not to mention get appointed in the first place? Answer: Because House Speaker Nancy Pelosi appointed him in the first place, then reappointed him again.
This happens for one crystal clear and obvious reason. Which is: The Speaker of the House has the power to appoint Members of the House of her own party to a House committee.
Now. Take a look here at this USA Today “fact check.” The headline:
The claim: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi refuses to take responsibility for causing the insurrection at the Capitol building
The story begins this way, with bold print for emphasis again supplied:
“A Feb. 23 claim posted to Facebook is one of a multitude of social media posts blaming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.
The post is a meme with the words, “I caused the insurrection at the Capital and refuse to take responsibility for it. #impeachPelosi” overlayed on top of a picture of Pelosi.”
The article goes on to say, correctly, that:
“Panels that oversee USCP are the House and Senate committees on Appropriations, the Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch; the Committee on House Administration and the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration.
….Pelosi is not listed on the website as a chair or administrator of any committee supervising the Capitol Police.”
The story finally concludes by saying this:
“Our ruling: False
“We rate the claim that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi caused the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol as FALSE, based on our research. The Capitol Police force is responsible for protecting the building and is overseen by a Capitol Police Board, and committees from the House of Representatives and Senate, according to a USCP spokesperson. Pelosi is not directly responsible for overseeing Capitol Police force operations.”
Stop. Full stop.
Of course the idea that Pelosi caused the insurrection is crazy. But notice the sly dodge on the other claim? This one: “Pelosi is not directly responsible for overseeing Capitol Police force operations.”
In fact, as the episode involving Swalwell illustrates, as Speaker of the House it is in fact Pelosi’s direct responsibility to appoint the members from her party to committees, in this case the Committee on House Administration.
To say, as USA Today does, that “Pelosi is not directly responsible for overseeing Capitol Police force operations” is to dodge the facts. Recall this headline from Fox News:
Capitol Police intelligence report before Jan. 6 riot warned ‘Congress itself’ could be targeted: report
The story begins:
“An internal Capitol Police intelligence report issued three days before the storming of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 said ‘Congress itself’ could be targeted by protesters gathering in Washington, D.C., that day, according to a report.
The 12-page intelligence memo, parts of which were obtained by The Washington Post, said the potential targets of the rioters were “not necessarily the counter-protesters as they were previously, but rather Congress itself.”
Thus the obvious two questions about Pelosi that USA Today strangely ignores.
The first question: Did the Committee Members Pelosi directly appointed to the House Administration Committee know about the impending attack on the Capitol from that intelligence report — and failed to tell her?
Or, the second question: If the Members Pelosi directly appointed to the Committee knew nothing about an impending attack — failing to read their own intelligence report — then they are guilty of a stunning incompetence and should be removed by Pelosi forthwith. And Pelosi should be held responsible for appointing them in the first place.
But USA Today is not the only liberal media outlet shielding the Speaker from questions of her responsibility. Here is this headline from The New York Times:
‘Nobody Is in Charge’: Capitol’s Secretive Police Board Faces Overhaul After Riot
Top lawmakers say the Capitol Police Board, which is beholden to House and Senate leaders, needs significant changes after the security failures of Jan. 6.
This gem of a story never once — not once! — mentions Nancy Pelosi by name. It begins:
WASHINGTON — The congressional inquiry into the security failures surrounding the Jan. 6 Capitol assault has barely begun, but one outcome already seems certain: The Capitol Police Board, the secretive three-member panel that oversees protection of the complex where Congress meets, is headed for major changes, if not outright elimination.
Lawmakers of both parties in the House and the Senate, some previously unfamiliar with the sweeping authority of the board, have expressed astonishment at its lack of accountability and its inability to rapidly respond to the riot at the Capitol.”
The article also says:
“Like many things on Capitol Hill, the board is a remnant of the past that has survived in large part because it suits those who hold power in Congress. A long line of House and Senate leaders in both parties have favored its existence because they handpick two of its three voting members, giving them tremendous influence over security operations with little public scrutiny.”
Got that? The Capitol Police Board is accountable to “House and Senate leaders” but strangely Speaker Pelosi is not even mentioned as the ultimate House “leader.” Yet most assuredly, though not mentioned at all, Pelosi – as the Speaker – has the power to “handpick” two of the three voting members of the Capitol Police Board. Why? Because she is the Speaker.
The Times story also says:
“At House and Senate hearings in recent days, lawmakers have been struck by the fact that two days before the attack, members of the board dismissed the Capitol Police request for troops to be on hand on Jan. 6. They acted with no vote, little discussion or consultation with other authorities, and no involvement by the architect of the Capitol. Then on the day of the riot, board members struggled to connect and agree to declare an emergency so that troops who were standing by to assist could be summoned to the Capitol.”
There is no suggestion in The Times story that Pelosi should have been informed by her own appointees to both the police board and the House Administration Committee- but wasn’t. And there is no suggestion that she was informed of the possibility but ignored the warning.
This means one of two things that The Times simply avoids by not mentioning Pelosi at all. Either the Members of Congress Pelosi appointed to the Committee were incompetent in not advising the Speaker of an impending attack – or they were ignorant of their own intelligence report, either of which means they should be removed from the House Administration Committee on the spot – by Pelosi. With Pelosi herself being held ultimately responsible for the actions of her appointees
Bottom line? As the investigation into the scandal that was the attack on the Capitol unfolds, USA Today and The New York Times are making it their business to cover for Nancy Pelosi so she escapes being pinned with any responsibility in protecting the Capitol.
The mega-successful Chinese franchise about a mismatched detective duo tackling baffling crimes in foreign destinations continues with a wildly uneven caper set in Tokyo. With performances, plotting and visuals amped up to 11 as per usual, this hyperactive combination of Sherlock Holmes-type sleuthing and Three Stooges-style slapstick comedy offers plenty of zany fun, but the […]
Here are all the details about the payment that we know right now, and what could change between now and the $1.9 trillion bill becoming law.
Songs for Screens: No one seemed more excited about the late February emergence of Coca-Cola’s new campaign featuring an original song composedby Tyler, The Creator than Tyler himself. “mannnn thanks coca cola for reallll big love for the opportunity,” Tyler tweeted upon its release, among several other tweets effusively expressing his pride for the […]
Headlines about the Johnson & Johnson trial results often cite an efficacy rate lower than Pfizer and Moderna’s. But one figure doesn’t tell the whole story.
This week’s Azure announcements were about being more hybrid, more multi-cloud, more data-dependent — at higher speed.Read More
Rumors and speculation about the existence of a potential Switch Pro model have been swirling for months, but a new report from Bloomberg says that an upgraded version of Nintendo’s flagship handheld/console is coming this year.
According to the report, the Switch Pro – or whatever the upgraded model ends up being called – will have a 7-inch 720p OLED screen, and will be capable of outputting games at 4K in docked mode. This ruffled some feathers, as many expected or hoped that Nintendo would opt for a 1080p resolution on the upgraded Switch. It’s understandable – 720p feels like a relic of a bygone era as the new-generation consoles have standardized 4K gaming, and even on handhelds, most smartphones offer 1080p at the minimum, if not 1440p as we’ve seen on the latest flagships from Samsung, Google, and many others.
However, if this report is true, I’m not upset about it. As VentureBeat’s Jeff Grubb pointed out on Twitter, at a screen size of 7 inches, 720p resolution has a pixel density of 209.8 pixels per inch. That’s around double the pixel density of a 27-inch 1440p monitor (108.79 PPI), and more than triple that of a 65-inch 4K TV (67.78 PPI).
Of course, pixel density isn’t the only thing that matters when comparing screen sizes and resolutions: viewing distance – that is, the distance between the screen and your eyes – also comes into play. If you have any familiarity with Apple products, you’ve probably heard the term “Retina display.” Retina isn’t a single specific resolution, but rather a “magic number” that factors in both pixels per inch and viewing distance to determine whether or not the human eye is capable of differentiating the pixels. In theory, any display could meet the requirements to be “Retina” given a large enough viewing distance – this is why the massive video walls in Times Square appear just as sharp as a regular TV, despite being made up of individual LED bulbs that you could easily see the space between if viewed up close.
As such, the aforementioned 65-inch 4K TV “becomes Retina” as long as it’s viewed from a distance of at least 51 inches – not a problem assuming you’re sitting on a couch in your living room – while the 27-inch 1440p monitor needs a distance of at least 32 inches, which is actually a bit further than most people probably sit from their PC monitor.
[widget path=”global/article/imagegallery” parameters=”albumSlug=the-top-25-switch-games-fall-2020-update&captions=true”]
As far as the Switch Pro is concerned, 720p on a 7-inch screen needs to be held only 16 inches in order to achieve that “Retina” sweet spot. That means unless you routinely hold your Switch directly in front of your face, you won’t be able to tell the difference between 720p and a higher resolution. Besides, opting for a higher resolution would mean sacrificing battery life – a higher resolution means more pixels, and more pixels means more power consumption.
In other words, sticking to a 720p display isn’t as big a deal as it sounds. What’s more notable about the reported Switch model is that Nintendo is opting for an OLED panel. The difference between OLED and LCD – the type of panel on current Switch models – is striking, in a good way. OLED screens are most impressive when it comes to contrast ratio – that is, the difference between how bright and dark the screen can get at the same time. The better the contrast ratio, the more realistic the display looks – something anyone who has made the jump to OLED for their gaming TV can attest to. And assuming the Switch Pro will have some upgraded internals in addition to that new screen, games should run at much higher frame rates than the current hardware which, in my opinion (something I’m not alone in thinking), is more important than higher resolution when it comes to playing video games.
What do you think of the rumored Switch Pro? Let us know in the comments.
Bo Moore is IGN’s Executive Editor of Tech. Follow him on Twitter @usebomswisely.
Washington — We are all supposed to be against conspiracies. Yet what about a conspiracy to silence free speech? What about a conspiracy to shut down people who utter thoughts we disagree with? What about silencing communists? What about silencing Nazis? What about a conspiracy to silence Democrats or Republicans? What about silencing those who spout Trumpism? There are a lot of positions that I disagree with. There are a lot of positions that I agree with. I say, let them all be heard — but this is an old-fashioned belief, and I am increasingly out of step with the times.
On Capitol Hill, there is a move to shut down political expression, the political expression of conservatives. In the House of Representatives, the Democrats have a 10-seat majority. In the next election, that majority could be reduced. In the next election, it could even vanish. Right now, people such as Reps. Anna Eshoo and Jerry McNerney want to limit right-wing speech. They act as though their position in the majority will last forever. What happens if they are suddenly in the minority? Will, say, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene be able to limit their speech? Well, there are no signs that the Republicans have more than one Marjorie Taylor Greene in their number, but who knows what an election might bring?
That is why I say that those who want to take on the First Amendment should pipe down. You are in the majority today. You may be in the minority tomorrow. Actually, I think you will be in the minority tomorrow. All that will save your right to speak your mind is the libertarian streak that runs through the Republican Party.
So-called progressives began their attacks on the First Amendment by going after individuals. Through the years, they targeted Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and Tucker Carlson. They tried to intimidate these conservatives’ advertisers. It worked with some advertisers, but not with enough. Hannity, Levin and Carlson are still standing. Bravo! Limbaugh has gone to a better place.
Now the progressives are going after the networks. This past week, Eshoo and McNerney threatened Fox News and Newsmax by sending letters to 12 cable and tech CEOs asking them to break their contracts with Fox and Newsmax. Later in the week, the Energy and Commerce Committee held a hearing about “disinformation and extremism” on conservative networks. The chairman of the subcommittee on communications and technology asseverated in his opening remarks that “it is the responsibility of this subcommittee to hold these institutions (Fox and Newsmax) to a higher standard.” So it looks like the House of Representatives is calling it open season on the First Amendment.
Actually, I have never seen a more open assault by a political party on the Bill of Rights, and I have not heard a peep of protest or even of caution from the people who have the most at stake in this assault, the media. Where are the heroic defenders of freedom of speech? It reminds me of the time I, as editor of The American Spectator, was being harassed by the federal government for suggesting that Bill Clinton was not being completely faithful to his marital vows. Shortly thereafter, I attended a lecture at which the great freedom of speech advocate Floyd Abrams held forth on the beauty of the free society, the nobleness of untrammeled expression, that sort of thing. Well, I recalled how silent Abrams was during the government’s harassment of our magazine. So, I went up to the great man when he was finished and asked him why he never uttered such poetry about The American Spectator. Floyd never missed a beat. He said something to the effect of, “Because you, Tyrrell, never listen.” I had never spoken a word with him before and never have spoken a word with him since. I have no idea what he was talking about.
Let us see how long it takes the media to wake up to the threat the Democrats are posing to the media’s freedom. We all have heard what a grave threat Sen. Joseph McCarthy was to freedom of speech in the 1950s. He became one of the most famous figures in American history by threatening free speech. Now you have dozens of Democrats threatening whole networks, and no one has complained, not even in the media. What happened to freedom of speech?
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.