after reading your profile, i decided to contact you for long term relationship and business partnership.
I Alfred Samzo, 20 years old boy from Republic of Cote D’Ivoire (Ivory Coast ) in west africa. Beside , i am an ophan but inherited all my late father’s wealth. though money is not everything but love, caring and togetherness is important in life.
I intend to establish good relationship with you and also intend to start a lucrative business in your country under your help. though we have not met before but i believe one has to try some certain risk sometimes in order to succed in life.
I inherited Ten Million U.S Dollars, which my late fether deposited in a bank here in Abidjan, (Cote D’Ivoire) before he was assasinated by unknown people. i have decided to invest these money in your country or anywhere safe enough out side my country for security and political reasons. i want you to help me transfer these money from here into your designated bank account in your country for investment purposes .
I will like you to contact me immediately, or call me on my private phone number +225-0914-9076,
Thanks
Alfred Samzo,
I’m amazed to see these scams till having an effect, I guess like the wire in the Sting is it so old that some might have forgotten it.
I have one thing to say to people foolish enough to fall for this. Put $50 in my tip jar instead. If you Hit my tip jar, it will cost you a whole lot less money than that phone call and the scam that will follow it plus you will get a return of commentary and insights that will be of value to you.
Take my advice, put this type of mail in your spam folder and delete asap.
I read the text of the speech and it seems a pretty good direct speech that address the event. Certainly appropriate for the event.
However it looks like the speech in practice had an issue. Not so much for the delivery but for the rally like atmosphere and the focus on democratic pols. The apparent booing of the republican Governor at the event didn’t help either:
Future politicos, please heed this advice. Never hold a memorial service in a university arena, and never give out T-shirts prior to the event. Those two choices set the tone for this entire spectacle. Some will excuse the bizarre atmosphere or blame it entirely on those in the audience to deflect attention from the president. But the president’s team had the final call on everything. They could have demanded a more suitable setting, and set a more appropriate tone. They didn’t. This gauche spectacle is the Obama administration’s fault. The tone of the event overshadowed whatever good words of comfort and honor were in his lengthy speech.
I am not a person who likes applause at Mass, and I don’t like it much at memorials, either; the raucous crowd had even some mediafolk (Anderson Cooper comes to mind) expressing doubt about the cheering. I think it was simply the venue. A different venue, something smaller, quieter, more intimate, might have inspired a different sort of reaction from the crowds, but perhaps adrenaline was running some of it.
This is all in great contrast to the MSM. MSNBC has been going on and on about the speech all morning as if it was the greatest thing they’ve ever heard. They are overselling the speech horribly. Chris Matthews likely has the tingle back in his leg.
There is a real danger to the administration that the media is overselling it. The public has become much more attuned to this kind of thing and any benefit the administration might get from these events could be lost. Particularly since the Oakland event turned out to be a disaster
and note this from the write up:
That’s odd: How can separate eyewitnesses to the same event come away with different impressions, Rashomon-style? Here’s how: note carefully what happens at exactly 1:20 in the video. You’ll notice that the lights which had been illuminating Roy Wilson are suddenly turned off, right when it becomes obvious that he’s going to continue his inappropriate political rant. What you’re seeing at that moment is a TV camera crew, which had been filming Roy Wilson’s speech for possible use as a soundbite in that evening’s news broadcast, realizing that the guy was going off-message — so they simply switched off the camera’s photo lights and stopped filming him because his speech no longer fit the media’s predetermined narrative.
My final take. The president made a good speech but the left is likely to blow for him because they have moved to his left big time.
And then there is time. The reason I believe that Obama entirely avoided politics, indeed rebuked the Krugman-Daily Kos narrative, is because he saw the pushing and shoving, read the polls, figured which way the wind was blowing, and steered clear of associating himself with the tone-deaf left. Conversely, because the left couldn’t restrain themselves, they pounced immediately and left a trail of inanity on twitter and websites.
The final lesson for the left is this: for the sake of a second term, the president is willing to throw liberals under the bus.
.
I don’t’ know if we can go that far, but it’s certainly a thought.
While the rest of us have been talking about the media Stacy McCain has been doing something interesting. Actually covering a possible motive and inspiration for the shooting in Arizona:
Loughner’s favorites included little-known conspiracy theory documentaries such as “Zeitgeist” and “Loose Change” as well as bigger studio productions with cult followings and themes of brainwashing, science fiction and altered states of consciousness,
ABC quoted the friend of Loughner concerning this obsession and was quickly threatened with legal action. Stacy continues:
Yeah, “considering legal action” is one of those wonderful phrases, isn’t it? There are entire blogs devoted to denouncing the Zeitgeist Movement/Venus Project as a cult or a scam or some combination of both, and yet the director is “considering legal action” because TV networks interviewed a friend who said Loughner was into watching Zeitgeist.
And it’s all because he’s challenging the “status quo” of the “Social System” which, of course, the real villain. Also, Peter Joseph/Merola wants you to know that he is a persecuted humanitarian. So if you criticize him, you’re just like those people who called Martin Luther King a commie.
Eventually there will be a trial and when it happens Stacy’s stories are going to be very linkable. Let the record show he was first.
I’m in the process of writing a critique column for the Examiner on the media’s reaction events in Arizona but if spend the entire day working on it I suspect it will not compare to this post by Elizabeth Scalia the Anchoress.
“Today was supposed to be set-aside for the victims,” someone posted on twitter, “Palin decided she is one of them.”
No. Sarah Palin made a statement that was contextual, relevant and appropriate to the day. The press, if they really wanted to put the day aside for the victims, could have simply reported that Palin made a statement, and moved on. In truth, they could have utterly ignored Palin’s statement altogether, because she really is not part of this story.
But they did not, because they cannot. Where Sarah Palin is concerned, the mainstream press and the political pundit class are like 14 year olds obsessing over the social order of the cafeteria, and especially that stupid new cootie girl, ewwww.
They are the spiteful, malevolent and immature teenagers in “Carrie,” armed with pig-blood and just looking for any opportunity to pour it.
They are repulsive in their clique; one wants to take them by their shoulders and shake them and say “grow up! GROW UP!”
Read the whole thing, is it the best piece I’ve seen on the subject. Also not to be missed is NeoNeocon’s piece.
I believe that, like her or hate her (and I’ve gone on record saying I don’t think she’s a good candidate for the 2012 presidency), Palin chooses her phrases carefully and knows what she’s doing. And I would guess that, as a religious Christian and strong supporter of Israels and Jews, Palin knows exactly what the blood libel is and has an awareness of the history behind the use of the phrase.
I am wondering how it would feel to be reeling from hearing the dreadful news of the Tucson assassination/massacre, and then almost immediately to find oneself accused of inciting it by press and an opposition solemnly and sanctimoniously intoning the charge in transparently hypocritical hope of elevating the tone of political discourse while simultaneously pointing the finger of bloody guilt at their hated opponent. You know, the phrase “blood libel” might just come to mind.
I know I will add only a few hits after Glenn and Elizabeth but I can say that she as intelligent and delightful in person as she is online.
What is most remarkable about these death wishes is that they were done in the open and often with the identity of the person not hidden. The identities of the tweeters and the people who “liked” the Facebook pages were readily identifiable in many cases.
Why do these people, many of whom are professionals, feel no fear in expressing such death wishes in the open?
Because they know that the media will never call them out for death threats against Sarah Palin. I will be delighted in a show like Morning Joe proves me wrong.
Da Techguy's (no longer backup) Blog 