AppleTV + Boxee

Imagine having all your content–iTunes, Torrents, TV, whatever–all in one place, and viewable through your TV. This includes:

• all your music
• all your TV Shows
• all your movies
• streaming content from Hulu and other online sources

Utterly sick.

Bottom line: I’m dumping both my phone and cable this month as part of our move to a new apartment, and a general theme of simplification. I’m replacing my standard (legacy) phone service with VOIP, and replacing my cable service with AppleTV/Boxee/Bittorrent (and possibly Netflix).

More power, less cost. Win. ::

Right. No credible plot against him, just a few guys with rifles, scopes, and swastikas.

Nothing to see here…move along…

At what point does it become a plot? Let’s review the checklist:

1. White supremacist mouthbreathers. Check.
2. Swatzitcas. Check.
3. Rifles with scopes. Check.
4. Basically said they were going to kill Obama (this is an important one). Check.
5. Were found a few miles away from where the whole world knew he would be.

Hopefully the various media will figure out that this was a plot—regardless of the sophistication—and will call it what it is.

I feel for the Secret Service. The presidential detail just became a whole lot more hardcore.:

I’m for Obama in this one, and I think Fox is a joke when it comes to being impartial, but I’m not for our media taking sides—even when it’s CNN going pro-Obama.

I think it’s a dangerous sign when it becomes so blatantly obvious which candidate a news network is supporting. It’s not a sign of weakness in the network; it’s a sign of weakness in America.:

Granted, the source is prisonplanet.com, which is rather too conspiracy-oriented for my taste, but these people are either meeting or they aren’t. And if they are, regardless of the context, it’s worth talking about. It’s also worth asking why it’s not all over the news like other conferences with similar lists of attendees. [ Former Attendee List | wikipedia.org ]

Here’s a quote from the article, which I think makes a very strong point.

A mere book signing by an ex-politician would generate at least a few headlines, yet we have dozens of CEO’s, European and Federal Reserve banking and finance kingpins, Prime Ministers, European royalty, NSA officials, professors from top Universities, NATO and UN officials, oil company chairmen, and foreign policy luminaries meeting behind closed doors and yet not one single U.S. media report! Not one!

From Wikipedia’s entry:

The group’s secrecy and its connections to power elites has raised concerns for many who believe that the group is part of a conspiracy to create a New World Order. Radio host and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones claims the group intends to dissolve the sovereignty of the United States and other countries into a supra-national structure similar to the European Union. Daniel Estulin, writing in Nexus magazine, claims the long-term purpose of Bilderberg is to “Build a One-World Empire.” He states the group “is not the end but the means to a future One World Government”.

So here’s my take: you have a massive list of people who are just “talking”, right? But there are many ties between the Bilderberg group and the Council on Foreign Relations. Not a big deal? Well, perhaps it’s a big deal when the CFR has come right out and said they’re for eliminating the sovereignty of nations.

Again, I’m not even saying One World Government is necessarily a bad thing. I’d have to do a whole lot more research on these various groups before I could say anything like that. But I do know that I don’t like the secrecy.

Quite simply, if they weren’t doing something that they didn’t want people talking about, then why is there a media blackout? And of all the people able to create a media blackout, don’t you think the people meeting in Bilderberg meeting might be able to pull it off?

Thoughts?

Edit: Ok, my buddy Ken just had the most excellent point. Above and beyond the question of whether or not the Bilderberg group is doing something wrong, let’s come at it from another angle. If the goal is to do something good for the world in general, and there are that many important people trying to help, why wouldn’t they have ASKED FOR AND DEMANDED coverage?

This is from the front page of CNN. The guy looks like a maniacal grinch.

Sure, I recognize that this may not be too far from the truth, but it’s a bit unsettling to have a supposedly impartial mainstream media source be so blatant about their attempts to change perception.:

Misses? Eased fears?

Uh, has someone forgotten that a Category 5 storm is about to plow into tens of thousands of people? Selective reporting if I’ve ever seen it. Jeez. Luckily the danger has been averted…

p style=”text-align: center”> heal911.com

According to this story the FBI had not, up through June of 2006, linked Bin Laden with 9/11.

On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

Ok, two questions:

1. How can they not have enough evidence?
2. Why is this not being discussed anywhere?

My first thought was of the video that was heavily brandished by the media where Bin Laden and some colleagues seemed to be gloating about their success. Wasn’t that pretty damning? The article addresses that too.

Essentially they point out the fact that the video was released in December of 2001, while the statement saying the FBI had no hard evidence linking them was released in June of 2006. The implication there is that the FBI doesn’t believe the video constitutes hard evidence of Bin Laden’s involvement.

Is this just the FBI using an unrealistic standard for “hard evidence”, or is it really possible that the main investigatory group for the attacks don’t think Bin Laden did it? And if that’s the case, who do they think did? Al Quaeda unrelated to Bin Laden? Another group?

Maybe it’s nothing, but we should damn well have the discussion.:

The Full Article at Team Liberty