Yes, it affects Netflix a bunch.

I just mailed something Priority Mail yesterday and tracking is now free. I'm not sure what you mean, Greg, about it not being trackable online. That has always worked for me and it's a great service.

Marshall comes up because of the incapacity crisis.

He also said the oft-quoted,"What this country needs is a really good 5-cent cigar."

And an article related to the USPS discussion: FedEx's file transfer capacity versus the Internet.

Seems to me that reducing services just leads down a death spiral. If you cut Saturday service, people will use you less in general, leading to more cuts, etc. I think the postal service needs to offer more reasons to use them, not less. Like tracking. They have some services that will give you a tracking number, but you can never actually track any of it on line. Every single time I've gotten something shipped from Amazon or wherever, the postal service site tells me that item can't be tracked. If I go on there after it's delivered, sometimes it will tell me that it's delivered. Like that helps.

I suppose there will always be packages to deliver, but delivery of "data" -- mail, bills, communications, even media -- just doesn't have a future. Even some parcel-based items are probably on their way out in a generation - 3d printing is already a reality with simple materials (if not yet all that economically feasible).

The FCC is in the process of putting together a universal wifi proposal - much to the opposition of ISPs and telecoms.

The answer in my mind is that the USPS should be shifted into this... again - I'm not proposing the "internet" become the sole domain of a quasi-government entity like the USPS, but I think there is both room and need for a digital content network and service that IS run something like the USPS.

For the all fiscal grief they get -- if you think about it, the USPS was a magnificent thing in the days before digital communications... you could write a letter, send it anywhere in the country for a very cheap price, and it would be delivered in days. Once upon a time that was an amazing thing.

There's no reason they can't become the "one size fits all" carrier for certain segments of digital communications... Again - I'm not talking about pushing the private providers out (I mean, I still want my porn, too!)... but in certain situations, I would be fine to be using a network where the senders are all registered, where there's a nominal fee that in turn ensures some measure of reliability, etc.

In such a case - I'd probably switch over all of my e-billing traffic to such an account, maintain it for say -- things like job applications or what not, etc.

The core model of 'not-for-profit communications services networking the entire nation' is not something I think we should lightly cast aside... it just needs to become digital, not paper delivery based.

Hobart is the only one on your list that I recognize, so he can't be the answer. He was McKinley's VP before Ted R.

I'm looking at the list of VPs now. Someone named Hendricks was VP for 8 months in 1885, though he was very important in Indiana before that.

William A. Wheeler was apparently nominated ironically by Roscoe Conkling's crew who were perplexed by his refusal to take patronage. Hayes didn't know who he was when he was told Wheeler was his running mate. So why should we know who he is now?

Hendricks and Wheeler are knowable if you were the kind of dorky kid who read books of political anecdotes. Wheeler for the immortal Hayes quote, "Who is Wheeler?" when told he had been nominated with Wheeler for the White house.

Hendricks for the chant, "Let's hear it for our man and his immortal appendix/let's whoop er up loudly for Cleveland and Hendricks." I think. I'm operating from memory. Also for winning the popular vote for VP twice, once under Tilden (not seated obviously) and once under Cleveland. Was talk in 1876 he might get hosed if the House voted in Tilden since the Republican Senate would then vote Wheeler VP for the uber-rare split executive branch.

The FCC is in the process of putting together a universal wifi proposal - much to the opposition of ISPs and telecoms.

Actually, they are not.

Yes, it affects Netflix a bunch.

I just mailed something Priority Mail yesterday and tracking is now free. I'm not sure what you mean, Greg, about it not being trackable online. That has always worked for me and it's a great service.

I don't have need of it a lot, so maybe the people sending me things aren't using Priority Mail or something. It's mostly through Amazon or eBay.

This sounds about right to me.

I think the Republican Party right now is like an alcoholic who hasn’t yet hit rock bottom. He’s not fooling anyone anymore. Everyone’s on to him. But he’s still holding on to his job by a thread, his wife hasn’t yet taken the kids and walked out on him, the cops don’t happen yet to have been there as he swerved his way home from his usual bar. He can still, in other words, kid himself. Disaster hasn’t struck yet.

In this case, disaster would be losing to Hillary Clinton three years from now. I believe that’s what it will probably take to sober the Republicans up; most especially to sober up the base—to make rank-and-file conservatives realize that the age of victory via resentment is gone. That middle Americans who once identified with their grudges are now over them and sick to death of hearing about them. Cosmetic rebranding can’t fix this.

Steve, how are they going to be able to choose a sane candidate when the controlling faction of their base in so many states has been carrying similar resentments for some 50+ years? Just this morning, we see reports that the Tea Party and its supporters are firing both barrels at Karl F**king ROVE, no less, because he's trying to drill a few notes of common sense into his party's head. They're now also going after Marco Rubio for daring to propose a semi-humane approach to immigration reform. When you've positioned Karl Rove and Marco Rubio to the left of you, what direction are you likely to go other than straight off the cliff.

This isn't to say that the Republicans can't stage a comeback, or that they couldn't even win in 2016. But that's much more likely to happen due to a 2008 sized crash or a massive failure of Obamacare to deliver the goods. It's not likely to stem from the GOP leopard changing his spots.

But that's much more likely to happen due to a 2008 sized crash or a massive failure of Obamacare to deliver the goods.

I agree with most of what you said Andy, but I don't see Obamacare as doing much of anything. I don't mean thatin a political sense. The way it is structured to use the existing health insurance framework and slowly push things along means it is not really a winner or loser going forward. I suspect, other than a few holdouts it will sink into semi-recognizable territory that most folks hardly ever think about - even as it is actually improving the health insurance situation in the US a fair amount.

Unless of course actual death panels show up or something, but outside of the fever swamps I don't think anyone expects anything like that.

When you've positioned Karl Rove and Marco Rubio to the left of you, what direction are you likely to go other than straight off the cliff.

Well, that's what Tomasky is saying in the article. Doubling down on the Tea Party zealotry will yield no electoral victories anywhere except the gerrymandered House districts they already hold. It will cause them to continue to lose seats in the Senate, and in a majority of statehouses, and it will guarantee them a loss in the Presidential election.

In other words, as an organizing principle for a national party, it's suicidal. But so far, as the article says and you agree, the party has been completely unable to deal with this truth in a productive way, and so for the time being, they will continue to weaken.

In L.A., we're dealing with a real life Fugitive/24 scenario with a man named Christopher Jordan Dorner , and the guy already killed 3 people, wounded a bunch of cops, and the cops already shot 3 other people unrelated to the case because they were driving the same make and model of the car the guy was driving. And it all started with a double homicide as revenge against the murdered couple's dad for writing a bad review against the guy getting him fired.. Just crazy. Word is now he stole a boat to try to get to Mexico.

But that's much more likely to happen due to a 2008 sized crash or a massive failure of Obamacare to deliver the goods.

I agree with most of what you said Andy, but I don't see Obamacare as doing much of anything. I don't mean thatin a political sense. The way it is structured to use the existing health insurance framework and slowly push things along means it is not really a winner or loser going forward.

The problem is that if enough Republican governors and legislatures put enough bureaucratic roadblocks into its implementation, it's not unlikely that it's going to be run initially with less than maximum efficiency in many cases. This is one of many reasons why a single payer system would've been infinitely preferable---the ideological opponents of universal health care would have been given far fewer fiefdoms from which to sabotage it.

I suspect, other than a few holdouts it will sink into semi-recognizable territory that most folks hardly ever think about - even as it is actually improving the health insurance situation in the US a fair amount.

Hopefully that'll be recognized over the din of the inevitable GOP noise machine, but that's one case where I'm definitely not counting eggs until they become chickens.

The way it is structured to use the existing health insurance framework and slowly push things along means it is not really a winner or loser going forward.

I think that what Andy is saying is that, whatever Obamacare is supposed to be, it has to be implemented by the bureaucracy, a bureaucracy with many competing interests and agendas. I don't think anyone knows what it will end up being and if it ends up being a huge clusterfluck before the next election, it may well sink whoever the Democratic nominee is.

I know you don't think that likely - I'm not sure I do. But it certainly isn't an impossible event.

Cokes.

Steve, how are they going to be able to choose a sane candidate

They did choose a "sane" candidate in 2012, of course he spent years twisting himself into a pretzel to appease the "base" before trying to untwist himself...

The GOP's problem is that the Bircherites/Teapers are semi-organized now whereas back before 2008 they really weren't, they have formed actual groups and hold meetings and have their own blogs-
back in the 50s through 80s one could have Bircher beliefs and keep them oneself because quite frankly you rarely ran into anyone openly admitting such beliefs.

Then came rightwing talk radio, and books and the internet, and by golly if no one at work appreciated your Bircher views, you'd find an online community that would.

Conspiracy nuts are far less isolated than they used to be, they can easily find like minded individuals whereas before they couldn't

All of which is compounded by primary elections that favor the highly motivated factions of the party. I suppose Romney was sane enough, compared to the Angles and Akins of the world - he chose to get around it by simply lying his ass off or blatantly changing his positions at a moments notice, which did not go unnoticed by the electorate.

Eh, I don't know. The American electorate elected Bill Clinton, so they're okay with an outright liar becoming president. The bigger issues is that Romney didn't put a good enough Economic plan or not enough people believed in it to vote Republican.

I am curious about factions and the 2016 Democratic primary. In 2008, Obama only had to tack left on one position--Iraq--in the primaries. In other ways he ran as a conventional DLC candidate. Stuck with her war position, Hillary tacked in different ways but without flushing him. The base-appealing candidate, Edwards, didn't really appeal to enough of the base to matter. It was, like the 2000 Republican primary, a classic case of a party determined not to f-- up a chance to get back from exile.

On the one hand, those consensuses (consensi?) don't last forever. On the other, it's hard to see the Democratic base fragmenting ideologically in the 2016 primaries. Sure people could break into support for Hillary or Biden or O'Malley or Schweitzer or whatever, but I'm not sure those would be ideological.

The only issue I could imagine would be a seriously civil liberties candidate putting Hillary and Biden on the spot. Even if many Dems are vaguely civil liberties, it's hard to picture them coming out for a candidate running against the Obama Administration. I think the Democratic ideological fragmentation will hold off until 2020 or 2024.

@167, If you find Clinton's prevarications about his personal life equivalent to Romney's about faces on previously held positions and outright falsehoods like $716 billion dollars funneled out of Medicare, I don't have a $5 trillion tax cut, I will not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans, 23M unemployed, 47% takers etc etc, then I suppose you have a point.

Oh come on, stuff like the 'Sistah Soujia' moment was just as fake as anything Romney has pulled.

Greg, I wish that there were a large constituency questioning the continuous erosion of civil liberties, but there isn't, which is the basic reason we have had these policies under both Democratic and Republican administrations. So as you say, I don't see any danger of that being an issue in '16.

I also, BTW, don't see a large constituency who would prefer Joe Biden over Hillary Clinton for President. It's way too early to speculate about specific '16 candidates -- I think it's entirely possible Hillary won't run due to age/health -- but if she does, it'll be interesting to see if she can close the deal on a race where she should be even more of a heavy favorite than '08.

spike, unfortunately, I don't think most people were following the issues nearly closely enough to question the details of Romney's economic claims and prescriptions. I think Romney largely lost because the masses generally thought Obama inherited a #### heap and was doing ok working out of it, plus a smidgen of not relating to Romney on a personal level (whether the objection be smarm, awkwardness, bloodless capitalism, or whatever).

Oh come on, stuff like the 'Sistah Soujia' moment was just as fake as anything Romney has pulled.

Wha? That may have been straight-up political theater from Clinton, but you can't call it a lie.

One reason I very much want Hillary to run in '16: To see the look on the GOP's collective face when it realizes, for all right-wing's fearmongering on Obama, he was the Good Cop.

Greg, I wish that there were a large constituency questioning the continuous erosion of civil liberties, but there isn't, which is the basic reason we have had these policies under both Democratic and Republican administrations. So as you say, I don't see any danger of that being an issue in '16.

I agree. If a Republican wins in 2016, I could imagine the Democrats splitting again between realist and idealist candidates in 2020, as they did in 2004, but it's inconceivable--barring total collapse--that the Democrats will nominate an anti-Obama candidate in 2016.

@170, a bit of self-serving self-righteousness compared to "we’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers”? 716B in Medicare savings cast as a raid on Social Security and a diminishment of senior benefits. "Pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan." Complete, rank falsehoods. As I said, if you find them equivalent, then fine.

@171, people may not have been but journalists certainly were. The willingness of the Romney campaign to continue with claims that had no credibility long after they had been exposed as false was a recurring theme right up until the election. Ultimately, I suspect to some extent he lost because he was held accountable for this, among other things.

Wha? That may have been straight-up political theater from Clinton, but you can't call it a lie.

Agreed. Clinton was called Slick Willie for good reason, but he never just flat-out switched his political positions 180 degrees and tried to BS his way through it Romney-style. Romney on health care was f@cking hilarious.

EDIT: Coke to spike

It's way too early to speculate about specific '16 candidates

Burn the witch! HERETIC!

Re #161:

I started paying attention to that story with the first report of the double homicide in Irvine, thinking from the beginning that there was something very disturbed and disturbing behind it. One possibility was that it might have been somehow directed at an interracial couple (Asian woman, African American man). But that wasn't it at all. The Asian woman (a basketball player and basketball coach) was targeted solely because she was the daughter of a man Dorner (the suspect) had a beef with.

I would think at this point that the wisest course of action for anyone who owns a blue or gray pickup truck in the LA area would to park the truck and take a cab or rent another car until this ends.

No one at all is going to come out of this looking good. Not Dorner, who is a cold-blooded murderer. Not the LAPD, whose training practices and self-protection instincts are going to come under even greater scrutiny. Not all the trigger-happy cops who opened up on innocent bystanders. This is all going to be ugly.

OCF: Yeah, when I first heard about it, I thought it was extremely weird. First thing is that Irvine is a very quiet city, the type that will put dog bites man stories on its local front page. (Irvine World News which is just a front for real estate ads.) Irvine might not see a homicide for a decade, so to see a double homicide and committed on top of a parking structure says a lot on how unusual this is.

Having been to Irvine, I must say it's rare to see a city comprised, at first glance, entirely of office parks.

On drones, an important update from America's Finest News Source

But it certainly isn't an impossible event.

Far from it.

Wow, I can't wait until they start using drone to take out cop killers.

The Posse Comitatus Act forbids the use of federal troops to enforce state laws. But nowhere does it say state laws can't be enforced with federal technology!

Steve, how are they going to be able to choose a sane candidate

They did choose a "sane" candidate in 2012, of course he spent years twisting himself into a pretzel to appease the "base" before trying to untwist himself...

But only by twisting himself into a pretzel to appease the loonies was he rewarded with the nomination. That's what I'm talking about. The man formerly known as Massachusetts Mitt might as well never have existed, despite rumors to the contrary.

The problem isn't the candidates as they really might be if you gave them truth serum and asked them what they really thought---under those conditions, I'm sure a few of them would come out sounding like Bush the Elder or the McCain of 2000, conservative but in touch with reality. But not when that collection of religious nuts and Ayn Rand fans known as the GOP base gets through with them in the primaries. To put it in BTF terms, that base today consists of little more than a loose coalition of Rays, Nieporents, snappers and Kehoskies writ large: Fun to observe in small groups, and not without knowledge in a few highly specialized areas, but not exactly ready for prime time general election presidential campaigns with any real expectation of winning. Until the GOP can marginalize that group within the party without losing their votes in general elections, they'd better keep praying for economic collapses, because it's just about all they've got.

In L.A., we're dealing with a real life Fugitive/24 scenario with a man named Christopher Jordan Dorner , and the guy already killed 3 people, wounded a bunch of cops, and the cops already shot 3 other people unrelated to the case because they were driving the same make and model of the car the guy was driving. And it all started with a double homicide as revenge against the murdered couple's dad for writing a bad review against the guy getting him fired.. Just crazy. Word is now he stole a boat to try to get to Mexico.

latest is that they think he went the other way. they think they've found his truck in big bear. for you non-L.A. types, that's in the mountains to the east. not far from places like riverside and palm springs.

this link will take you to the guy's manifesto.

there's nothing more dangerous in america than a man with a gun and a grudge.

To put it in BTF terms, that base today consists of little more than a loose coalition of Rays, Nieporents, snappers and Kehoskies writ large:

3 of those guys are far more intelligent and rational than the average teaper/base member
at least 2 of them have positions on social issues that would make the average evangelical teaper vomit

of that group only Kehoskie comes close to being a typical GOP base member, and that make just be a false impression created by his apparent partisan need to defend the GOP and attack the Dems on every single issue

this link will take you to the guy's manifesto.

I had never seen the phrase Cadmean victory before.

To put it in BTF terms, that base today consists of little more than a loose coalition of Rays, Nieporents, snappers and Kehoskies writ large:

3 of those guys are far more intelligent and rational than the average teaper/base member

Granted.

at least 2 of them have positions on social issues that would make the average evangelical teaper vomit

But that's why I called it a loose coalition, not a unified cult. I'm sure that the average existing Ayn Rand spouting teaper would make the average evangelical teaper vomit just as well, and vice versa.

of that group only Kehoskie comes close to being a typical GOP base member, and that make just be a false impression created by his apparent partisan need to defend the GOP and attack the Dems on every single issue.

Again, what's the difference, other than a lack of politically necessary rhetorical restraint, between Ray/Nieporent and Paul Ryan when it comes to economics? What's the difference between snapper and Ryan when it comes to social issues? I'm sure there's some disagreement about details, but the underlying renunciation of a societal-level social contract from Ray/David, and the religious-driven views on RTL from snapper, hit all the same notes as the dominant voices within the GOP base, Ryan's occasional protestations to the contrary.

I agree that Kehoskie's kind of in a class by himself, more like a trained seal programmed by Karl Rove to bark at the right moments than someone who seems to have any core beliefs. I just hope he doesn't wind up in a ditch somewhere.

Pyrrhic victories were called Cadmean victories before Pyrrhus.

there's nothing more dangerous in america than a man with a gun and a grudge.

He drinks PBR and likes World War Z and The Walking Dead, so even worse: a hipster with a gun and a grudge...

Kehoskie supports gay marriage so even he would be considered unfit for high Republican office

Ray and DMN aren't, in practice, liberal on social issues. They'll make liberal sounding sentiments, but when push comes to shove they'll only advocate politically impossible means to the end. Thus, for example, it's wrong to use government power to eliminate discrimination by businesses; only the market should do that. That's why "libertarians" are so useful to the hard right.

Thus, for example, it's wrong to use government power to eliminate discrimination by businesses; only the market should do that. That's why "libertarians" are so useful to the hard right.

And to absolutely no one else. Whether they comprehend their status as tools is a good question.

To put it in BTF terms, that base today consists of little more than a loose coalition of Rays, Nieporents, snappers and Kehoskies writ large:

If only! I'm a died blue Dem, but there ain't no way they represent the base. They're Nobel winners compared to the base. The base is closer to the guy who quit his job because his pay stub had the numbers "666" in a row.

Having been to Irvine, I must say it's rare to see a city comprised, at first glance, entirely of office parks.

I work in Irvine. It's an odd place, a company town where their business is bringing in other people's businesses.

latest is that they think he went the other way. they think they've found his truck in big bear. for you non-L.A. types, that's in the mountains to the east. not far from places like riverside and palm springs.

LE is doing door-to-door searches up in Big Bear, but who knows if he's still in the area. I think they first discovered the burning truck on an access road around 9am, but didn't actually get confirmation it was *his* truck until mid-afternoon. Plenty of time for him to get out of the mountains, if indeed he'd planned for Big Bear.

If not, well, it's no East Coast blizzard, but there's a winter storm coming in tonight through Saturday ...

this link will take you to the guy's manifesto.

That appears to be an abridged version. This is the complete version. I suppose there is a case for deleting the names of the police personnel and others threatened, but I don't see any journalistic reason to omit Dorner's support for gun control, praise of Obama, Biden, Bill & Hillary Clinton, among others, as well as his encouragement to Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborough, Pat Harvey, Brian Williams, Soledad Obrien, Wolf Blitzer, Meredith Viera, Tavis Smiley, and Anderson Cooper. He's also a fan of Piers Morgan.

He supports gun control, yet he's blowing people away?

He's also a fan of Piers Morgan

Fareed Zakaria, however-- not a fan:

Revoke the citizenship of Fareed Zakaria and deport him. I’ve never heard a positive word about America or its interest from his mouth, ever.

The mini-letters to famous people at the end was probably the weirdest part, especially the aside to Michelle Obama complementing her on her new bangs.

And sadly/ironically, this whole incident will probably have a lot of LAPD officers high-fiving each other over all the overtime pay they'll be racking up while hunting Dorner down.