When asked how he reacted when Obama accused Romney’s father of lying during the debate, he replied, “Jump out of your seat and you want to rush down to the stage and take a swing at him. But you know you can’t do that because, well, first because there’s a lot of Secret Service between you and him, but also because that’s the nature of the process.” He added, “We signed up for it. We’ve gotta kinda sit there and take our punches and then send them right back the other way.”

Now that he’s apologized to Obama–he did so personally after the last debate on Monday night, saying he was “just joking”–many are saying the apology is too little, too late.

Image: Twitter

Follow @MrAnthonyPope

Anthony Glenn Pope
@MrAnthonyPope

BAHAHAHAHA! So Tagg Romney issued an apology to Barry O for saying he wanted to hit him. Run up and get done up baby boy!!!

 Reply  ·  Retweet  ·  Favorite
4 hours ago via web · powered by @socialditto

Follow @pwgavin

Patrick W. Gavin
@pwgavin

Email subject line: “TAGG ROMNEY’S APOLOGY IS INSUFFICIENT BY BIBLICAL STANDARDS”

 Reply  ·  Retweet  ·  Favorite
5 hours ago via TweetDeck · powered by @socialditto

Follow @PatDussault

Pat Dussault
@PatDussault

Tagg Romney says sorry to President Obama for ‘take a swing’ remark. This marks Tagg’s 1st ever apology AND 1st ever convo w/ a black man.

 Reply  ·  Retweet  ·  Favorite
6 hours ago via web · powered by @socialditto

Follow @Politicolnews

Politicolnews
@Politicolnews

Tagg Romney looked like he apologized to the Pres. for his comment, why didn’t he make a Public Apology like his comment was made public?

 Reply  ·  Retweet  ·  Favorite
16 hours ago via web · powered by @socialditto

Here’s Romney’s statement, for context:

An important topic, and one which I learned a great deal about, particularly as I was serving as governor of my state, because I had the chance to pull together a cabinet and all the applicants seemed to be men.

And I – and I went to my staff, and I said, “How come all the people for these jobs are – are all men.” They said: “Well, these are the people that have the qualifications.”

And I said: “Well, gosh, can’t we find some – some women that are also qualified?”

And – and so we – we took a concerted effort to go out and find women who had backgrounds that could be qualified to become members of our cabinet. I went to a number of women’s groups and said: “Can you help us find folks,” and they brought us whole binders full of women.

And with that, “Binders full of women” exploded across Facebook and Twitter. Social insight firm Topsy says that Twitter activity spiked to its highest point of the night during the discussion of discrimination in the workplace. Tweets containing the word “women” peaked at 24,170 per minute at that time.

Many of them, I would expect, also containing the words “binder” and “full.”

The odd phrase received plenty of Twitter backlash, most of it looking something like this:

Follow @pattonoswalt

Patton Oswalt
@pattonoswalt

“Binders full of women” is what Ed Gein would say. #debate

 Reply  ·  Retweet  ·  Favorite
11 hours ago via web · powered by @socialditto

And within ten minutes of the utterance, Twitter accounts like @BindersofWomen and @mittsbinder were born. @RomneyBinders also now has over 33,000 followers.

Follow @RomneyBinders

Romney Binders
@RomneyBinders

I wonder if Romney has an elevator for his binders full of women

 Reply  ·  Retweet  ·  Favorite
9 hours ago via web · powered by @socialditto

Facebook users also joined the party, creating dozens of “binders full of women”-related pages and groups. A quick search of “women binders” will show you this. Facebook’s Politics and Government team says that Romney’s “binders” comment shop up 213,900% at one point.

Out of all those pages, one stands proud as the leader. Binders Full of Women has already amassed 243,000 followers and is growing by about 5,000 likes every half an hour or so. Within an hour of being created last night, the group had already garnered over 80,000 likes.

Binders Full Of Women10 hours ago

Gov. Romney clearly misspoke. What he meant to say was that his platform wants to bind women to the 19th century. Powered by socialditto  1,000+ likes ·  776 comments

The page even had Facebook employees impressed with its rapid growth:

Follow @anoyes

Andrew Noyes
@anoyes

Holy moly this Facebook page is growing fast: https://t.co/3rLgVuxz

 Reply  ·  Retweet  ·  Favorite
10 hours ago via TweetDeck · powered by @socialditto

There’s even a “Binders Full of Women” Tumblr that already has dozens of posts.

As you would expect, the Obama campaign team is jumping on the phrase as well:

Follow @BarackObama

Barack Obama
@BarackObama

Mitt Romney still won’t say whether he’d stand up for equal pay, but he did tell us he has “binders full of women.” http://t.co/Twy8XlH0

 Reply  ·  Retweet  ·  Favorite
7 hours ago via web · powered by @socialditto

People say that the internet has made this campaign unlike any other campaign in history. Man, are they right.

His topic? Ron Paul:

If Murdoch had asked such a question in a Reddit AMA session, there’s no telling the amount of responses he would’ve received, but as it stands, besides the 50-plus retweets, once Murdoch’s tweet is expanded, you see there’s been no real interaction with him. What gives, folks? This is your chance to engage in a conversation with one of the most well-known, controversial media members in the world, but yet, the sound of crickets greeted his current events query.

In fact, as of this article, Murdoch’s tweet was broadcast over 30 minutes ago, but yet, the Twitter crowd has given him nothing to respond to, and that’s unfortunate.

The first live global hangout debate will focus on the war on drugs and has piqued interest with a video on Youtube that showcases the following quotes from political insiders:

“A world in which drugs were legally available might be an unknowable, unreversable but potential nightmare.” — Lord Ian Blair, Former Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police

“Prohibition just shovels billions of dollars to very bad people.” — Misha Gerry, Journalist and Author of McMafia.

“Fight the real drug war against poverty and the money launderers.” — Ed Vulliamy, Journalist & Author of Amexica: War Along the Borderline.

“People should not be put in prison for taking drugs.” — Richard Branson, Founder of Virging Group Ltd.

“There is no war on drugs. Time to start fighting it.” — Peter Hitchens, Columnist for Mail on Sunday.

And a final daunting quote from Julian Assange, Founder of Wikileaks states that “A vast Prison-Drug-Industrial Complex has been created.

The debate will be facilitated by BBC newsreader and presenter, Emily Maitlis and broadcast opinions from the likes of Richard Branson, British funny man Russell Brand, Julian Assange, experts such as the former Presidents from Brazil and Mexico, and other guests.

This social media meets politics experiment is scheduled to air on the 13th of March at 7pm GMT.

People have been discussing issues and joining in the debate on a Google Blog dedicated to Versus. A few lucky posters will be selected to join in the live debate.

One Versus blog post quotes Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman Loera, reported head of the Sinaloa cartel in Mexico. Let me know what you think of the candid comments you have been reading on the linked blog and what your stance on the war on drugs means to you!

The search giant said the main change for users would be that it could combine information from one service with its other services, thus providing a more fluid user experience. For example, if you conduct several searches on Google on a particular item, Google could assume that you want a video on that item if you then visit YouTube.

What do you think of Google’s new privacy policy? Does it affect you at all? We’d love to hear your thoughts.

According to Danny Sullivan, the Executive Editor of Search Engine Land, the new policy will provide users with more personalized results. He told us that it really wasn’t surprising that Google made the change since most other tech and Internet companies have one privacy policy for all their products and services.

“Google, which kind of has come from privacy policies on a per product basis, is kind of playing catch up, so that they have the ability to be more flexible both in what they may do with the information and how they may use the information to improve products and services,” he said.

This flexibility is what has some people worried, however. Under the new policy, Google could potentially take the information it gathers when users search to target them with ads. Although Google says it will not do this, the new policy gives it the right if it so chooses.

“Potentially, it gives Google a lot of new rights,” said Sullivan.

Privacy groups have voiced numerous concerns over what the new policy could mean. Specifically, the Electronic Privacy and Information Center (EPIC) has even sued the FTC, saying that Google’s new policy violates the settlement the company and the agency reached last year over Google Buzz. The group is asking the FTC to take action that will prevent Google from combining user data “without user content” before the company puts its new policy into effect next month.

Due to the timing of the matter, a federal district judge ordered the FTC to have its response to EPIC ready today. In return, EPIC is supposed to have its counter response ready by February 21.

EPIC also filed another complaint this week over the privacy assessments the FTC required Google to take. Google said it was complying with the audits but has, up to this point, kept them closed.

“I thought that if you’re going to be audited on privacy, then perhaps you ought to release the privacy audits so that… the public could see it,” said Sullivan.

EPIC claims that the FTC Consent Order required Google to answer detailed questions about privacy and user information but that the search giant did not answer them.

Interestingly, Forbes featured a report this week stating that the court should dismiss the lawsuit between EPIC and the FTC. According to the report, the privacy group is overstepping its third party right under administrative law.

Glenn G. Lammi wrote:

Washington Legal Foundation would be the last one to argue that federal agency actions should be immune from judicial review as a general principle. But once a settlement agreement has been reached between an agency and a private entity, the agency should not be compelled to embrace an outside party’s view that the agreement has been breached. EPIC is welcome to communicate its general views to FTC (which they do so quite often) on the Google Buzz settlement, just as Google might avail FTC of its thoughts on whether a competitor like Facebook or Twitter violated its respective privacy agreement with the Commission. But empowering activists or competitors to imprint their views of consent agreement breach on the Commission would be a dangerous and easily abused tool. If Congress wanted such third parties to inject themselves into FTC’s process on such agreements more formally and authoritatively, it would have said so.

Sullivan told us that, although he has yet to look closely at EPIC’s case, he doubted the FTC would find Google in any violation.

Unfortunately for Google though, that’s not where its problems stop. The European Union has also asked it to delay the roll out of the new privacy policy. In a letter to Google’s CEO Larry Page, Jacob Kohnstamm, a European privacy regulator, wrote:

We wish to check the possible consequences for the protection of the personal data of these citizens in a coordinated procedure. We have therefore asked the French data protection authority, the CNIL, to take the lead. The CNIL has kindly accepted this task and will be your point of contact for the data protection authorities in the EU.

In light of the above, we call for a pause in the interests of ensuring that there can be no misunderstanding about Google’s commitments to information rights of their users and EU citizens, until we have completed our analysis.

In a post on its European Public Policy Blog, Google responded to the letter saying it had met with several officials prior to its announcement and briefed them of the changes. It said that no one had any objections at that time and indicated that it would proceed with its plans to implement its new policy in March.

Most recently, nonprofit Consumer Watchdog wrote a letter to the U.S. House of Representatives’ Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade Subcommittee requesting that Larry Page explain Google’s “disingenuous statements about its supposed commitment to users’ privacy.”

In this letter, Privacy Project Director John Simpson wrote:

“If Google were truly committed to “user control,” it would ask users to “opt in” to these substantive changes in its data handling, rather than imposing them across the board… Google’s practices affect millions of Americans. Google is so dominant on the Internet that for many people Google is the Internet.

You must not allow Google to escape legitimate privacy concerns by sending underlings whose high-sounding pledges prove to be empty or whose answers prove insufficient in closed-door meetings. It is the chief executive who is ultimately responsible for the company’s behavior.”

What’s more, a Washington Post poll found that 65 percent of users said they would cancel their Google accounts over the privacy changes.

Sullivan, however, told us that he believes this poll is “99 percent inaccurate.” As he explained, users reacted in this same way when Facebook made changes in 2010. In the end, Facebook grew instead.

“If they’re that concerned about it, then their alternative is to go to another company that is doing exactly the same thing,” he said. “It really doesn’t come down to what these privacy policies say, it comes down to the kind of controls that you’re provided and given, and ultimately, I think, your trust in the company overall.”

Ironically, as Matt McGee pointed out, Google quietly launched a new program that allows users to get paid if they use the Chrome browser and share their data with the search engine. It’s called Screenwise and pays users in Amazon gift cards. Although many other companies conduct similar practices in order to learn how they can improve their services, Sullivan told us that the timing of this program was very bad for Google.

In spite of the backlash, it appears that Google will roll out its new privacy policy March 1. The company currently has an ad campaign to help to alleviate concerns, but Sullivan believes that Google will need to begin doing extensive PR outreach in D.C. as well.

Does Google’s privacy policy go too far, or is it what you would expect from a company of its size? Let us know what you think in the comments.

The CTIA found that the number of wireless subscriber connections has surpassed the number of people in the U.S. and its territories. It also found a 111 percent increase in wireless data traffic.

While the situation is by all means challenging, the massive eruption of content that sparked it is both encouraging and exciting.

“We’re in this exciting arms race where the creation of content is happening so fast it’s exceeding even these amazing improvements in computing power, these amazing improvements in storage capacity, and particularly, these amazing improvements in connectivity,” said Bruce Mehlman, the former Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Tech Policy and the Co-Chair of the Internet Innovation Alliance.

To help solve this problem of congestion, Congress is currently examining legislation that would free up more spectrum from broadcast radio and television companies. While everyone agrees that more spectrum is needed, the dispute is over how it would be distributed and, specifically, the FCC’s role in this process.

In the past, the FCC has had a very active position in managing the auctions. In other words, it has had the power to place restrictions on auctions or conditions on spectrum based on the bidders’ market dominance and spectrum holdings.

However, the bill that’s currently in the House would remove this power from the FCC, which is a move that is sparking a lot of debate. Former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt recently called the proposed bill “the single worst telecom bill” he’d ever seen.

The House argues that previous government allocations are the reason that the current “spectrum crunch” is happening. It also believes that limitations in auctions would result in less revenue to help reduce the federal deficit.

As Mehlman explained to us, Congress is remembering what happened in the controversial 2008 spectrum auctions as well as the recent failed merger of AT&T and T-Mobile. He sides with policymakers on this issue because he believes the previous restrictions are to blame for the current problems.

In a post on the Internet Innovation Alliance, Mehlman wrote:

Many in Congress fear FCC micromanagement and seek open auction rules free from FCC interference. The FCC, of course, objects to Congressional micromanagement of their micromanagement, seeking maximum flexibility to set auction rules.

The irony here is that these auctions are needed because the last time this spectrum was assigned, policy makers limited its potential use and transfer. Thus much of the spectrum is under-utilized and our economy suffers for it.

In our recent interview, he expressed concern that the same issues would continue if the FCC were permitted to keep its authority.

“The biggest challenge is if the FCC gets its way and follows through with what many in the House fear they might do, which is limit who’s allowed to compete, I think the very spectrum crunch these very auctions are expected to alleviate doesn’t get alleviated… then problems continue,” pointed out Mehlman.

“I think most people would concede the reason there’s inefficient use of spectrum is because of old government decisions on who could and could not use spectrum,” he continued. “Logically, you want less government constraints in the future.”

Some mobile companies are perfectly happy with the FCC’s authority over the auctions as a group of them led by Sprint and T-Mobile sent a letter to lawmakers asking that the Commission’s position remain the same. AT&T and Verizon are not part of this support since they believe the FCC would favor the smaller carriers.

Incidentally, not everyone agrees that auctions would solve the issue. Rick Whitt, Google’s Washington Managing Counsel, recently indicated that auctions would not completely eliminate the spectrum crunch saying, “Auctions will fall short of meeting that gap.”

Mehlman told us that he agrees with Whitt in that content will likely be created faster than bandwidth can be apportioned. But, he believes that this provides an even greater urgency to get policy in place that would encourage an open marketplace.

“Having everybody eligible to acquire the spectrum and to subsequently sell the spectrum to a higher and better user is letting the market allocate the spectrum,” he said. “If we had done that the first time, we would have less congestion, we’d have more high speed wireless, and, I think, we’d have the same amount of competition.”

“We don’t have a problem with lack of competition, we have a problem with a lack of investment, [and] we have a problem with a lack of spectrum aggregation to meet the marketplace needs,” he added.

Even though Sinclair Broadcast Group CEO David Smith said it was doubtful that Republicans and Democrats would be able to agree on legislation for a broadcast television auction this year, Mehlman thinks it is a possibility. As he explained, this legislation is part of larger jobs bill that both sides want to see pass.

Should auctions be open, or should the FCC have a say? What do you think? We’d love to hear your thoughts.

Still, people are creatures of habit, and change doesn’t always come easy. Did you know that many feared the invention of the printing press? Previous to the press, books were unique hand-written works of art which were most commonly read aloud in performances and sermons.

The Bible was the first “pressed” book. It was most commonly read and interpreted by religious figures and scholars. A predominant fear of its mass production was that the layman would begin to consume and interpret its meaning without the guidience of church officials and draw their own conclusion about the content. Not good as far as the church saw it.

Regardless, books became common enough that they were not just for public performance or religeous sermon any more. Everyone knows books are for everyone and are an excepted way to pass on knowledge, learn facts, document history, and entertain us. More recently, we have the evolution of the book, the e-book, and some have anxiety about its role in society.

Let’s look at what book lover’s are thinking on both sides of the coin: For and against e-books domination of the market.

Pros For E-Books:

1). Real books are heavy and cumbersome. Often it is hard for them to stay open on their own and readers have to fidget with them to get comfortable.

2). Real books are expensive. Not only for consumers but also to manufacturers. The books have to be printed, packaged, and distributed. These processes consume materials and resources not to mention what the consumer has to go through to get it from the retailer.

3). Real books can easily be lost or damage. While an e-reader is expensive at first, many books can be read and saved on the device. Even if the reader was damaged, the contents of the publication can be accessed by a replacement reader more easily than a water damaged box of books can be replaced.

4). An e-reader offers much that a book cannot. A dictionary, a clock, internet access, the list goes on. A book is just a book. It has more uses than just reading however; those uses are relatively limited.

5). Privacy. People cannot see what book you are reading. In fact, you can have one e-reader and be reading several books at once. also, if your e-reader is password protected, no one else can even open your book.

Pros for Real Books:

1). A physical book is yours to own and use as you see fit. Make notes in the margins, write your name in it, display it on your bookshelf, cut out pictures from there pages, ect. You own the book.

2). You can loan a book in physical form and not have to worry about infringement of any kind on the authors intellectual property or right to be payed. Physical books allow you to “by hand” pass on the information inside of it and share the experience with others.

3). Physical books offer an experience that extends to more senses than just sight. Well worn books especially might have this effect. The smell, feel, weight of a book offer a feast to more of the senses. Perhaps the pictures offer more in physical print than those of digital format.

4). A book is a single purpose object. You won’t be distracted by clocks, software updates, or other tasks you can perform on the book. For those hoping to escape reality for awhile and enjoy a good book, this may come as a comfort.

5). A book can be purchased used. Used books offer an opportunity to access material at a discounted cost. Digital versions remain pristine forever and may never be discounted or the opposite, disappear from servers altogether. This could be a disadvantage for readers of older publications.

Conclusion:

So a lot of what fans are saying about the pros and cons of e-books are in direct opposition of one another. I guess it really just comes down to what you need the publication for, where you plan to read it, and what kind of budget you’re on. The same debate could take place for digital versus cd or record format music. A lot of hardcore music lovers still swear by the record for sound quality and overall listening experience.

The debates and speeches get live-tweeted, and there’s a lot of fun to be had from that. But, some folks are hitting the Tweet button sooner than later.

Including this guy…

Newt Gingrich has a long record as a Washington insider & is the only Speaker to be reprimanded for ethics violations mi.tt/zgoIOh

— Mitt Romney (@MittRomney) January 24, 2012

And this guy…

If you are for paychecks you are with us, and if you are for food stamps you are with Barack Obama. newt.org #withnewt

— Newt Gingrich (@newtgingrich) January 26, 2012

@newtgingrich Let’s have a refreshing debate tonight and not the same old questions and answers.These debates are repetitive!!!!

— April Roga (@swtypy) January 26, 2012

@JohnKingCNN It’s a disservice to serious voters when raucous erruptions at #cnndebate overshadow actual substance.Please maintain order.

— Shirley Widlacki (@patriotmom61) January 26, 2012

Newt promises “there will be plenty of moon taco bells” on our future moon colonies and asks everyone to “get off his back about it”

— Kelsy Abbott (@kelsyabbott) January 26, 2012

Weird that the GOP candidate discussing moon colonies is not the Mormon guy.

— Kasey Anderson (@KaseyAnderson) January 26, 2012

Santorum: Everyone knows moon colonies are a common ploy forthe 10-yr-old boy vote, but the politicians never follow through.

— Pema Levy (@pemalevy) January 26, 2012

Gingrich goes to Miami and panders on immigration. He goes to Space Coast and panders on moon colonies. Can’t wait to see Newt’s Vegas act.

— Alberto Martinez (@albertemartinez) January 26, 2012

The longer “moon colonies” continues to trend the less likely it is that Newt will win…#GOP2012 #cnndebate

— Eric Nichols (@enichols679) January 26, 2012

@MittRomney At tonight’s debate, when Newt attacks capitalism, tell him that this is a Republican Debate, & tell him he’s at the wrong one.

— Chad Jay Mahoney (@CJayMahoney) January 26, 2012

Gingrich divorced his cancer stricken 1st wife. Asked his 2nd wife for an open marriage. Calls CNN “despicable” for mentioning it #CNNdebate

— CJ Werleman (@rationalists) January 20, 2012

I say we add “and book signing” to every GOP event. The GOP Debate And Book Signing. The Republican National Convention And Book Signing …

— Brian Young (@BrianYoung) January 26, 2012

Talk about answered prayers. There’s another Republican debate tonight! I’m sure Newt is mainlining venom right now.

— Margo Howard (@Margoandhow) January 26, 2012

Get set for the vitriolic barbs to be flying back and forth at tonight’s Republican presidential debate in Florida: apps.facebook.com/dailysocial/ar…

— Carmel Melouney (@carmelmelouney) January 26, 2012

Why yes, I’m LiveTweeting tonight’s Republican Debate. 5pm PST, CNN.Get yer jowl-jowls out, Newt!

— Patton Oswalt (@pattonoswalt) January 26, 2012

Good God, there’s another Republican debate tonight. It’s almost as if they think people enjoy these things.

— Aaron Flynn (@AaronMFlynn) January 26, 2012

Here’s how the Twitterverse responded to this rash of nods from all four remaining GOP candidates.

Newt Gingrich answered the SOPA question first, saying, “I favor freedom.” He said that there are already tools and avenues of recourse in place to allow copyright holders to sue and stop piracy domestically. Gingrich continued:

“The idea that we’re going to preemptively have the government start censoring the Internet on behalf of giant corporations’ economic interests strikes me as exactly the wrong thing to do.”

Mitt Romney chimed in:

“I think he got it just about right… The law as written is far too intrusive, far too expansive, far too threatening to freedom of speech and movement of information across the Internet. It would have a potentially depressing impact on one of the fastest growing industries in America, which is the Internet and all those industries connected to it.”

Ron Paul pointed out that the others were late to the party:

“I was the first Republican to sign on with a host of Democrats to oppose this law… The Republicans, unfortunately, have been on the wrong side of this issue.”

Rick Santorum, while agreeing with everyone else that SOPA goes too far, did have a personal axe to grind.

“The Internet is not a free zone where anybody can do anything they want to do and trample the rights of other people… The idea that ‘anything goes’ on the Internet, where did that come from? Where in America does it say that ‘anything goes’?”

Of course, Rick Santorum has been embroiled in his own personal fight with Google and difficulties on the Internet.