Slashdot Mirror

Why do you continue to promote that lie? It has been proven true at this point that Wilson was aware that the crime at the store had taken place prior to his encounter with the perpetrators.

Don't take my word for it. Watch the video of the grand jury decision press conference:

http://www.c-span.org/video/?322925-1/ferguson-missouri-grand-jury-decision-announcement

The transcript of the video says:

"AT ABOUT 11:53 A.M., WILSON HEARD A RADIO BROADCAST OF STEALING IN PROGRESS AT A MARKET IN. THE BROADCAST ALSO INCLUDED A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SUBJECT. A BLACK MALE, WEARING A WHITE T-SHIRT AND A BOX OF SWISHER CIG ARS."

"AS OFFICER WILSON CONTINUED WEST, HE ENCOUNTERED MR. BROWN AND HIS COMPANIONS TO WALKING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET. AS WILSON SLOWED, HE TOLD THEM TO MOVE TO THE SIDEWALK. WORDS WERE EXCHANGED AND THEY CONTINUED TO WALK DOWN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET. WILSON OBSERVED THAT MICHAEL BROWN HAD CIGARILLOS IN HIS HAND WHEN WAS WEARING A RED HAT."

So the GP is right, and you are wrong. The officer did have a reason to suspect he was dealing with a criminal before the subsequent incident took place.

The GP's comment should be modded up, not down. Yours should be modded down, because what you're saying is factually incorrect.

Do you even read?

Climate alarmist say the frenquency will increase quite often.

We dont need the make up predictions. They do that on all their own.

John Cook
http://www.theguardian.com/env...

Michael Mann
http://www.livescience.com/414...

James Hansen
http://www.c-span.org/video/?3...

As asked.

John Cook
http://www.theguardian.com/env...

Michael Mann
http://www.livescience.com/414...

James Hansen
http://www.c-span.org/video/?3...

And this is just one link each, there are many many many more.

John Cook
http://www.theguardian.com/env...

Michael Mann
http://www.livescience.com/414...

James Hansen
http://www.c-span.org/video/?3...

This video
  http://www.c-span.org/video/?c...
shows the symbology and operation of the helmet as a reporter wears it. It's expensive, yes, but it's revolutionary.

Flup. I forgot the link
http://livedash.ark.com/transcript/key_capitol_hill_hearings/55/CSPAN2/Monday_February_24_2014/697213/

Here's video on C-SPAN, but I couldn't get the transcript to display in full.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?317941-1/national-association-business-economics-conference

While my "conservative" friends get their news from Fox, my "progressive" friends get their news from Facebook.

I wont bother asking them what they "perceive" because I already know that my "progressive" friends are grounded in repeated hate slogans and sound bites, rather than actual understanding, while my "conservative" friends are grounded in whatever Fox is going on about.

I get my national political news from C-SPAN.

The sad fact is that there is no incentive to be an informed voter. The effort is too great relative to the "payoff" for putting in that effort.

British Cmte. Holds Hearing on Horse Meat Investigation
http://www.c-span.org/Events/British-Cmte-Holds-Hearing-on-Horse-Meat-Investigation/10737438575/

He had a lot of people thinking about it, until he offered up dropping a Hellfire on Jane Fonda.

Funnily enough, he just (~3:53 PST) mentioned Jane Fonda as a good example of somebody who dissents and even supports the ideals of the enemy, yet doesn't deserve to be put on some secret drone strike list.

You can watch the filibuster live on C-SPAN's website. Big viewing numbers may show a little (if inconsequential) support for his effort.

Education
Even in the US that depends on the school—the University of Iowa, for example, has tuition fees closely matching those of the University of Toronto.

Food
Journalists travelling to North Korea are rarely allowed to see more than a few sanctioned areas, so interviews wouldn't show you lower class North Koreans. If you watch the Dispatches video I linked you to, there are some photos in there smuggled out by defectors that show people as emaciated as Nazi concentration camp survivors.

Indoctrination
The US is actually extremely diverse in some areas (mostly the big cities); if you compare San Francisco to Detroit, the gulf is almost as big as Sweden and Greece. I can say with absolute certainty that English-speaking Canada does not indoctrinate its students; there are very few patriotic Canadians except those in our (laughable, UN-serving) military, and most in Ontario and BC are agnostic or atheist. The US conservatism I'm speaking of mostly decayed in the late sixties.

Pluralism
I don't think the basic elections matter too much when they only exist for show. The candidates are appointed anyway, after all.
Personally, I'm very sad about the Truman doctrine and all of the tinpot dictatorships that the US created in south-eastern Europe and south-west Asia to impede the Soviet Union.
The US political parties aren't just financial interests; despite corruption, they still respond to voter feedback as well. A very prominent example of this was the defeat of SOPA earlier this year, which was accomplished primarily through protest and the petitioning of citizens. If you've never watched C-SPAN before, it's a very insightful (and extremely dry) window into the world of the American democratic process.

Colonialism and the Free World
The original definition of "Free World" just meant any anti-communist, capitalist country, including dictatorships. It was propaganda invented by the US. What do you think makes a 'free' country?

Maybe they should get ...

That hearing was held on March 16th. The subject of this hearing was a different topic.

The Democrats were willing to cut spending a little and raise taxes a lot.

I wouldn't be so sure

From the article:

Monday, July 18: Sen. Coburn returns to "Gang of Six" with a $3.7 trillion reduction plan.

Tuesday, July 19: House passes "Cut, Cap and Balance" bill, Pres. Obama insists on additional $400 billion in revenue by allowing certain Bush-era tax cuts to expire

Thursday, July 21: Speaker Boehner leaves talks with Pres. Obama over demand for additional $400 billion in revenue

Friday, July 22: The Senate kills "Cut, Cap and Balance" bill. Pres. Obama holds a news conference on status of debt ceiling negotiations.

So, the Dems were asking a little over $1 in tax hikes proposed, for every $10 in cuts. That doesn't sound like "cut spending a little and raise taxes a lot". It sounds like the Dems started out with a compromise, but were rebuked by a party too stubborn to even step up to the table.

The inevitable legal battles are going to be hilarious...

I think historic Supreme court decisions are very interesting to listen to because you've got some very skilled lawyers who break the concepts down in clear language. It is pretty satisfying to hear the justices methodically drawing an argument out in full and then tear it to shreds.

...when defense lawyers start forcing RIAA et al to pick apart the exact technical differences between local and remote playback.

IANAL, but I suspect the RIAA might respond that the technical difference is not the issue. The legal difference is that the data is passing through lines and routers owned by third parties and crossing legal jurisdictions. It will be a very interesting case, but I don't think it will be nearly as one-sided as you're thinking because established law has such strong protections of IP.

But will you feel the same way upon the exposure of those within the government past and present who have committed treason and hide it using the machinery of classification?

There is already evidence out of such acts going on within government.

http://www.c-span.org/Events/Lawmakers-Discuss-Constitutional-Issues-Raised-by-WikiLeaks/10737418252-1/

  About 1:46:45 in... consider what is being said with the following in mind:

"United States Code at 18 U.S.C. 2381 states "whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States." The requirement of testimony of two witnesses was inherited from the British Treason Act 1695."

I'm sure there is more acts of treason within our government to uncover. For it is common of deceivers to claim of another what they themselves are guilty of. Julian is not American and as such he cannot be charged with treason, yet there are several politician who don't seem to know this including Joe Liberman. Why is that? Simply because they are themselves are guilty of what they are projecting upon Julian.

Its not a crime to expose treason within the government. Next thing to happen is effort to claim Manning did not pass such information to wikileaks. Otherwise he'll be seen as a hero while those committing treason are tried and shot. And that will be a hard thing on government top do.

We already see act of espionage being exposed within government... so why are those obviously guilty still free?

This is coming very shortly after the congressional hearing where Eben Moglen gave testimony among others (see C-SPAN at 1:37:52). He actually explained AdblockPlus to counter the argument that the advertisment industry would collapse if privacy in the Internet would be restored.

But until dubya decided to get his jollies by launching himself a couple o' wars

Bush invaded Iraq on the information he had at the time. That information turned out to be false (my money says someone grabbed the warheads and bolted before/during the initial invasion given the ridiculous amount of warnings they were given, but the fact is I don't know). 9/11 was a rude awakening for him and made him take a good look at the world's preeminent threats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dujail_Massacre

http://www.usembassy.it/pdf/other/iraqfocus1.pdf

http://www.c-span.org/Content/PDF/hrdossier.pdf

Let's hope those will convince you what an evil scumbag he was and how the world is better off without them. And if you're still wondering about the al-Qaeda connection, they had a base in Anbar province.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Anbar_Governorate

  If I were him, I'd have invaded sooner, with or without WMDs. Nevertheless, I believe that Bush is a good and honorable man and I will defend him until I'm dead.

Multiple newspapers sat on or killed stories because, then Director of National Intelligence, Negroponte asked them to.

And the government isn't used to anybody telling them "no". That's the biggest reason they're pissed - because they aren't in control of this situation, Wikileaks is. I watched the full press conference yesterday where they issued this ultimatum. He looked like such a fool. "Demanding" that Wikileaks "does the right thing". If you ask me, Wikileaks has already done the right thing by asking for assistance from the U.S. Gov't (albiet indirectly) in redacting the documents. Wikileaks should issuea a public statement/open letter to the DoD making it clear that they want to do the right thing by redacting documents and omitting portions of them which could put people in danger. If (more likely when) the DoD refuses, the blood is on their hands.

The only problem here is, Wikileaks is essentially using these 15,000 documents as insurance. They're in somewhat of a stalemate now, since if they release them, they've lost their leverage. Unless they can use the un-redacted versions as insurance after they release the redacted ones.

http://www.ap.org/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/
http://online.wsj.com/home-page
http://www.nytimes.com/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
http://www.cnn.com/
http://www.c-span.org/
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/
http://www.popularmechanics.com/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/

Need I go on?

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN2.aspx

I also watch C-SPAN. That's funded by cable providers and available only to their subscribers

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN.aspx

#twatch

I'll be first in line to pay for the #TWAT CHannel!

It's been available since 1997, free of charge ;)

Isn't that abridging the freedom of the presses that want to make political statements endorsing candidates? It basically says, "Don't make political endorsements, or else we'll tax you."

The same basic argument has already been made by churches many times. The answer by the Supreme Court has always been, "Endorse anyone you want, just don't expect the Federal government to subsidize it with a tax expenditure." Seems like a reasonable outcome to me.

The elucidating comment I've read on this so far was from http://www.reddit.com/r/business/comments/85nk2/spitzer_the_aig_bonuses_are_a_smokescreen/c08bmtg

__________________________________________________________________
About the current CEO:

        * He's being paid 1 dollar a year.
        * He gets no bonuses, either way.
        * He gets no stocks.
        * He didn't sign these contracts, he inherited them.

About the people who tanked AIG:

        * They are gone.
        * They were few.

About the people who received the bonuses:

        * They did not kill AIG
        * They were offered these bonuses last year, to stay for another year, and clean up the mess.
        * They reduced $2.7 trillion of shit to $1.6 trillion of shit.

About the bonuses:

        * They are less than .1% of the bailout money.
        * They were offered last year, to retain people until they cleaned up the mess.
        * They were NOT meant to retain people for next year.

What if we didn't pay them?

        * The people who are (successfully) cleaning up the mess, would leave.
        * Then, they would sue (rightfully so).
        * AIG would have to try to replace them, while trying to prevent losses on the suddenly 'unmanaged' accounts.
        * AIG might be forced into bankruptcy, for defaulting (aka: we lose).
        * AIG might survive, but take further losses, and need more help (aka: we lose).

Personal thoughts:

        * We should have let them fail, but we didn't, it would be idiotic to let them fail now.
        * The current CEO deserves nothing but respect, but instead, he gets death threats.
        * The people who stayed on, and cleaned up the mess, deserve to be well paid. They saved us a ton of money, and the bonuses are marginal in comparison.

Analogy:

The people from FP (financial products) are the burger flippers at McDonalds. The people who got the bonuses work the counter at McDonalds. The burger flippers made some seriously shitty burgers. They got fired. The counter crew has spent the last year trying to find places to safely unload those burgers (worm farms, bacteria labs, etc.) It was a dirty job, and Mike Rowe wasn't available.

Yes, I'm contradicting a post I made yesterday. I watched the full hearings on C-Span today http://c-span.org/Watch/watch.aspx?MediaId=HP-R-16464, and learned a hell of a lot from them. Yeah, I changed my mind, but that's what I do when I learn that the facts don't match my perception.
__________________________________________________________________

Techincally, a "tax expenditure" is when the government forgoes revenue on something in order to protect or promote it (ex. the 501(c)(3) tax exemption is a tax expenditure on charitable activities). See this definition: Tax Expenditure

The federal government "spends" vast amounts of money by specially exempting certain things from taxation. (This is not to be confused with the stuff government doesn't have a right to tax to begin with.)

Right. But:

http://www.c-span.org/about/copyright.asp

C-Span's copyright policy for their own material is easily the most liberal I've ever seen associated with a television network. It boils down to this: As long as it's non-commercial use, and you keep the C-Span bug in the corner of the screen, go for it.

They even freely proclaim that almost everything on the network is, in fact, public domain and free of copyright, due to the Federally-funded nature of (most of) it.

Sounds good enough to me.

We got stuck in a similar issue with our schools. The cafetorium is scheduled for lunch at that time and doesn't have cable anyway. It also serves two different schools that are linked by the cafetorium. The only places that cable exists are in the libraries that can only sit about 30-50 kids each (grade level sizes are 130-150 per grade level and we are talking about 6 grade levels). Some grades wanted to watch live while others wanted to watch later in the day. I solved it with the new web server I was setting up. I am going to stream CSPAN over our network to classrooms with projectors. I am using Quicktime Broadcaster along with QTSS (This is what we're using. You might find an alternative that fits your system better). Quicktime Broadcaster will also record the event at the same time and we will have it available shortly afterwards as a streaming video. I chose CSPAN specifically because of their rebroadcasting rules. This allows us not only to broadcast it but also rebroadcast it for the high school the following week for class use since they have mid terms during the event. The sad thing is that these schools were going to have cable installed in each classroom but the school board at the time worried about students/teachers watching tv all day. On top of that, the newly negotiated cable franchisee they signed just last year included wording that the school/town needed to pay for any new cable installation beyond the one they already have installed. Since we just found out that are state isn't giving $421,000 of the expected subsidy we budgeted in for this fiscal school year, we are sort of in a budget freeze. Work with what you got!

So I can watch my government officials with inserted annoying advertisements,

Well, what business is Google in again? Right. Selling ad space.

with crappy video that's blocky and looks like an angry fruit salad

Serving up video is very bandwidth intensive. What were you expecting? A 1080p HD MPEG-4 with a 256 Mb/s Dolby 5.1 surround sound audio track?

I can't save it to my own computer or give it to my friends because it would violate the TOS

You can link it to share with your friends and as far as saving it goes, there's always the Video Downloader extension for Firefox, which will now even automatically transcode it for you (at least on Linux).

Look...what's your alternative? You can already stream Congressional hearings live, and they also have a video library with all the highlights.

What more do you want? Blu-Ray discs hand-delivered to your door?

So I can watch my government officials with inserted annoying advertisements,

Well, what business is Google in again? Right. Selling ad space.

with crappy video that's blocky and looks like an angry fruit salad

Serving up video is very bandwidth intensive. What were you expecting? A 1080p HD MPEG-4 with a 256 Mb/s Dolby 5.1 surround sound audio track?

I can't save it to my own computer or give it to my friends because it would violate the TOS

You can link it to share with your friends and as far as saving it goes, there's always the Video Downloader extension for Firefox, which will now even automatically transcode it for you (at least on Linux).

Look...what's your alternative? You can already stream Congressional hearings live, and they also have a video library with all the highlights.

What more do you want? Blu-Ray discs hand-delivered to your door?

They have a complete Debate Coverage page to be precise.

I think there will also be a stream available from C-SPAN, which will probably be preferable to the abysmal journalism of Fox News one may be subjected to at the beginning or end. It looks like a local DC PBS affiliate is also offering a live webcast, but a) I'm not sure how much bandwidth they'll have and b) it looks like it's offered either as windows media video or through silverlight, so this may be tough if you're on Linux.

I think that, aside from questions of capacity, C-SPAN is probably the best option because you can get the debate relatively unfiltered. Looking at analysis can be useful, but do it after you've had some time to digest it and come to your own conclusions. Then getting another view can add some insights you missed. Most networks want to rush on with the "analysts" and interviews from spin alley to tell you what to think before you have a chance to consider it yourself. This can color your whole perception of an event, framing the terms in which you think about, in a way that has little to do with logic or the issues.

Now what seem really hard to find are audio podcasts of the debates. Often, when I miss a debate I just want to get an audio podcast to listen to while I'm going someplace or doing chores around the house, etc. I don't really need to see the debate, if anything that draws focus to irrelevant stuff and away from substantive issues. Unfortunately, these are hard to find, and in the past I've had to grab a video and then make the mp3 for myself.

Try C-SPAN

Which is why they'll do a voice vote to pass it and you'll never know how many people voted for it and who voted for it.

What proof do you have that a given career equates to being able to automatically assume someone's cluefulness level about a give subject?

Proof? You can't handle the proof.

Watch the vote live thanks to C-SPAN http://www.c-span.org/watch/cs_cspan_wm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS

On the war issue that many neoconservatives hate him for, Paul has said repeatedly that he is against undeclared wars. He's also said that Presidents are to follow Congress on declaring war or refusing it. This means that Paul _would_ go to war if Congress declared it, even in Iraq. He's putting politicians in their responsible positions by demanding that they follow the Constitution.

Get your facts straight.

http://www.c-span.org/guide/congress/glossary/bullypul.htm

"the only difference in Reps and Dems are the tie colors "

Are you sure? http://www.c-span.org/images/2004vote/bushkerry3_200.jpg

I don't remember the debates in 2000

For a fee, tapes are available in BETA version, which is broadcast quality and requires a C-Span release, or in VHS format, which does not require authorization. To order by phone, cite the ID number listed below.

I have four words for you: high crimes and misdemeanors

First three google hits:

From http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A07


What are High Crimes and Misdemeanors?

Bribery and treason are among the least ambiguous reasons meriting impeachment, but the ocean of wrongdoing encompassed by the Constitution's stipulation of high crimes and misdemeanors is vast. Abuse of power and serious misconduct in office fit this category

From http://www.constitution.org/cmt/high_crimes.htm

"the key to understanding [this term] is the word "high". It does not mean "more serious". It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons...

Offenses of this kind survive today in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It recognizes as punishable offenses such things as refusal to obey orders, abuse of authority, dereliction of duty, moral turpitude, and conduct unbecoming. These would not be offenses if committed by a civilian with no official position, but they are offenses which bear on the subject's fitness for the duties he holds, which he is bound by oath or affirmation to perform...

Therefore, the appropriate subject matter for an impeachment and removal proceeding is the full range of offenses against the Constitution and against the rights of persons committed by subordinate officials and their agents which have not been adequately investigated or remedied."

According to http://www.c-span.org/questions/week119.htm

"Lawyers and historians are still arguing about the exact meaning of "high crimes and misdemeanors," dividing into three schools of thought about the appropriate definition: (1) serious criminality evidenced by breaking existing law; (2) an abuse of office, and (3) the Alexander Hamilton standard (Federalist 65) of "violation of public trust."

historically, Congress had issued Articles of Impeachment in three broad categories: (1) exceeding the constitutional bounds of the powers of the office; (2) behaving in a manner grossly incompatible with the proper function and purpose of the office; and (3) employing the power of the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain."

Given these definitions, can Bush and Cheney be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors"? Hell yes!

The only problem with your logic is that the assertion that "C-SPAN is a publicly-supported charity" is flat out, one-hundred-percent, plain wrong.

"C-SPAN is a private, non-profit company, created in 1979 by the cable television industry as a public service. Our mission is to provide public access to the political process. C-SPAN receives no government funding; operations are funded by fees paid by cable and satellite affiliates who carry C-SPAN programming." --C-SPAN website

If you ever watch C-SPAN, they will frequently say "Created by Cable, offered as a public service." This is not just a line. That bias comes out in minor ways, too (their website used to have a link "Get cable Internet!")

Please vote for Bush! He is stupid! He is the one we want!

Anyone but Bush! Clinton just lobbed missiles, Bush sent fighters, bombers, gunships, soldiers, marines, aircraft carriers, special forces, missiles, advisors, supplies to the Northern Alliance, and cut off our funding! Even Pakistan, one of three countries in the world to recognize the taliban is backing away! We miss our training camps in Afghanistan! We miss running the country with the Taliban! That bugger had the top 75% or our leaders captured or killed and thousands of our jihadis with them! This is working... not! Osama misses driving around the country in a SUV instead of riding a donkey cart in a burqa. That Kerry called American soldiers war criminals... maybe he will bring them all home, put them in jail, and leave us alone!

[T]he President shall [...] make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that:

[..]acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

In Public Law 107-243, Congress made a number of findings
concerning Iraqs support for international terrorism. Among
other things, Congress determined that:
  Members of al Qaida, an organization bearing
responsibility for attacks on the United States, its
citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred
on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
  Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international
terrorist organizations, including organizations that
threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens.
  It is in the national security interests of the United
States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all
relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be
enforced, including through the use of force if necessary.

Compose your thoughts clearly and intelligently in a written letter. A hand written letter has the most impact.

Once you've sent that letter, wait 1 week and then call them to follow up on your letter. Make sure you have a copy of your letter in front of you when you call so you can go over the specific points.

Also, considering that an election is coming up, take the time and send letters / make calls to the challengers, too. They want your vote as badly as the incumbents do. And they're usually far more willing to push an item if they think that it will get people to vote them in.

The last step is to grab 5 of your friends who would not have otherwise voted and go vote (make sure to register first, though).

Then you and your bloc can celebrate the return of Democracy with pizza and beer.

http://www.c-span.org/guide/congress/glossary/bloc .htm

We had plenty of resons to take out Hussein. Really only one of which is necessary. He tried to have Bush Sr. killed http://www.c-span.org/iraq/history.asp If some jack ass tin pot dictator took a shot at whacking my old man and I ended up being the leader of a super power with the ability to take him out I would straight up take him out. And if I had to feed you a line about WMDs to get the ball rolling so be it.

1) Prior to that, insulin was expensive and came from pigs, whose insulin is different enough to cause allergic reactions in some people. Genetically engineered bacteria producing human insulin was the first safe and mass production method to exist. This method is used for producing a large number of other human hormones for various other treatments, but thanks to the high obesity, insulin's the best known, and as the diabetic child ratio hits 1 in 3 or even 1 in 2 soon, it'll be the one everyone's paying attention to.

2) That may be what bush is "thinking" but it's not what Bush said. But let's say Congress does what you think they'll do and ban federal funding for the companies producing insulin in this way. What happens then?

I know this is Slashot, so painting with a broad brush and taking things out of context is the norm. Maybe PP was supposed to be funny, but if so you missed the mark a bit.

[...] demanding that law enforcement agencies obtain warrants (even retrospectively) makes the country unsafe, and helps terrorists? I know this, because no less an authority than The President said while talking about NSA wiretaps [...]

What he said, according to the C-SPAN transcript was:

It is said that prior to the attacks of September 11th, our government failed to connect the dots of the conspiracy. We now know that two of the hijackers in the United States placed telephone calls to al-Qaida operatives overseas. But we did not know about their plans until it was too late. So to prevent another attack -- based on authority given to me by the Constitution and by statute -- I have authorized a terrorist surveillance program to aggressively pursue the international communications of suspected al-Qaida operatives and affiliates to and from America. Previous presidents have used the same constitutional authority I have -- and Federal courts have approved the use of that authority. Appropriate Members of Congress have been kept informed. This terrorist surveillance program has helped prevent terrorist attacks. It remains essential to the security of America. If there are people inside our country who are talking with al-Qaida, we want to know about it -- because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again.

That has nothing to do with librarians, unless members of al-Qaida have overdue books or something. You're making the same mistake the FBI apparently does, confusing the need to fight foreign terrorists with the need to fight domestic crime. Maybe you knew that, though.

Most people think calling an al-Qaida phone number is probable cause to have your phone records searched and even to have your very own wiretap. Most people would also insist that domestic crime be fought with traditional due process. Lumping the two together is a mistake, both politically (whichever side you're on) and for its actual results.

Seizing the computers is a move driven by forensics. You want to keep the evidence from becoming tainted by further use of the computers. The trouble is that the FBI doesn't have the authority to seize the evidence, and they're bureaucratic nimrods. So they try to bully their way along, without realizing that if they explained the process to the librarian she'd probably have been of immense help. If there's one thing librarians are good at, it's knowing where things are. Getting the library to cooperate, instead of pushing them around, actually would have resulted in tighter control of the evidence, since the computers would not have had to move.

If you have a bit too much time on your hands (as I did at 3am last night when this aired) you can check out
the video from C-SPAN.

my 2 cents: I would really like to see the methodology of the "experiments" they conducted to determine good and bad retailers. Be curious to see what sort of sampling bias and bioethical considerations (human subjects, after all) went into that.

On C-SPAN, C-SPAN2, and C-SPAN3, you can get all the U.S. government coverage you can stand. During the evening hours, they show the racier stuff like Canadian Parliament and the ever-popular U.K. "Prime Minister's Question Time."

You can watch them live over the web and they even have Podcasts! How cool is that!

Don't you mean C-SPAN?

surely you mean C-SPAN ?