Slashdot Mirror

After they're done gutting FISA, they'll "reward" the media giants with tiered WWW pricing and the banning of "evil" protocols - just watch.

Signing Statements:

http://www.coherentbabble.com/signingstatements/TOCindex.htm

On December 20, 2007, President Bush signed routine postal legislation. In a "Signing Statement", the President claims Executive Power to search the mail of U.S. citizens inside the United States without a warrant, in direct contradiction of the bill he had just signed.

January 4, 08 Story:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003508676_mail04.html

House Dems Near Surrender on Bush Spying:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ari-melber/house-dems-near-surrender_b_89726.html#postComment

Washington Politicians Are Gutting America Like A Fish:

http://whitehouser.com/politics/bush-fascism-failed-democracy/

Bush Legacy Already Established - Helen Thomas:

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/helenthomas/15358518/detail.html

Nancy Pelosi:

http://www.house.gov/pelosi/

email:

americanvoices@mail.house.gov

(415) 556-4862

District Office - 450 Golden Gate Ave. - 14th Floor - San Francisco, CA 94102

Greetings:

I left you a voice message earlier.

There is an article at The Huffington Post:

House Dems Near Surrender on Bush Spying:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ari-melber/house-dems-near-surrender_b_89726.html#postComment

If you read the comments, I think you might just begin to understand the movement that is starting to happen. I think all the Democrats you lead in the House should read this.
It's of things to come.
We have had it.
Democrats, and even a lot of Republicans are starting to wake up to the major damage done by this President, to our Constitution and our Freedom, and of the empty promises you, Nancy, made to those of us that put you there to represent us.
This Congress, lead by you, will be held responsible for idly standing by, and of recent, participating in the dismantling of our laws and accepted practices and replacing them with "mere precedent" and outright disregard for the rules of law, the ones we go to prison for, the same ones others are exempt from.
You and the Democratic Party will hear from us, we have, as a group, a starting list of 12 in the Democratic Party that will not be returning, as they are to be voted out.
The Republicans, double.

You have woken the sleeping giant that is the American people, and you all will be hearing from us and a growing number of voters across this country, that oddly enough depends on a manipulated election system we've all grown wise to.

A few weeks ago, we had thought you all had come to your senses by standing up to Mr. Bush and his group, but evidently, it was fake. We had, at one time thought that maybe you were waiting for the proper time to act. But you've decided which side you're on.
You all have failed to uphold your oaths.
We/I, have lost faith, so we shall act, and we will organize, and we will win.
Last chance has already past, and you all blew it to a lame duck President, no less.

SURRENDER DOROTHY

http://www.littlestuffedbull.com/images/comics/surrenderdot.jpg

>>Why should you care if the airlines are making a profit? The more lucrative the industry, the more companies enter the field, the more competition, and the better prices and service we get. Maybe not right away, but in the long run we do like the companies that provide services to us to minimize their costs.

That would explain our $100/barrel oil while Exxon just posted the biggest profit of any corporation ever on earth ($40.6 billion). Just for perspective, Exxon's profits last year were around $10 billion.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/article/chevron-exxon-record-profits-reaped-cost-sliding-economy-strapped-consumers_461941_1.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/01/exxon-posts-record-profit_n_84463.html
http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/economy/2008/02/01/exxons-profits-measuring-a-record-windfall.html

I agree with your post except for that last part.

-b

"Why is everybody so much against Wal-Mart?"

I give you these:

Article describing the impact of Walmart on local economies and the 'cost' of raising their floor wage to $10/hr

Book describing what it's like living on minimum wage in America

In short; Walmart is exploitative of it's workers. Greed keeps it that way, and supporting Walmart supports that same sin.

As to the rest of it; I know everyone dislikes Unions, but I'm always taken aback when people rail against them. Unions protect you as much as they do everyone else; the cost is some inefficiency, yes. But I, for one, would rather work in an inefficient world than one in which people are regularly used, abused, and even killed in order to be paid a pittance. Do you really want to go back to when they had kids crawling through deadly machines, or locked women in buildings to get their work done? Unions provide a necessary push-back against the corporation. This balance of forces is necessary for an economy that focuses on the benefits of everyone, rather than the few at the top.

Could unions be better? Of course! Name me one thing that couldn't, though. The real question is; are we better off with them or without them? And that takes a cold hard look at what the tradeoffs are. Happily, there is historical evidence!

History of Unions!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/31/fly-naked-germans-offer-_n_84315.html

My mother actually offered to buy me this T-Shirt for x-mas: http://www.stickergiant.com/Merchant2/imgs/450/b8014_450.jpeg

• The Huffington Post
• Fortune (CNN/Money)
• An auction of such patents
• Software patents allowed in the UK (Previously covered on Slashdot

This story is peanuts compared to the Sibel Edmonds saga.

http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_01_28/article1.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-giraldi/sibel-edmonds-must-be-hea_b_84781.html

Here is a quote from Clinton:

the invasion of Iran.

I hope this helps in the construction of your bunker-bomb resistant bomb shelter.

PatRIOTically,
K. Trout

lobbying indeed.

walmart has been pulling a similar stunt like this for years. there's been a number of articles on the huffington post about this lately.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-norman/walmart-pays-208678-fo_b_84601.html

basically, walmart builds a store in some rural or suburban county, usually by promising an increase in sales taxes. however, in a bit of sleight of hand, the physical walmart store is owned by a real estate investment trust (reit) incorporated in delaware and wholly owned by walmart. the final bit is that the walmart store pays a rent that is calculated based on its sales. the result is that the individual walmart store manages not to show any net profit (and pays no income taxes) in the state where the store is located. all the profits show up as rental income in delaware which, wonder of wonders, has no taxes on reits as long as 90% of the profts are paid out to the owners, in this case, walmart based in arkansas.

in short, walmart takes advantage of a loophole present in many state income tax codes to move all it taxable profits from (name the state, north carolina, wisconsin, massachusetts, etc.) to a state where there is little or no corporate income tax.

not too different from how microsoft is moving profits earned by operations in washington to nevada.

and, finally, when taxpayers in the states where walmart pulls this stunt wise up, walmart increases its lobbying budget to prevent state governments from closing up the loophole.

Known for drawing a hard line based on a strict interpretation of the Constitution, fiscal responsibility and libertarian ideology, Ron Paul is considered somewhat of a maverick - once described by current opponent John McCain as "the most honest man in Congress."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-treul/an-interview-with-ron-pau_b_71108.html

Brief Overview of Congressman Paul's Record:

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/about/

Alot of candidates in this race like others in each presidential race have promised change and many time and time again abandon promises and by doing so betray the American populace.

Regardless of issues you may have with Ron Paul he is by far the most honest of all the candidates and surely intends to do what he is talking about.

Remember to vote this coming November!

Amazing. Found a video about her ignorance.

More amazing ignorance: The Gift That Keeps On Giving: Dana Perino Reveals The Awesome Benefits Of Global Warming.

Was hiring her a decision Cheney allowed George W. Bush to make?

looks like qtrax is a little high on marketing hype and a little low on legal signatures. Looks like their contract with warner music expired and qtrax didn't realize it.

oops.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/27/updated-music-label-says_n_83439.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080128/ap_on_hi_te/downloading_music;_ylt=AqkSd1FOGDKGg2itrlsdV.MjtBAF

It does look fishy

well the full recount will happen January 16th So we'll get to the bottom of that. I personally think we won't find any grand conspiracy, but it will be good to just show people that sometimes things aren't exactly as they seem. Sometimes polls are off, and strange weird little things happen during elections that can only be attributed to random chance, rather than malice. We still, need to minimize any and all errors, sometimes they really screw things up Florida style.

The toll-free number to call is 1-800-ALQ-AEDA and ask to speak to
Richard B. Cheney.

Cheers

Considering how many conservatives are literally aghast at Huck's success so far, I still think he's toast come Super Tuesday.

It's delightful to see this happen on the Republican side - usually its the Democratic establishment telling their base to shut the fuck up and vote, cuz you don't want a repeat of Nader in 2000, now do you?

The Republican establishment is freaking out because some uppity theocon with a populist message is not making a token run for the presidency - he has a good chance of getting the nomination. Same thing happened to Dean in 2004 - the Dem establishment hated him. The problem with taking out Huckabee is that I think the anti-Huck vote will be split between McCain and Romney.

My ideal situation would be Edwards vs Huckabee with Bloomberg running on a Unity 08 ticket. The press would be forced to talk about economics from the viewpoint of the middle class for once, and with the theocons voting for Huck and the corporatecons voting for Bloomberg, the establishment Dems would be given the finger, and the God-gun nut-free market jihad would finally be sundered.

Edwards doesn't look likely at this point because he *really* needed to win Iowa. The media has been entirely focused on Hillary vs Obama on the Democratic side, and Edwards doesn't have the warchests his two opponents do. Huckabee is surging but the GOP establishment hates his guts and will now do their best to destroy him. And there's a lot to work with - his "wedding registry" when he left office in Arkansas, his penchant for pardoning violent criminals based on the say so of his pastor buddies, for example.

Anything around here that allows you to hook up to a PC is ridiculously expensive and works like crap, and they still reserve the right to mysteriously cap your "unlimited" usage or to bill you extra if you go over that limit. That's the plans that do allow hooking up to a PC at all. Mine, like many, is "unlimited" for the phone, but I still have to pay per kB to hook it to another device and let that use the connection.

There was a news story not long ago about a guy on a plan like mine in Canada who ran up an $85,000 phone bill because he didn't see the distinction in the fine print. Yahoo, DSL Reports, The Huffington Post, CNet UK, Canada.com, Geek.com, and /.'s own Firehose have had the story, among many other sources.

I can get Sprint, AT&T, or possibly Verizon (haven't check on their coverage and plans here lately for data) here that will allow me to hook up to my PC for "unlimited" data transfer, but it runs about $100 a month on top of a required voice plan, and although most phones will do it only certain phones or a dedicated cell modem is allowed to have the plan. Sprint says theirs is both "unlimited" and "broadband", but they also say it's not to be used to replace a leased line Internet service. So which is it?

at 1-800-ALQ-AEDA and demand the arrest, detention, trial, conviction, AND
sentencing of the world's biggest gunrunner.

Thanks for your activism.

PatRIOTically,
K

I have to say that I'm surprised by the view many hold that he is not doing well. I'm not predicting that he will surely get the nomination, but he surely isn't doing poorly, either; and it is very possible that he could be nominated.

Rudy Giuliani: "The Ron Paul people are all over the country."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5csHHBtLwds

"Ron Paul - Everywhere in New Hampshire" -- Political Chowder
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rszZnspwEFo

Ron Paul Turnout May Shock the Iowa Primary
By Matt Towery, Dec 6, 2007
http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/printer_17563.shtml

Ron Paul 3rd in Iowa
Posted December 7th, 2007 by chester
"According to the Huffington Post, Ron Paul is 3rd in Iowa:"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chase-martyn/new-report-ron-paul-thir_b_75756.html

Fox News: Ron Paul 3rd in Iowa poll 12/07/2007
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvUhofcs4Cs

Great news from Illinois!
Posted December 5th, 2007 by Brian Bailey
"RON PAUL CAMPAIGN FILESMORE THAN 24,500 DELEGATE PETITION SIGNATURES"
CHICAGO - The Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign Committee filed more than 24,500 delegate petition signatures in Springfield Tuesday to secure positioning on Illinois ' February 5 Republican primary election ballot.
http://www.paulunteer.com/2007/12/05/congratulations-illinois/

Ron Paul First Place in West Virginia Delegates
"WV is 50th in fundraising for Ron Paul, no paid staff at all, and we are beating 3 campaigns that worked the establishment and had paid state and county coordinators. This is entirely grassroots."
http://www.wvgopconvention.com/content/img/f42045/Delegate_Registrations_12_06.pdf
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=48457

Are people still holding the view that he is doing poorly after being made aware of the above? It's hardly the end of the list. I'd say he is doing quite well when taking everything into consideration. Let's not forget that he has plenty of room to grow.

Ron Paul placing in the top three in Iowa and first place in New Hampshire doesn't seem bad at all.

In-Flight Service .

Thank you for voting for the Military-Industrial-Congressional (a.k.a Your War Machine) Complex.

Cheers,
K. Trout

Funny, they're busy blaming the democrats for the war this week.

Arianna Huffington wrote a whole book on the topic in 2000 (well before Bush): How to Overthrow the Government. It's a fantastic read.

When visually there is no real difference, price will will

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ron-galloway/walmart-decides-hd-forma_b_71293.html

Here's a (better) review of this whole situation.

You see, the Republicans supported Kucinich's latest hail mary because they know it would be an embaressment to the Democrats. With that support the vote passed and the house 'leadership' was force to bury it in a committee.

I don't think so. The last thing the Republicans want is a legitimate investigation into the events leading up to the Iraq war. The (now disbanded) "Office of Special Plans," created by the Bush Administration was designed solely for the purpose of generating false intelligence reports made by non-experts that were used to intentionally mislead lawmakers and the public on Iraq. This along with the fact that Dick Cheny's business partners and associates made literally hundreds of billions of dollars in profits from government contracts from the war in Iraq creates--at the very least--the appearance of impropriety, which should be cause enough for a public investigation. If this were about preventing embarrassment, then the democrats completely failed on that front because they provided further proof for the commonly-held belief that they are incapable of reining in this administration. This whole affair made them look, at the very least, disorganized and, at worst, completely ineffectual.

I think a more likely explanation is that the Republicans faked out the Democrats big time on this one. Republicans took a gamble and, in an act of bluster, voted FOR the bill, confusing rank-and-file Democrats back into their instinctive partisan tendency of voting !=Republican, which ironically put them against their own bill. I didn't watch the C-SPAN of this when it went down, but from what I've read it was a complete freakshow, which makes me think that this bill and the DNC response wasn't a coordinated effort of the Democratic leadership by any means.

-Grym

"I had student deferments in college, and, upon taking a physical, was discovered to have a physical - uh, by virtue of what the military says, I didn't even know it existed - a physical deferment and then the lottery system came along, when they chose your lot by birtdate, and mine was high. And I did not want to go - just as Governor Clinton didn't."

At 1-800-ALQ-AEDA and warn them of this threat.

Bullshit? I know more than a few leftwingers who think this exact same way - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mary-mapes/courage-for-dan-rather_b_65257.html

That's why I mentioned 'truthiness'. The actual 'facts' don't have to be legit, as long as the intent is to bash anything/everything on the right, then it's A-OK.

BTW, I don't like 'ole Rusty(Limbo's top 40 DJ name before he invented the term femi-nazi) either.

Democrats in Congress suffer from Autoshadowphobia, or fear of their own shadow, and believe that the public will fall for the Innocent Bystander Fable, the notion that Democrats are powerless to change the war in Iraq.

I usually roll my eyes at complaints of the "two party system", but we need to be able to vote out these cowardly Democrats without handing their seats over to even worse Republicans.

It also has to be mentioned the great Republican hypocrisy of the "up or down vote". They blasted Democrats for being obstructionist, but now threaten to filibuster everything. I wonder if the media will lampoon Senator Warner for "voting for the bill before he voted against it" the way they did Kerry. But then, IOKIYAR.

I found this answer by Obama on the connection between education and technology.

The first half of Obama's comments are the usual talk we hear from all the democratic candidates - that no child left behind is a failure, etc.

The last minute and half of the answer, however, is very interesting - Obama presented a great new idea (and I've heard pretty much every idea that every candidate throws out there on most issues, but I had never heard this) that ties together two important campaign issues: energy independence and education. More than that, I think there might be two parts to his point, one subtle and one obvious.

The first part is that we need kids to go into science and engineering, and energy independence is a good motivator. The second, subtle part is that if we have a president who can once again inspire the youth like JFK, we'll be twice as effective in the first part - and truly will be able to create a movement around energy independence that will probably spread to other needed economic arenas.

Especially when you think about this: Karl's vision has always been, in his own words, a "permanent Republican majority." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jackson-williams/karl-roves-permanent-re_b_60219.html there is plenty more where that came from if you google it. It's downright scary, and something out of 1984 (when Winston is reading the book that was supposedly written by Goldstein about how Big Brother came to be). Maybe I'm just paranoid anymore.

This really takes the cake, kdawson.

Seriously, how long did it take you to come up with this one? Are you even pretending to be impartial or marginally even-handed any more? This is just pathetic... I've been a reading of Slashdot for forever and this kind of crap (your pattern of stories, namely) ranks up there with Jon Katz in terms of sheer, mindboggling tone-deafness.

Do us all a favor and quit. I hear they're looking for aggregators at the Huffington Post. And I'm sure DailyKos would love to have you.

Bollox. Seen this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/art-brodsky/our-inte rnet-policy-is-a-_b_63396.html

Several years ago, I got stuck with some bogus cashier's checks. I think the amount was around $10k. I went to the FBI, I went to the Secret Service, I went to the Postal Inspector. They all work for the same Federal Prosecutor, and they all broke the same news, that they couldn't afford to waste their time investigating because even if they brought the culprit in he would never be charged. "The AG's office has to allocate its time" was how it was explained to me.

Apparently the Feds are too busy prosecuting sick and dying invalids for smoking state-legal marijuana after they're brought in by DEA thugs http://www.huffingtonpost.com/reena-szczenpanski/m ultiagency-drug-task-fo_b_62401.html to be bothered with protecting the property stolen from nobodies like me.

So, as I say, I'm pretty sure the best of the on-line scammers are onto this, and they carefully craft their hits to be less than, say, $20,000. It is, literally, a "get-out-of-jail-free" card!

Call 1-800-ALQ-AEDA and request the detention; military commissions trial; conviction; and sentencing of the world's most dangerous person: President-VICE Richard B. Cheney.

Thanks for your support of freedom and democracy.

Now and call your Senator and demand the arrest; military commissions trial;
conviction; and sentencing of the world's most dangerous criminal.

Thanks for your contribution to peace and democracy.

Pax,
Kilgore Trout, M.D.

Notice you didn't see a thread here encouraging people to ask Democrats [about taxes and Al Qaeda]

Well, this being a site whose demographic is more united in a concern with science than on an agreement about tax policy or foreign policy, no, you didn't.

I'm not a Democrat or running for President. (Yet...I've hit the age requirement, and looking at the current field of candidates, might just write myself in 2008.) But I'd love to hear such questions put to candidates.

Here's how I'd answer: well, sir, if you want to lower taxes, you have to lower spending. Now, given that Americans pay lower taxes than most nations of comparable economic development, I don't find the issue tops on my priority list; especially when we're talking about increasing taxes on the unearned income of the wealthy, whose share of the tax burden has fallen.

But as it happens, a tremendous amount of money is being wasted on American "defense" spending, especially in the Iraq occupation. (Not to mention American and Iraqi lives.) U.S. military spending makes up close to half of the world total, with the next tier of nations (the UK, France, Japan and China) with around 5% each. We could almost halve our military budget and still be outspending any other nation five to one! But talk about such spending cuts - which would enable significant tax cuts - and neoconservatives go apeshit. It's as if they view the military as America's penis and fear it shrinking. (I fear they've confused their rifles and their "guns".)

Meanwhile, they love to make a big fuss about cutting spending on welfare and social programs, which make up a very small amount of federal spending and wouldn't save the average American more than a few dollars a year.

Politicians love to lump "entitlements" all together, ignoring that the bulk of that is Social Security (third rail!) and that a large chunk is military retirement spending and VA benefits, which rightly should be counted under military spending. Actual welfare and social development spending is fairly small.

As for Al Qaeda, "retreating" is not a concept that applies to fighting criminals. The whole notion that a "war" can be fought against a criminal gang like Al Qaeda (which was not in Iraq before we fucked it up, and would fall apart there if we weren't recruiting for them with screwups like Abu Ghraib) is the root of the problem here.

What will happen if we pull out immediately? The same thing that will happen if we pull out next year, or in five years, or in twenty years - chaos. The question is whether we are smart enough to cut our losses.

In the game of go, there is a common strategic error (at least for beginners like me) where a player will try to save a group of stones with a "ladder", laying down more sones and trying to escape. But a knowledgable player will see the pattern develop, knows his pieces are doomed, and lets them fall rather than wasting even more resources to have them and even more fall.

Iraq is a quagmire; Cheney knew it thirteen years ago. The invasion was a stupid and criminal thing to do. Bush and company should be impeached for their crimes, and the U.S. (and U.K., which really bears the root responsbibility for screwing up the Middle East back to the British Mandate) should compensate the Iraqi people as best it can and get the hell out.

This country has a lot of radical Christian roots (Puritans, anyone?) so it's not all that surprising that our views on intellectualism are shaped around that.

You give those people more credit than they deserve.

In light of what passes under the banner of "intellectual" nowadays, it's a miracle that anti-intellectualism is not far more prevalent than it is.

You could have been polite and come back with a reasonable response, agreeing that money is corrupting both sides but you have issues with the source, and that'd be just fine.

I don't think the money is corrupting both sides. Read what I wrote. There's a big difference between getting supervised government grant money to spend on research and getting completely unsupervised personal checks from the oil companies to spend on Ferraris.

Just having a steady job is enough to make most people compromise their principles.

Oh, for god's sake. So now, anybody who's employed can't be trusted?

Paranoid much?

And to top it all off, how often do men like Spencer and Christy get the kind of exposure that Newsweek gives to the alarmists?

All the damn time! You can't hardly turn on the TV without seeing something like "The Great Global Warming Swindle", which Christy appeared in. On the other hand, who can you think of, off the top of your head, who's actually come out supporting the scientific consensus on global warming?

Al Gore, pretty much. I can't think of a single actual scientist who's gained any notoriety as a result of this. That's because the legitimate climatology community leads with evidence, not with credentials and personalities.

I wonder what kind of car Richard Lindzen or Patrick Michaels drives?

Sen. Inhofe, who you linked to, has received more than $650,000 from ExxonMobil alone. Denialist Steve Milloy runs two organizations that each have received more than $40,000 from ExxonMobil. As for Lindzen and Michaels, I imagine they're both making out handsomely from their royalties from the "Global Warming Swindle" show. Anyway, if Lindzen doesn't drive a Ferrari, it's not for being unable to afford one - he was making more than $2,500 a day in the 90's to shill for the oil and coal industries.

Pat Michaels was the personal beneficiary of more than $150,000 from Colorado energy companies last summer. I'm not really a car guy - does $150,000 buy a Ferarri?

But it has a very bad effect too. The risk of death is all that stops some of these fanatics.

The Huffington Post did a video asking why all these College Republicans who promote the Iraq war on campus, aren't IN IRAQ fighting. As it turned out they would all love to go, but erm, can't due to various ailments and excuses.

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/57382/

The same problem happened with the sons and daughters of the congressmen who voted to invade. They want other peoples sons and daughters to risk death, not their own.

But this remove the risk of death, and the risk of their own death is what keeps fanatics like that from being more destructive. It's probably the only moderator for some of the more psycho religious types.

Imagine weapons like this in the hands of that 'Christians United for Israel' group, a group backed by AIPAC (=Mossad front group), the group that wants to attack Iran to bring about Armageddon by cleaning the earth of evil. Imagine if they could kill without fear of counter attack. They'd be driving these machines across the net shooting at anyone that gets in their way.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/raptu re-ready-the-unauth_b_57826.html

I think we'll have to wait until the New York Times kills their silly "Select" feature: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/07/20/nyt-may-k ill-timesselect-_n_57155.html

Ah, the classic "I'm not doing anything wrong so I don't have to worry about it" argument.

Well then do this for me:

-Record all of your phone calls and post them on the internet
-Put up all your sent/received e-mails on the internet
-Print out a copy of your bank statements showing all transactions, and put them up on the internet
-Leave your curtains/blinds open 24/7
-Stop mailing things in envelopes, send everything as a post card
-Make sure to leave your stall door open when you use the restroom at Chili's

After all, you have nothing to hide right?

You might argue that the general public having access is not the same as the government having access, and perhaps that's true. But who makes up the government? That's right, people like you and me (of/by/for the people, remember?) And when 10 years from now, your neighbor who now works for the government and has an axe to grind, pulls the complete history of your phone records and searches through it using some key words to find something to embarrass you with, you'll realize that you (and everyone else in the world) DO have something to hide, and it's not unreasonable to feel that way, even if you have committed no illegal acts. Our personal identities and our safety are centered around being able to keep some things private.

But have you REALLY committed no illegal acts? You've never traveled 1 mph over the speed limit, or downloaded a single song you didn't own, or eaten a grape you didn't pay for at the grocey store, or jaywalked, etc.?

Have you ever read Amendment #4, by the way? I'm sure some neocon lawyer type could argue that the subject of this article doesn't violate the letter of it, but it can't be argued against that it violates the SPIRIT of that amendment.

Here's an article for your further consideration:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/nsa -surveillance-why-sho_b_16763.html

Although she's an expert on the law, her interpretation leaves a lot to be desired.

To support the impeachment of the biggest recipient of weapons bribes.

Pax,
K. Trout, C.E.O.

Call your U.S. Senator and demand the arrest, military commissions trial, conviction, and
sentencing of the world's most dangerous crime syndicate.

Thanks for your support of freedom and democracy.

Seditously,
Kilgore Trout

If the Brits were paying U.S. $240 million in weapons bribes, I wonder what the U.S. gunrunners were paying BushCo.

Patriotically,
kilgore Trout, C.E.O.

Car crashes Linux and then phones "President" George W. Bush.

.He seems to delight in presenting guests who are anti-war, anti-Bush and skeptical of the administration's motives." The report went on to outline a possible nightmare scenario where the show becomes "a home for the liberal antiwar agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity."

> It is not playing in the US media because no law was broken when those attorneys were fired.

1. pete domenici (r-nm) tried to force attorney generals to indict democrats for voter-fraud
2. alberto gonzales (ag) almost certainly lied under oath

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/19/opinion/19mon4.h tml?ex=1331956800&en=dfab854c91a51b4b&ei=5088&part ner=rssnyt&emc=rss
http://www.gregpalast.com/investigative-journalist -greg-palast-reports-on-the-firing-of-new-mexico-a ttorney-david-iglesias/
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002677.php
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-kleiman/the-fal l-of-pete-domenici_b_43006.html
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/20 03699882_webmckayforum09m.html?syndication=rss/

Same old, same old. Politicians to not understand how technology can come back to haunt them. In the internet age things are rarely gone for good.

In the past politicians have released word doc press releases where journalists have been able to check the history and see what was originally typed, and I have lost count of the number of PDFs with redacted text that can be easily recovered (http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/22/13 8210).

When will politicians learn?

What I don't understand - perhaps an american can explain this to me - is how the White House was in a position to be able to delete emails? Surely a better system would be to require (by law) a neutral party to oversee, backup and archive all political information. After all in a hundred years it will be a valuable part of your national history and heritage - instead its just an embarrassment.

And as for blaming it on a dead woman who cannot defend herself, thats just wrong. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/toby-barlow/white-ho use-finds-someone_b_46344.html

There is a discussion on this topic at the huffington post
Read it and understand the topic a bit and then post a response.

Huffington Post Debate

Call your senator now to demand the arrest, military tribunal trial, conviction, and
sentencing of the Al-Qaeda's Chief of Operations.

Thanks for your patriotism.

Seditiously as always,
Kilgore Trout, C.E.O.