Slashdot Mirror

No, in reality the IRS investigated all groups with political parties and movements in their names, since they're required by law (i.e. Congress) to only allow non-political groups to be granted tax exempt status. And the IRS investigated (and rejected) far more liberal groups than conservative groups. So (1) they were required to investigate political groups, so the investigation was not only proper, it was required by law passed by Congress, and (2) they didn't target Tea Party groups exclusively or even disproportionately.

So what were you complaining about?

WRONG

A bushel of Pinocchios for IRS’s Lois Lerner

In the days since the Internal Revenue Service first disclosed that it had targeted conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status, new information has emerged from both the Treasury inspector general’s report and congressional testimony Friday that calls into question key statements made by Lois G. Lerner, the IRS’s director of the exempt organizations division.

The clumsy way the IRS disclosed the issue, as well as Lerner’s press briefing by phone, were seen at the time as a public relations disaster. But even so, it is worth reviewing three key statements made by Lerner and comparing them to the facts that have since emerged.

...

The Pinocchio Test

In some ways, this is just scratching the surface of Lerner’s misstatements and weasely wording when the revelations about the IRS’s activities first came to light on May 10. But, taken together, it’s certainly enough to earn her four Pinocchios.

Four Pinocchios

Just in case you were wondering, the Washington Post rates "Four Pinocchios" thusly:

Four Pinocchios

Whoppers.

And "Four Pinocchios" is as bad as it gets. Their scale doesn't go to five.

No, in reality the IRS investigated all groups with political parties and movements in their names, since they're required by law (i.e. Congress) to only allow non-political groups to be granted tax exempt status. And the IRS investigated (and rejected) far more liberal groups than conservative groups. So (1) they were required to investigate political groups, so the investigation was not only proper, it was required by law passed by Congress, and (2) they didn't target Tea Party groups exclusively or even disproportionately.

So what were you complaining about?

WRONG

A bushel of Pinocchios for IRS’s Lois Lerner

In the days since the Internal Revenue Service first disclosed that it had targeted conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status, new information has emerged from both the Treasury inspector general’s report and congressional testimony Friday that calls into question key statements made by Lois G. Lerner, the IRS’s director of the exempt organizations division.

The clumsy way the IRS disclosed the issue, as well as Lerner’s press briefing by phone, were seen at the time as a public relations disaster. But even so, it is worth reviewing three key statements made by Lerner and comparing them to the facts that have since emerged.

...

The Pinocchio Test

In some ways, this is just scratching the surface of Lerner’s misstatements and weasely wording when the revelations about the IRS’s activities first came to light on May 10. But, taken together, it’s certainly enough to earn her four Pinocchios.

Four Pinocchios

Just in case you were wondering, the Washington Post rates "Four Pinocchios" thusly:

Four Pinocchios

Whoppers.

And "Four Pinocchios" is as bad as it gets. Their scale doesn't go to five.

Actually they did the same thing to socialist etc. groups. In fact the only group that was actually denied a tax exemption was a progressive church.

But don't let facts bother you.

BULLSHIT

The Internal Revenue Service on Friday apologized for targeting groups with “tea party” or “patriot” in their names, confirming long-standing accusations by some conservatives that their applications for tax-exempt status were being improperly delayed and scrutinized.

Lois G. Lerner, the IRS official who oversees tax-exempt groups, said the “absolutely inappropriate” actions by “front-line people” were not driven by partisan motives.

Umm, yeah, the IRS didn't target them. That's why they apologized. And no, it wasn't for political purposes. That must be the IRS can't find her emails....

What was that about facts bothering you?

Well that's the seizure portion of it and the recent Supreme Court ruling, one of the worst in history, doesn't say anything about the sale of those assets. That decision is so horrible because a lot of prosecutor's budgets are funded by seized assets creating a conflict of interest and violating the 5th and 6th amendments. We've seriously gone to far on the war on drugs and the police state mentality in this country and it has to stop. If this guy is convicted then the assets obtained illegally should be forfeit, agreed but wait until the fucking trial is at least concluded and guilt or innocence is determined. Defendants also must have the right, as written in the 6th amendment to choose their own counsel and that requires funds to provide an adequate defense. If the assets are seized, then you have no right to chose your counsel creating a no win situation. That's a secondary consideration but as a citizen I'm very concerned that something like this could happen to me or my family and while I'm fighting in court the government is just selling everything off that we've worked our entire lives to acquire and protect. Right now the government has built a case but it's only been seen by a grand jury in the Ulricht case, that doesn't mean a conviction and selling the assets is a violation of his 5th amendment rights.

When Ralph Nader was running in 2000, he was barred from the debates.

The Democrats and Republicans have a oligarchy here in the States when it comes to political candidates.

We also have a populace that has been programmed by propaganda to fear the "other side" soooo bad, that they'll vote for the "lesser evil".

There are plenty of BS reasons and rationals that people use - "throwing your vote away" is the most idiotic one of all.

So, people, the parent is right. And we DO have the government that reflects the people. And the people are lazy, easily manipulated cows.

But the thing is, just try to go against the flow of mindless walking cows.

I will continue to throw my vote away and listen to people who bitch about how things never change with disgust.

Obama is Bush term 3 &4? WTF did you expect?! That's his campaign rhetoric was the truth?

And if you think Romney would have been better, you are just as delusional and just as much of a sheep as everyone else.

Pathetic sheepeople - ALL of you!

Over 5 million people in the US hold secret-level or higher security clearances. Nearly all of them have work that involves classified computer systems, ALL of which are air-gapped. And that doesn't even count commercial applications where the company is concerned about industrial espionage.

Your objections here only display your ignorance, not your wisdom.

BTW, you've met at least one now.

I will take the 5 million number at face value.
I laugh at the idea that nearly all of those people access classified computer systems.
And the idea that they're all air gapped? That's just complete bullshit, as recent history has shown.

The article seems to explain what is [not] happening, not why...It's called the influence of money on politics.

Or perhaps, the senate wants to prevent the US from turning into a 2nd or 3rd world country? The so-called patent reform treats even valid patents as troll patents, putting a lot of financial pressure on inventors, by making it difficult for inventors to sue infringers. In case of a trial loss, the inventor has to pay the infringer's legal costs, according to the new law. This disincentivizes inventors to patent inventions, resulting in lower product revenue, which in turn reduces GDP of the US, substantially.

In this washington post article, this letter explains it better:

The patent system is the bedrock of the U.S. economy. The future of the U.S. economy and our nation's ability to compete successfully in an increasingly competitive global economy is dependent on Congress fostering a strong patent system that incentivizes innovators to invent. Amending the law as this bill does shortchanges the future of our economy for an unbalanced policy. The stakes are far too high not to get the balance right.
        We cannot support changes to the patent system that substantially weaken all patents. We oppose the legislation that we understand Members are being asked to agree to today and ask that you not support it.

The article seems to explain what is [not] happening, not why...It's called the influence of money on politics.

Or perhaps, the senate wants to prevent the US from turning into a 2nd or 3rd world country? The so-called patent reform treats even valid patents as troll patents, putting a lot of financial pressure on inventors, by making it difficult for inventors to sue infringers. In case of a trial loss, the inventor has to pay the infringer's legal costs, according to the new law. This disincentivizes inventors to patent inventions, resulting in lower product revenue, which in turn reduces GDP of the US, substantially.

In this washington post article, this letter explains it better:

The patent system is the bedrock of the U.S. economy. The future of the U.S. economy and our nation's ability to compete successfully in an increasingly competitive global economy is dependent on Congress fostering a strong patent system that incentivizes innovators to invent. Amending the law as this bill does shortchanges the future of our economy for an unbalanced policy. The stakes are far too high not to get the balance right.
        We cannot support changes to the patent system that substantially weaken all patents. We oppose the legislation that we understand Members are being asked to agree to today and ask that you not support it.

Over 5 million people in the US hold secret-level or higher security clearances. Nearly all of them have work that involves classified computer systems, ALL of which are air-gapped. And that doesn't even count commercial applications where the company is concerned about industrial espionage.

Your objections here only display your ignorance, not your wisdom.

BTW, you've met at least one now.

1. We are not currently experiencing a "surge of people ... at the border". In fact it has been dropping since the Great Recession started in 2007. That's 7 years (getting up towards a decade).
2. We are not going easier on illegal immigrants than in the past either. In fact, Obama is on a pace to deport more people than Bush, or in fact any other president in history. This while illegal immigration is declining. (There is actually some debate on this point, but its pretty clear the guy has at least not let up on the gas).
3. Cantor never expressed any support whatsoever for amnesty. His entire crime was saying on local TV that he'd be willing to work with the president on a "border security bill", if the POTUS would change it to make Cantor happy (note, not Congress, but Cantor. There are already enough votes in Congress to pass the Senate's bill unchanged).

A cynic might wonder whether Cantor's bigger crime was expressing insufficient callousness to "illegals", or expressing a willingness to "work with the President".

Romney hinted at this in one of the Presidential debates, with a line about too big to fail that was predictably ignored by the mainstream media. George Will picked up on it in one of his op-eds. Will has written extensively on the subject of crony capitalism, with a focus on the unholy alliance of business and regulators. Will speaks for the intellectual wing of the GOP, such as it is, so it's not as though they aren't aware of this problem.

Romney was probably the wrong person to try and make this argument, though it would have been refreshing to see him try. I can't recall him saying anything on the matter other than the throw away line about too big to fail, which is a pity, because it's an issue he could have made headway on.

Extract "school grades" from standardized tests with local added questions. Measure teachers by the delta in each student between end of last year and end of current year. That way they're only measured on how much the student learns. Put in a demographic correction and there you go. Doesn't add any more tests, really does measure the teacher's teaching instead of the student's performance at grade level.

People have tried that. It doesn't work.

According to Diane Ravitch (and pretty much everybody else who has studied the data) the one factor that most strongly predicts standardized test scores (and their delta) is family income. That wipes out every other factor. Once you've done the demographic correction, the effect of the teacher is too small to be measured.

There's no statistically valid test that measures the teacher's teaching ability.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
Actually, Louis C.K. was right about Common Core — Ravitch
By Valerie Strauss
May 3, 2014

the American Statistical Association issued a report a few weeks ago warning that “value-added-measurement” (that is, judging teachers by the scores of their students) is fraught with error, inaccurate, and unstable. The ratings may change if a different test is used, for example. The ASA report said:

Most VAM studies find that teachers account for about 1% to 14% of the variability in test scores, and that the majority of opportunities for quality improvement are found in the system-level conditions

Because they are more experienced, duh!

How much more valuable is the 6th or 7th or 8th year of experience? If the students learn more, then teachers would be happy to be paid based of student test scores.

There is no scientific evidence that any standardized test of students can demonstrate the ability of teachers, and quite a bit of evidence that it can't. Well-designed tests can give information about broad patterns like entire schools, or the nation as a whole, but they can't say anything about an individual teacher.

Just about all education experts (like Diane Ravitch, for example) who have looked at the data have found that the most significant factor predicting student test scores is the students' family income. You want to raise test scores? Give parents more money.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
Actually, Louis C.K. was right about Common Core — Ravitch
By Valerie Strauss
May 3, 2014
Louis C.K. tweeted “My kids used to love math. Now it makes them cry. Thanks standardized testing and common core!”

Alexander Nazaryan, Newsweek, took him to task and asked Diane Ravitch to critique what he wrote. Ravitch criticized Nazaryan and defended Louis C.K. on her blog. Nazaryan makes the false claim that teachers' unions oppose Common Core. Actually, the NEA and AFT accepted millions of dollars from the Gates Foundation to promote Common Core, which they support, but they complained about implementation after their members complained about lack of resources, professional development, curriculum, etc.

the American Statistical Association issued a report a few weeks ago warning that “value-added-measurement” (that is, judging teachers by the scores of their students) is fraught with error, inaccurate, and unstable. The ratings may change if a different test is used, for example. The ASA report said:
          Most VAM studies find that teachers account for about 1% to 14% of the variability in test scores, and that the majority of opportunities for quality improvement are found in the system-level conditions.

Report by American Educational Research Association/National Academy of Education said test scores are affected by factors beyond the control of teachers.

Diane Ravitch:

Your belief in using test scores to hold teachers accountable has no research to support it, nor is there any real-world evidence. Many districts have tried this for four or five years and there is no evidence–none–that it produces better teachers or better education.

This allows the school district as the employer to identify teachers that are struggling or are bad-fits for the grades that they're teaching, or to identify teachers whose majority of students do poorly for the long term.

Unfortunately there are no tests that have been demonstrated with anything approaching scientific validity to identify the ability of teachers by testing their students. Go ahead, cite one. I challenge you. There are none. I read a pair of "policy forum" articles about testing in Science magazine. The anti-testing guy said that the tests were statistically invalid, and couldn't predict teacher quality any better than rolling dice. The pro-testing guy admitted he was right, but said that they would come up with valid tests in the future. Too bad if you get fired because of those invalid tests today.

Most value added measurement studies find that teachers account for about 1% to 14% of the variability in test scores, and that the majority of opportunities for quality improvement are found in the system-level conditions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
Actually, Louis C.K. was right about Common Core — Ravitch
By Valerie Strauss
May 3, 2014
Louis C.K. tweeted “My kids used to love math. Now it makes them cry. Thanks standardized testing and common core!”
Alexander Nazaryan, Newsweek, took him to task and asked Diane Ravitch to critique what he wrote. Ravitch criticized Nazaryan and defended Louis C.K. on her blog. Nazaryan makes the false claim that teachers' unions oppose Common Core. Actually, the NEA and AFT accepted millions of dollars from the Gates Foundation to promote Common Core, which they support, but they complained about implementation after their members complained about lack of resources, professional development, curriculum, etc.
the American Statistical Association issued a report a few weeks ago warning that “value-added-measurement” (that is, judging teachers by the scores of their students) is fraught with error, inaccurate, and unstable. The ratings may change if a different test is used, for example. The ASA report said:
Most VAM studies find that teachers account for about 1% to 14% of the variability in test scores, and that the majority of opportunities for quality improvement are found in the system-level conditions.
Report by American Educational Research Association/National Academy of Education said test scores are affected by factors beyond the control of teachers.
Common Core has become a national marketplace for Pearson, McGraw-Hill, and other vendors. There are conferences for entrepreneurs on cashing in on Common Core.
The U.S. government is prohibited by law from controlling curriculum or instruction, and Common Core violates the law.
Diane Ravitch:
You are right that it is far too soon to judge Common Core’s efficacy. But that is the fault of those who wrote it. In 2009, when I met at the Aspen Institute with the authors of the Common Core, I urged them to field test it so they would find out how it works in real classrooms. They didn’t. In 2010, I was invited to the White House to meet with Melody Barnes, the director of domestic policy; Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff; and Ricardo Rodriguez, the President’s education advisor, and they asked me what I thought of Common Core. I urged them to field test it. I suggested that they invite 3-5 states to give it a trial of three to five years. See how it works. See if it narrows the achievement gap or widens the achievement gap. They quickly dismissed the idea. They were in a hurry. They wanted Common Core to be rolled out as quickly as possible, without checking out how it works in real classrooms with real teachers and real children.
We would be far better off investing more money in providing di

What does "get the money out of politics" mean?

IMHO, and in a very general sense, preventing things like this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

This isn't directly related to Lessig's superpac, but it's part of a general trend where personal gain in politics trumps ethical conduct. It doesn't matter what the issue is (in this case health care, but it could be zoning issues, or tax subsidies, or anything). This is blatant corruption on both sides of the isle. It's almost as if it doesn't matter where the money comes from (unions, hollywood, large corporations, drug lords, etc) so long as the people in office can derive the maximum profit. That couldn't be right though right?

Verizon isn't limited to FiOS. The vast majority of their ISP services for customers is over DSL.

And the fact that they call that "broadband" is reprehensible. Verizon DSL is awful and never meets the speeds the customer pays for.

Right. Verizon isn't artificially limiting network speeds. Just like Comcast wasn't.

Gary Trudeau kept Doonesbury going daily until last year. Now it's only weekly, but still great, and has been consistently great since the seventies. He only dropped the frequency to give time for his new main job writing for Alpha House.

There's more responsibility than that placed upon the police, which you would've seen if you'd done a 5-second search instead of just read a shitty slashdot summary:

"However, a police order that is specifically directed at the First Amendment right to film police performing their duties in public may be constitutionally imposed only if the officer can reasonably conclude that the filming itself is interfering, or is about to interfere, with his duties."

You can read even more (imagine that! read to educate yourself!) here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

First of all I'm neither an authoritarian nor a hack. Name calling doesn't get you anywhere.

It's not "name calling" when it's true, as it's completely impossible for anyone to make these arguments without being an authoritarian hack. It's as embarrassing as watching John Hagee whine that he's not bigoted towards Catholics, even as he's saying they follow the Whore of Babylon and are all going to hell. Case in point:

Secondly I never said I agreed with the NSA's spying on American citizens, because I don't...but I'm also not one who says that it's acceptable to break a law to show another law has been broken.

You keep saying that, but you keep not saying how everyone from Clapper to Obama - people who are not in foreign countries and we know exactly where they are - should be hauled into court for violating laws and the Constitution. Guess who does that? Authoritarian hacks. More problems your crowd is willfully avoiding:

What about the Oath of Office, which required Snowden to defend the Constitution?

What about the fact that it is illegal to follow an illegal order?

He didn't go through proper channels or even TRY to work within the system first.

First problem: the "proper channels" are utterly broken. You're going to tell the NSA that the NSA is breaking the law? You're going to tell the Senate that the illegal programs the Senate has been funding are....illegal? You're going to tell the New York Times that sat on the first warrantless wiretapping story to protect the illegal action of the government that there's more illegality to be reported on? How much time did you guys spend on this talking point anyway, before signing off on it for mass production?

Second problem: Snowden, as Manning before him, did try and go through your "proper channels", and it didn't work.

Today's release is incomplete, and does not include my correspondence with the Signals Intelligence Directorate's Office of Compliance, which believed that a classified executive order could take precedence over an act of Congress, contradicting what was just published. It also did not include concerns about how indefensible collection activities - such as breaking into the back-haul communications of major US internet companies - are sometimes concealed under E.O. 12333 to avoid Congressional reporting requirements and regulations.

So, if you're not an authoritarian hack, what is an ethical person supposed to do when confronted with mass illegal government activity that the government refuses to do anything about?

Lastly America is not a democracy.

Not the "we're a Republic not a Democracy" zombie again. If you think there's a contradiction in terms, you don't understand either one. We are a Democratic Republic.

Are there genuine sincere threats made on Twitter etc?

Yes, there are...

http://latino.foxnews.com/lati...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

It is not difficult to see how posting in a Sasha Shulgin thread might have repercussions for American citizens. For instance, Mr. Opportunist, since both you and I posted in the same comment thread, even though I have no idea who you are and never will, our names are linked in some NSA database. How this can bite you in the ass (albeit, currently at a low probability level) is already public knowledge: http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Snowden DID use those channels, and the NSA ignored him:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
http://www.theguardian.com/wor...

Not only that, but there were people speaking publicly about this for YEARS prior to Snowden and they were also ignored:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/... (warning, auto-start video)

The NSA tried to portray those people as crackpots until Snowden came along with proof. Remember, he didn't reveal anything new... he just provided details and corroborative evidence so the NSA could no longer ignore/deny it.

To this day, the NSA claims what they are doing is Legal. How on earth could Snowden have gotten anywhere without bringing this to the public's attention? It's going to take congressional action to even begin to limit what they are doing. There was no other way for that to happen than for him to go public. I'm not even sure if he went far enough.

Bullshit. I've done it. Policy was changed with appropriate congressional notification within about 3 days. Now, granted, what annoyed me was a technical violation of law that a few pilots were unaware of due to the Air Force screwing up the UAV manning, but the point is that in the spy world, IG complaints are taken seriously.

Snowden? Didn't take any of the steps he was told in his inbriefing to address concerns. None of them. Not a single fucking one. He's not a hero; he's a traitor. He should be tried and prosecuted.

Really? Not a single fucking one? Do you know something he doesn't?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Maybe try some bullshit that's not refuted by the very first Google hit.

As I know from my own case, even Snowden's own testimony on the stand would be gagged by government objections and the (arguably unconstitutional) nature of his charges. That was my own experience in court, as the first American to be prosecuted under the Espionage Act – or any other statute – for giving information to the American people.

I had looked forward to offering a fuller account in my trial than I had given previously to any journalist – any Glenn Greenwald or Brian Williams of my time – as to the considerations that led me to copy and distribute thousands of pages of top-secret documents. I had saved many details until I could present them on the stand, under oath, just as a young John Kerry had delivered his strongest lines in sworn testimony.

But when I finally heard my lawyer ask the prearranged question in direct examination – Why did you copy the Pentagon Papers? – I was silenced before I could begin to answer. The government prosecutor objected – irrelevant – and the judge sustained. My lawyer, exasperated, said he "had never heard of a case where a defendant was not permitted to tell the jury why he did what he did." The judge responded: well, you're hearing one now.

And so it has been with every subsequent whistleblower under indictment, and so it would be if Edward Snowden was on trial in an American courtroom now.

In addition, Ellsberg never got a "fair trial"; the charges against him were dismissed for gross misconduct on the part of the government -- see http://www.washingtonpost.com/... for a summary.

and never saw a day in prison.

Not because they didn't want to imprison him; it was due to an activist judge who held that there was such evidentiary misconduct that the case was dismissed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

This was due to the climate immediately following Watergate, where the judiciary had a lot of motive to prove themselves uncorrupt, at least compared to the executive branch of the time.

The current climate is one much of the evidence against Snowden would be considered classified, and therefore not challengeable. The FISA court, the national security letters, and other instruments available for use in shielding against charges of misconduct, and thus preventing such a dismissal, did not exist in Ellsberg's time.

Frankly, Snowden is lucky he initially established, and is successfully maintaining, a high profile, since it makes him less of a target for extraordinary rendition, which had it been used, he would have just disappeared into a black hole somewhere already.

From the Washington Post's Blog section: Eugene Volokh, On google's employee demographics

... non-Hispanic whites are 61 percent of the Google work force, slightly below the national average. (That average, according to 2006-10 numbers, is 67 percent.) Google is thus less white than the typical American company. White men are probably slightly over-represented; assuming that the 30 percent number it gives for women Google employees worldwide carries over to the U.S. (the article gives no separate number for U.S. women Google employees), white men are 42 percent of the Google work force, and 35 percent of the U.S. work force — not a vast disparity.
Indeed, if the goal is “reflecting the demographics of the country” as to race... ...Google can only accomplish that by firing well over three-quarters of its Asian employees, and replacing them with blacks and Hispanics (and a few whites, to bring white numbers up from 61 percent to 67 percent).

The Veterans Administration hospitals were putting high-cost veterans on wait lists (for months) for treatment and even diagnosis that resulted in many deaths. The panels that decided who should wait because panels that decided who should die. Obamacare may not have Death Panels, but the VA does.

It's not just you. The Washington Post kind of had the same questions in a longer essay format.

Goddamn I thought I typed that link right. But this is the source for $319 million:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

But if the top 1% changes every generation (and this is exactly what happens), is that as big of a problem as Picketty and other liberals make it out to be?

That is a key assertion, especially if broadened to, say, the top 20%. What is your source? All the studies I have seen say It is much harder for a poor child born in America to climb into the rare air of the countryâ(TM)s highest earners than it is for a similar child in, for example, Canada or Denmark.

Jellomizer: [I don't want to hear about the NSA's transgressions. Why couldn't he blow the whistle internally?

digsbo: This has repeatedly been shown to be impossible.

It is only impossible, because no one is willing to try to solve the problem.

Excuse me?
Snowden tried several times to "raise the alarm" going through official internal channels.

Let's take a look at another whistle blower in the NSA's history:
Thomas Drake "worked his way through the legal processes that are prescribed for government employees who believe that questionable activities are taking place in their departments"... worked with Roark who notified her superior, then-Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Porter Goss, William Rehnquist, the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, and Vice President Dick Cheney's legal counsel David Addington.

Roark got no response.

It has been tried. The internal channels HAVE FAILED. Repeatedly. You are just plain wrong on this one.

The opponents to the NSA wants everything public anyways

Where the fuck did you get that from?
THIS "opponent to the NSA" just wants them to get a real warrant before snooping on the communication between US citizens, "metadata" or otherwise. I demand this because it's constitutionally illegal to do otherwise. A secret court with no oversight rubber-stamping mass surveillance every year doesn't count, is invalid, and makes the program illegal. (Also, it'd be nice if they treated foreigners the same way, but I have less hope for that)

the internet is not a "crime scene"(for this) any more than the postal system and newspaper opinion pieces were 30 years ago..

A crime scene is a location where a crime took place or another location where evidence of the crime may be found.

Crime scene

Rodger's e-mails and posts to the Internet would be admissible as evidence of premeditated murder.

Once again, a self-made video, uploaded to the world via YouTube, is at the heart of a horrific news event.

Elliot Rodger, the 22-year-old man who authorities say killed six people in the Santa Barbara, Calif., area before fatally shooting himself late Friday, posted at least two self-pitying videos to the video-sharing site shortly before he went on his rampage.

The videos --- in which Rodger calmly and chillingly discusses his sexual frustrations and intent to ''slaughter'' those he claims harmed him --- were removed by YouTube after viewers flagged them. But they were repeatedly re-posted on the site as copies spread across the Internet.

Videos are routinely flagged by YouTube's users; the company reviews videos that have raised concerns and removes them if they violate its community guidelines. Among other things, the guidelines prohibit videos displaying ''predatory behavior, stalking, threats, harassment [and] intimidation ... and inciting others to commit violent acts. ... Anyone caught doing these things may be permanently banned from YouTube.''

Law enforcement authorities in Santa Barbara said they are analyzing Rodger's videos, which he apparently has posted online since 2012.

Elliot Rodger video removed by YouTube

Finally, when exactly did the angry rants of a mass murderer become rightfully characterized as a manifesto? Although Rodger's document is a manifestation of emotional disturbance, it hardly qualifies to be called a manifesto. A true manifesto reflects the political ideology of a formidable leader of men, a political force to be reckoned with. Nowhere in his 141 pages does Rodger describe his manuscript in such a way.

So why should we?

Why mass killers need to explain their plan

I notice all your links are to the UK. I thought the Chambers case was going to put a stop to that stuff in the UK. What bothers me most is that they even have people LOOKING online for stuff to prosecute. I'm pretty sure the US doesn't have police officers going through Facebook and Twitter trying to find offensive speech to bust people on.

Your links are disheartening. Perhaps the rest of Europe isn't that bad? In any case, the First Amendment is definitely one thing this country got very, very right.

Here's an old, but good, opinion article on free speech in Europe: http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

It sounds to me like they're finally admitting that this is a basic service that everyone should be provided with.
I wonder how much longer it will take before they regulate it as such (as a utility).

The thing is that the FCC (US government agency that regulates telecoms) can do that. It's what the whole Title II reclassification thing is all about. http://www.washingtonpost.com/... Which is why the lobbyists and congress are freaking out. https://www.techdirt.com/artic...

Fiber to the Press Release

Meanwhile Chattanooga has ~50,000 homes with fiber (either 100mbps at ~$50 or 1gbps at $70), no caps and no google snooping to worry about. It so profitable that the revenue is subsidizing the electric side of the business. AT&T and Comcast are scared shitless too, offering $20/month guaranteed for a year for their fastest service (still with caps though).

I guess you're being sarcastic, but "separate but equal" is absolutely fine. The Supreme Court was incorrect when they ruled that separate but equal was inherently unequal, whether in education or any other government service. For instance, last I checked, government buildings still have separate but equal bathrooms for men and women.

More seriously, gender-segregated education is being experimented with in public schools (e.g. http://www.washingtonpost.com/...). I don't see a reason why race-segregated education (or anything else) would be morally or legally worse. But of course it's seen as worse for some reason.

The local high school here only has 4 classes during a day, and I'm pretty sure the teachers get a free class period. They at least got them when I attended. The teachers I know are some of the few great teachers you don't want to miss out on having. Such employees are almost always underpaid.

Lets stop talking about anecdotes, and look at some hard facts. The median compensation package for public teachers is $75k/yr (source) and they have a median of around 3 (maybe 4) years of experience (source). The BLS states that teachers are paid 11% higher than other professionals (source). At 53 hours/wk (source, it sounds like a lot of work, but it is 3 hours fewer than most professionals, even without considering vacation time (source). Considering vacation time, teachers who use all of their days of leave work an average of 171.5 days/yr vs 220 days/yr for private sector professionals with 10 years of experience (source), which isn't quite a fair comparison because professionals with 10 years of experience get more vacation than people with 3-4 years of experience.

If you multiply this out, most professionals are working over 1/3 more hours than teachers for 10% less pay. They generally get off of work early enough to make a dentist appointment, avoiding the need to shift hours around like other professionals, and their extra hours outside of the school day are free for scheduling as they see fit. Really good teachers might be working long hours for their money. However, when they're getting paid 50% more per hr, it's clear that most are not.

If you want to argue the difficulty and stress of a job, then that would be a different matter than I've discussed. It won't be fixed by reducing hours or increasing pay, but fixing polity.

Japan has started to exploit the many Trillions of cubic feet of natural gas trapped in methane hydrates. Clearly that's a better alternative than restarting a power plant that's been operating safely for decades.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014... http://m.washingtonpost.com/lo... http://www.thetruthaboutguns.c... http://m.csmonitor.com/USA/201... http://m.washingtontimes.com/n...

Cite? I never saw anything about people protesting them being sold

Oh they very much did, specifically because in one of the states there is a law on the books that says whenever "smart guns" are available they have to become the default. The idea was that the tech wasn't there yet, but when it was and people could get it, to mandate it. So people have been pressuring gun shops not to carry them, where a shop recently got all kinds of threats and then decided not to carry them citing their ignorance of the larger issue.

Here's your citation, since I seemed to care more than you:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

we avoided 1 entirely because this hasnt been our style since 1910. We avoided 2 because we have a 25 year track record of failed wars and coups, not to mention king georges debacle in iraq. we also dont pick fights with countries that possess a nuclear fleet or long range bombers. Three works, and it works because we're beholden as members of NATO to protect our allies. because we rely on russia very little (as does russia us) we expect to get away with what basically amounts to a great deal of symbolism.

Wait what? You haven't heard? It was just another oil grab, you Americans really don't know the real reason US went to Ukraine?

Holy shit, you guys are dumb, the WHOLE WORLD knows.

The Farce Is Complete: Joe Biden's Son Joins Board Of Largest Ukraine Gas Producer
  BidenÃ(TM)s Son Gets Ukrainian Oil Company Gig
  Vice President Joe Biden's son joins Ukraine gas company
  Joe BidenÃ(TM)s Son Appointed to Board of UkraineÃ(TM)s Largest Gas Producer

They never defined it that way! If the cyber attack has physical damage then it's treated as an act of war.

"If the physical consequences of a cyberattack work the kind of physical damage that dropping a bomb or firing a missile would, that cyberattack should equally be considered a use of force.”

Maybe I shouldn't be mixing broadcasts vs. DVD but aren't there examples of churches, private parties, etc. being told they are infringing when offering to host Super Bowl parties or World Series showings?

The example I am thinking of is here. Is the difference that technically anyone could walk in off the street into a church and watch? Would they have been in the clear if the showed it in a private room in the church and limited invitations to the current congregation only?

I'm not disagreeing with you, I don't know enough to do so, but it seems to me based on the "dick-move" stories I've read over the years that if they* decide they* want to go after you than the legal means to do so is there...

*they - for various definitions of "they" but generally speaking content rights holders...

I can see that for years climatologists have been saying that drought-stricken areas will become even drier with more warming. And according to the article there has been a three-decade pattern of fires getting worse in the West: "Since 1984, the area burned by the West's largest wildfires — those of more than 1,000 acres — have increased by about 87,700 acres a year, according to an April study in the journal Geophysical Research Letters."

One winter is not a long-term pattern. Something that gets worse over the course of decades, in contrast, is a long-term pattern.

Just remember, people with cancer who complained about how Obamacare was hurting them and their treatments were FOUND OUT TO BE dirty filthy liars and then were audited by the IRS.

Fixed that for you, you fucking AC shill.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ri...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Math, it's what for dinner.

1. Get the FCC to allow ISPs to make sweetheart deals with content providers, but subject to FCC supervision. (Done)
2. Starve the FCC of resources so that supervision becomes impossible. One way to do this: refuse to appoint FCC commissioners, so that they can't form a quorum --- just as happened to the FEC in 2008.
3. Profit! (Literally!)

Guess it isn't as easy as it looks:

- - - - - - http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
  Missouri’s Board of Education has decided to close six charter school campuses run by the Virginia-based Imagine Schools Inc., the country’s largest for-profit charter network, saying that it “would be a disservice” to children to keep them open because of academic and fiscal issues.

Imagine, based in Arlington, operates more than 75 schools in more than a dozen states — including Maryland — and the District of Columbia. Its six school campuses in the St. Louis area have been the subject of stories in the St. Louis Post Dispatch that detailed complicated real estate deals through which the schools, which operated with public funds, generated millions of dollars for Imagine and a Kansas City-based real estate investment company.

The decision to close the schools at the end of the school year will mean that about 4,000 students will have to find a new school for next fall. A transition office is being set up to help families find new school placements, a statement from the Missouri Department of Education said. - - - - -

New schools were found for those children: they were sent back to their original public school districts, most of which had been badly damaged by the loss of the per-student payment when they were recruited for the "showcase" charters.

sPh

Keep electing republicans and america will end up with so many starving and jobless people

Both the number of food-stamp recipients (starving) and unemployment (jobless) increased under Obama. Why, when the unemployment was 6% under Bush, he was blamed for "jobless recovery" by some. Worse, as his figure went further down to 5%, he was still blamed by others.

Obama's figure today — six years later — is still above 6% (despite millions leaving the workforce for good and thus not figuring into the count) — but you are blaming Republicans? Wow...

And, no, the mortgage-crisis was not Bush's fault. The do-gooding Democrats are to blame.

I do not understand why Russia is so surprised by the condemnation?

It is not like the real eastern Ukrainians actually favor Russia or Independence? All the pro Russian protesters are really Russian pretending to be Ukrainians taking over TV stations and trying to whip up the Russian minority. They know this and everything is fake and is doctored by the media including hte western media when they call the special forces protesters??

Unless they actually believe the crap they see on state sponsored TV and really think they are the good guys stopping an evil Nazi regime sponsored the US and A to bully innocent Ukrainians and Russia? At least the demonstrators in Kiev who over threw the government were real Ukrainians and not American CIA agents. Idiots.

So Russia is angry it is being perceived as bully as result. Well the mirror doesn't lie and Russia deservers all its sanctions.

Where did you get all that? Wait, let me guess, on corporate (state) sponsored US/UK mainstream media?

Phew, good thing... had me worried you might actually be thinking for yourself, taking in US/UK/EU media, Russian media, Chinese media, even AlJazeera and other media that might go against what the US corporate media machine puts out, and at least weight it for yourself and not buy into any one side. As we all know, in any "recognized democracy" like the US, UK, etc, thinking for yourself cannot be allowed... in fact, laws are being passed to gradually ensure that 'terrorists' that think for themselves can be locked up without benefit of pesky things like trials and the like.