The drug testing results are not as clear as what they may seem though.
Related plants can leave chemical traces that are close enough to give false positives, especially for a test that isn't designed to distinguish between them. Tobacco is part of the nightshade family, so related Old World plants might give a false positive. Mandrake can also leave similar chemical (iirc alkaloid) traces to those of cocaine.
He's also got a very good track record in predicting electoral outcomes.
Um, he predicted that we would have a Republican House and Senate and then got whiny and defensive when the NPR reporter pointed out that the polling didn't support that prediction. Iirc, he said "You've got your math - I've got THE math."
Re:TB + HIV+ = AIDS If that is the case, and your t-cell counts are within the normal range, the doctor is jumping the gun, probably in the same form of verbal shorthand that leads to doctors saying "Your upper respriratory infection's viral, here are some antibiotics" rather than saying "Your upper respriratory infection's viral, here are some antibiotics to prevent any secondary bacterial infections." Lazy and kind of condescending, especially when you call them on it and they don't back down (Frickin' MDs - don't get me started). She should say "You are really at risk for and could be in the early stages of AIDS."
Re: Artificial causal relationship. I took a quick look at the Alive and Well site. It was interesting, but I have heard most of it before in the early '90s, when I was a wannabe gene jock. Some of the bullet points in the side bars are misleading enough to raise some questions about the sites axe-grinding. Frex, one sidebar claims that HIV shares 'genetic structure' (I assume they mean RNA, but they don't define the term) with all other retroviruses had retroviruses are found in healthy people - these points are true, but all bacteria share the same genetic structure (one double-stranded loop of DNA) and are found in healthy people, which doesn't mean that E. coli can't make you sick. I am also skeptical of the claim that retroviruses never kill cells. The sidebar right below that (this is on the 'A Closer Look at HIV' page) says that AIDS only appears after the antibodies are present while VZV antibodies mean immunity, but the proteins on the surface of the HIV particle change rapidly due to mutation, so the antibodies represent immunity to some/most particles, but not all of them. Maybe these are not the end of the world, but it doesn't suggest to me that the authors are trying to be as clear as possible. On the page 'Questioning the Test', I can't find a reference from this century - Am I to think that there have been no changes in HIV testing methods since the 90's? In fact, looking at the References page, there appears to be less than half a dozen, out of more than 200, references to publications since 2000.
There are plenty of documented cases where people are living with HIV without taking any immuno-suppressant medication.
Two Points:
The virus doesn't necessarily start killing T-cells immediately. It has a long, and highly variable, incubation period. Iirc, this is because it has to have it's surface antigens mutate to a form not recognized by the hosts immune system. Therefore, it can be present in the body without killing T-cells, which would allow an infected person to survive without the meds.
Second, just because "plenty" of HIV+ people are getting by without meds doesn't mean that the meds don't work. "Plenty" is a pretty vague concept - is it 10,000 people in the USA, or a million in the world? Those might sound pretty big, until you consider the approximately 900,000 other people in the USA, or the 39 million other people in the world that do need the meds do help keep the virus at bay.
A special bonus point:
I'm sorry, but if one of those side-effects is actually to cause the very disease that it said to prevent then what's the point?
If you take a look at the insert that you get with prescription drugs you'll see that lots of drugs do cause the exact symptoms they are supposed to help in some cases. Frex, my wife is narcoleptic and takes prescription meds to help her stay awake (which is nice since she drives a lot for work), but right on the side of the bottle there is a little sticker that says "May cause drowsiness".
Actually HIV is detected in EVERYONE with AIDS. This is because by definition you have AIDS if HIV is detected in your system.
Ahem, no. If you have Human Immunodefiency Virus antibodies in your system you are diagnosed as HIV-positive. If you are HIV-positive, and your immune system is giving up the ghost because the t-cells are being killed off by the HIV, you are diagnosed as having AIDS.
If you're dying from an immuno-deficiency and HIV is not detected, you are diagnosed as not having AIDS!
There are other ways to become immuno-deficient that are not due to HIV. Frex, you could have a genetic condition such as SCID (Severe Combined Immuno-Deficiency), radiation exposure leading to ARS (Acute Radiation Syndrome), or even immunodeficiencies resulting from chemotherapy.
I didn't explain the 'mambo' part of my first post well. Or at all. I should have said (roughly) "If a strict constructionist says there is no right to privacy because the word privacy doesn't appear in the Constitution, they're a hypocrite."
For me, the NSA case is WAY on the "acceptable" side of the line. It should never have been revealed to the public, the man who did is a traitor (whether he meant to be or not) and it's damaging to the efforts of our men and women in the armed and covered forces to protect this country....
If by 'the NSA case' you mean the wiretaps, why shouldn't the fact that the government is using wiretaps be revealed to the public? I figured that there were wiretaps being used and I'm just some guy who used to read a lot of Tom Clancy. I'm guessing that everyone who has any connection to counter-terror efforts knew that there were wiretaps being used, too. And by any connection I mean military, law enforcement, journalists and, of course, the terrorists themselves. So unless you didn't think the terrorists knew the US government could use wiretaps on them, you must be talking about the fact that there no warrants obtained for these wiretaps. Any terrorists out there don't really care about whether or not there are warrants for the wiretaps. Why? The warrants only become an issue if you go to trial, which can only happen after you get caught, which means you have screwed up. They probably assumed (correctly, as it turns out) that Bush was lying when he said that we don't tap phones without warrants. So what has Tice done to deserve being called a traitor? Apparently he revealed that President Bush lied to his citizens.
You complain about the wiretapping, but you are obviously unaware of history. Please investigate Johnson during the Vietnam War, Roosevelt during WWII and Lincoln during the Civil War.
When Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the US Civil War he did so publicly, which Bush didn't do with the wiretapping, preferring to not let the public know until he got cuaght with his hand in the cookie jar.
When Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the US Civil War, he went to Congress (albeit in 1863) and got them to pass a law specifically authorizing suspension of habeas corpus, which Bush didn't do with the wiretapping, preferring to exercise his power without democratic checks and balances.
When Lincoln went to Congress to authorize the suspension of habeas corpus, a deadline was put into the authorization so habeas corpus would resume eventually, which Bush didn't do with the wiretapping, preferring to secretly and open endedly violate civil rights.
When Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, he actually had explicit constitutional authority to do so (Section 9, 2nd paragraph - "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."), which Bush doesn't have with the wiretapping, preferring to expand his executive powers by doing whatever he wants.
President Bush has admitted that the government has used, and is still using, wiretaps without getting even the retroactive warrants that FISA requires. President Bush had denied that such wiretaps were taking place previously, and only admitted that were happening when the story became public. Since this was the main point of Tice's story, I will tend to believe him over a professional politician.
Additionally, if my job involved ignoring the Constitution, my morale would probably go into the toilet, and lead to 'pschological concerns' at work as well.
My wife claims she is a University of Michigan football fan. She goes through the motions - buying t-shirts, hissing every time arch-rival Ohio State does something good, etc. But I have heard her actually criticize the team. Oh, sure she says it's for the team's "own good", that putting in the prevent defense now will only cause problems and make them lose the game, but if she really was a fan she would blindly follow along with the coach's decisions and cheer for them not matter how badly they turned out. Obviously, she really hates the team, and secretly wishes that the Buckeyes would win. Or at least MSU.
Likewise, a true American patriot would always back the Presidents decisions, without any kind of dissent whatsoever. If you think that tapping phone calls without getting even retroactive warrants is a bad thing maybe you should move someplace where the country was founded by people who thought the government should defer to the people or something.
First of all the constitution doesn't contain an explicit right to privacy. Even Justice Roberts agrees that it does contain a right to privacy in some sense, but as Alito pointed out in the hearing, the right to privacy is not on the same standing as other rights that are explicitly stated.
Check out Amendment IX of the Constitution: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." So the fact that the Bill of rights does not contain the word privacy should not, not, imply that there is no right to privacy.
In school I was taught that Amendment IX was a sign of how smart the Framers were, since it showed that they knew that situations would come up that they had not forseen, and had prepared for them. They might have been geniuses, but they didn't realize that once a government was up and running it would be hard it keep said government from violating the rights that were spelled out, much less ones that were not.
If I were a cynic, I could point out that anyone who calls themself an 'originalist' or 'strict constructionist', but then does a "There's no explicit right to privacy" mambo either doesn't remember the Ninth Amendment, or is a hypocrite.
If you remember back to your days in, well, any level of public education in the US short of graduate-school-not-in-history-or-poli-sci, there was a discussion of 'checks and balances'. One of these 'checks and balances' is that the President does not have to sign a bill that he disagrees with. If Bush knew or cared about the amendment, he could veto the bill and make speech explaining to the American people that Congressional politicking is preventing the passage of this important spending bill. Think back to how Clinton handled Gingrich during their budget conflicts - if a wimpy liberal like Clinton could make a congress controlled by the GOP back down, certainly Bush could get a Congress controlled by his own party back in line.
Bush either likes the amendment, doesn't care about it, or doesn't know about it. None of these options means that Bush doesn't get some of the blame if you think the bill "sux".
I agree. Bush is an utterly powerlessness President. He has never shown any ability to affect the decisions of Congress by say calling them on the phone, inviting them over for a talk, having someone on his huge staff contact their staff, using his influence as the de facto head of the GOP or finding some member of the media to hear his opinions on anything.
Or are you some liberal who has fallen for the media's line that Bush is stupid and lazy and probably doesn't even read the laws he signs, much less understand them?
According to both of your wiki links, Darwin and Wallace had no knowledge of Matthew and Wells. People had been hypothesizing about all of this biodiversity, including ideas resembling evolution by natural selection, since the ancient Greeks. Darwin was the first to take these vague ideas and tie them together with his observations from the Beagle voyage, combined with the gradualist theories of contemporary geology and come up with a unified and fairly complete method for how evolution worked. Then he sat on, er, "polished" it for years until Wallace sent him a letter (Hey, look something on topic in my post.) with some of his ideas regarding natural selection, prompting Darwin to get off his butt and publish. The importance of Darwin's work was that it gave a _why_ to biology.
Since then, of course, natural selection theory has been subject to many changes, ther biggest probably being punctuated equilibrium, but still stands as the foundation of modern biological thought.
As a full-time stay-at-home Dad all I can say to your comments re: parental responsibility is 'Amen brutha.'
However, as a full-time stay-at-home Dad I can say that it does take a village to raise a child. A village with doctors, nurse-practioners and nurses for the kid and the parents (try keeping up with a toddler when you and mom both have upper respiratory things going on), family and neighbors who can help out or just commiserate with, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
Information that poorly secured wouldn't have been hidden from terrorists or from governments friendly to terrorists, or any other government for that matter, would it? It would have been hidden only from the average citizen - the Joe Sixpacks and Guisseppe Bagadonuts of the world - the ones the governments are serving and need the support of for the wars. Kind of odd that the they are the ones left out of the loop, isn't it?
I come back to the argument. If you are doing nothing wrong then there will be no probable cause to get the info. It is eventually deleted and I'm not going to send anything important over something like a text message. Maybe to the gf to see when she is coming over. They can read those till they are blue in the face. As long as they don't show them to our parents.
So you do have something to hide. Seeing your girlfriend isn't against the law, so why would you be afraid of anyone finding out? What else are you doing? Drugs? Physical contact? Reading inappropriate books? Why are you trying to hide things from your parents? They can't arrest you, you know.
Alternately, you could move out of the basement...
But being ordered to remove information pertaining to the specifics of an ongoing legal case is not censorship.
I know that in some countries publicly discussing court matters is a big no-no, but in the USA it's pretty common. Frex, if you are a multimillionaire ex-NBAer, you can go on national tv to explain that you're really a nice family man who would never try to cover up negligently gunning down his limo driver, but not do the same under oath and it's perfectly legal. The idea that the government could arrest someone for say, robbery, and not say who was robbed or what was stolen is odd, and tends to make a good, government-doubting American a little skeptical. But not letting the accused give the details of wat they are charged with does fall under censorship. The government is not allowing someone (in this case a group) speak or publish freely. You may feel that the censorship is justified, because the threat to security is so high, or that community standards of decency are violated by saying "We were charged under the PATRIOT ACT for x, y, and a whole lotta z," or because the ACLU are a bunch of whining liberals who should just have a nice, big glass of shut the fuck up, but it's still censorship.
Slashdot Mirror
The drug testing results are not as clear as what they may seem though.
Related plants can leave chemical traces that are close enough to give false positives, especially for a test that isn't designed to distinguish between them. Tobacco is part of the nightshade family, so related Old World plants might give a false positive. Mandrake can also leave similar chemical (iirc alkaloid) traces to those of cocaine.
He's also got a very good track record in predicting electoral outcomes.
Um, he predicted that we would have a Republican House and Senate and then got whiny and defensive when the NPR reporter pointed out that the polling didn't support that prediction. Iirc, he said "You've got your math - I've got THE math."
Magnificent.
'Not sure about the sidewalks, but it certainly seems antisocial.'
If you barf on your own sidewalk, fine, but stay away from mine, or the ones my taxes help pay for, thanks.
"It all makes sense as Japan should be the first part of Asia minor to see the sun every day."
Asia Minor is essentially Turkey, so you are only off by a few thousand miles.
Re:TB + HIV+ = AIDS
If that is the case, and your t-cell counts are within the normal range, the doctor is jumping the gun, probably in the same form of verbal shorthand that leads to doctors saying "Your upper respriratory infection's viral, here are some antibiotics" rather than saying "Your upper respriratory infection's viral, here are some antibiotics to prevent any secondary bacterial infections." Lazy and kind of condescending, especially when you call them on it and they don't back down (Frickin' MDs - don't get me started). She should say "You are really at risk for and could be in the early stages of AIDS."
Re: Artificial causal relationship.
I took a quick look at the Alive and Well site. It was interesting, but I have heard most of it before in the early '90s, when I was a wannabe gene jock. Some of the bullet points in the side bars are misleading enough to raise some questions about the sites axe-grinding. Frex, one sidebar claims that HIV shares 'genetic structure' (I assume they mean RNA, but they don't define the term) with all other retroviruses had retroviruses are found in healthy people - these points are true, but all bacteria share the same genetic structure (one double-stranded loop of DNA) and are found in healthy people, which doesn't mean that E. coli can't make you sick. I am also skeptical of the claim that retroviruses never kill cells. The sidebar right below that (this is on the 'A Closer Look at HIV' page) says that AIDS only appears after the antibodies are present while VZV antibodies mean immunity, but the proteins on the surface of the HIV particle change rapidly due to mutation, so the antibodies represent immunity to some/most particles, but not all of them. Maybe these are not the end of the world, but it doesn't suggest to me that the authors are trying to be as clear as possible. On the page 'Questioning the Test', I can't find a reference from this century - Am I to think that there have been no changes in HIV testing methods since the 90's? In fact, looking at the References page, there appears to be less than half a dozen, out of more than 200, references to publications since 2000.
There are plenty of documented cases where people are living with HIV without taking any immuno-suppressant medication.
Two Points:
The virus doesn't necessarily start killing T-cells immediately. It has a long, and highly variable, incubation period. Iirc, this is because it has to have it's surface antigens mutate to a form not recognized by the hosts immune system. Therefore, it can be present in the body without killing T-cells, which would allow an infected person to survive without the meds.
Second, just because "plenty" of HIV+ people are getting by without meds doesn't mean that the meds don't work. "Plenty" is a pretty vague concept - is it 10,000 people in the USA, or a million in the world? Those might sound pretty big, until you consider the approximately 900,000 other people in the USA, or the 39 million other people in the world that do need the meds do help keep the virus at bay.
A special bonus point:
I'm sorry, but if one of those side-effects is actually to cause the very disease that it said to prevent then what's the point?
If you take a look at the insert that you get with prescription drugs you'll see that lots of drugs do cause the exact symptoms they are supposed to help in some cases. Frex, my wife is narcoleptic and takes prescription meds to help her stay awake (which is nice since she drives a lot for work), but right on the side of the bottle there is a little sticker that says "May cause drowsiness".
Actually HIV is detected in EVERYONE with AIDS. This is because by definition
you have AIDS if HIV is detected in your system.
Ahem, no. If you have Human Immunodefiency Virus antibodies in your system you are diagnosed as HIV-positive. If you are HIV-positive, and your immune system is giving up the ghost because the t-cells are being killed off by the HIV, you are diagnosed as having AIDS.
If you're dying from an immuno-deficiency and HIV is not detected, you are diagnosed as not having AIDS!
There are other ways to become immuno-deficient that are not due to HIV. Frex, you could have a genetic condition such as SCID (Severe Combined Immuno-Deficiency), radiation exposure leading to ARS (Acute Radiation Syndrome), or even immunodeficiencies resulting from chemotherapy.
I didn't explain the 'mambo' part of my first post well. Or at all. I should have said (roughly) "If a strict constructionist says there is no right to privacy because the word privacy doesn't appear in the Constitution, they're a hypocrite."
For me, the NSA case is WAY on the "acceptable" side of the line. It should never have been revealed to the public, the man who did is a traitor (whether he meant to be or not) and it's damaging to the efforts of our men and women in the armed and covered forces to protect this country....
If by 'the NSA case' you mean the wiretaps, why shouldn't the fact that the government is using wiretaps be revealed to the public? I figured that there were wiretaps being used and I'm just some guy who used to read a lot of Tom Clancy. I'm guessing that everyone who has any connection to counter-terror efforts knew that there were wiretaps being used, too. And by any connection I mean military, law enforcement, journalists and, of course, the terrorists themselves. So unless you didn't think the terrorists knew the US government could use wiretaps on them, you must be talking about the fact that there no warrants obtained for these wiretaps. Any terrorists out there don't really care about whether or not there are warrants for the wiretaps. Why? The warrants only become an issue if you go to trial, which can only happen after you get caught, which means you have screwed up. They probably assumed (correctly, as it turns out) that Bush was lying when he said that we don't tap phones without warrants. So what has Tice done to deserve being called a traitor? Apparently he revealed that President Bush lied to his citizens.
You complain about the wiretapping, but you are obviously unaware of history. Please investigate Johnson during the Vietnam War, Roosevelt during WWII and Lincoln during the Civil War.
When Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the US Civil War he did so publicly, which Bush didn't do with the wiretapping, preferring to not let the public know until he got cuaght with his hand in the cookie jar.
When Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the US Civil War, he went to Congress (albeit in 1863) and got them to pass a law specifically authorizing suspension of habeas corpus, which Bush didn't do with the wiretapping, preferring to exercise his power without democratic checks and balances.
When Lincoln went to Congress to authorize the suspension of habeas corpus, a deadline was put into the authorization so habeas corpus would resume eventually, which Bush didn't do with the wiretapping, preferring to secretly and open endedly violate civil rights.
When Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, he actually had explicit constitutional authority to do so (Section 9, 2nd paragraph - "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."), which Bush doesn't have with the wiretapping, preferring to expand his executive powers by doing whatever he wants.
President Bush has admitted that the government has used, and is still using, wiretaps without getting even the retroactive warrants that FISA requires. President Bush had denied that such wiretaps were taking place previously, and only admitted that were happening when the story became public. Since this was the main point of Tice's story, I will tend to believe him over a professional politician.
Additionally, if my job involved ignoring the Constitution, my morale would probably go into the toilet, and lead to 'pschological concerns' at work as well.
Let me make sports analogy for you.
My wife claims she is a University of Michigan football fan. She goes through the motions - buying t-shirts, hissing every time arch-rival Ohio State does something good, etc. But I have heard her actually criticize the team. Oh, sure she says it's for the team's "own good", that putting in the prevent defense now will only cause problems and make them lose the game, but if she really was a fan she would blindly follow along with the coach's decisions and cheer for them not matter how badly they turned out. Obviously, she really hates the team, and secretly wishes that the Buckeyes would win. Or at least MSU.
Likewise, a true American patriot would always back the Presidents decisions, without any kind of dissent whatsoever. If you think that tapping phone calls without getting even retroactive warrants is a bad thing maybe you should move someplace where the country was founded by people who thought the government should defer to the people or something.
First of all the constitution doesn't contain an explicit right to privacy. Even Justice Roberts agrees that it does contain a right to privacy in some sense, but as Alito pointed out in the hearing, the right to privacy is not on the same standing as other rights that are explicitly stated.
Check out Amendment IX of the Constitution: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." So the fact that the Bill of rights does not contain the word privacy should not, not, imply that there is no right to privacy.
In school I was taught that Amendment IX was a sign of how smart the Framers were, since it showed that they knew that situations would come up that they had not forseen, and had prepared for them. They might have been geniuses, but they didn't realize that once a government was up and running it would be hard it keep said government from violating the rights that were spelled out, much less ones that were not.
If I were a cynic, I could point out that anyone who calls themself an 'originalist' or 'strict constructionist', but then does a "There's no explicit right to privacy" mambo either doesn't remember the Ninth Amendment, or is a hypocrite.
If you remember back to your days in, well, any level of public education in the US short of graduate-school-not-in-history-or-poli-sci, there was a discussion of 'checks and balances'. One of these 'checks and balances' is that the President does not have to sign a bill that he disagrees with. If Bush knew or cared about the amendment, he could veto the bill and make speech explaining to the American people that Congressional politicking is preventing the passage of this important spending bill. Think back to how Clinton handled Gingrich during their budget conflicts - if a wimpy liberal like Clinton could make a congress controlled by the GOP back down, certainly Bush could get a Congress controlled by his own party back in line.
Bush either likes the amendment, doesn't care about it, or doesn't know about it. None of these options means that Bush doesn't get some of the blame if you think the bill "sux".
I agree. Bush is an utterly powerlessness President. He has never shown any ability to affect the decisions of Congress by say calling them on the phone, inviting them over for a talk, having someone on his huge staff contact their staff, using his influence as the de facto head of the GOP or finding some member of the media to hear his opinions on anything.
Or are you some liberal who has fallen for the media's line that Bush is stupid and lazy and probably doesn't even read the laws he signs, much less understand them?
According to both of your wiki links, Darwin and Wallace had no knowledge of Matthew and Wells. People had been hypothesizing about all of this biodiversity, including ideas resembling evolution by natural selection, since the ancient Greeks. Darwin was the first to take these vague ideas and tie them together with his observations from the Beagle voyage, combined with the gradualist theories of contemporary geology and come up with a unified and fairly complete method for how evolution worked. Then he sat on, er, "polished" it for years until Wallace sent him a letter (Hey, look something on topic in my post.) with some of his ideas regarding natural selection, prompting Darwin to get off his butt and publish. The importance of Darwin's work was that it gave a _why_ to biology.
Since then, of course, natural selection theory has been subject to many changes, ther biggest probably being punctuated equilibrium, but still stands as the foundation of modern biological thought.
As a full-time stay-at-home Dad all I can say to your comments re: parental responsibility is 'Amen brutha.'
However, as a full-time stay-at-home Dad I can say that it does take a village to raise a child. A village with doctors, nurse-practioners and nurses for the kid and the parents (try keeping up with a toddler when you and mom both have upper respiratory things going on), family and neighbors who can help out or just commiserate with, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
Information that poorly secured wouldn't have been hidden from terrorists or from governments friendly to terrorists, or any other government for that matter, would it? It would have been hidden only from the average citizen - the Joe Sixpacks and Guisseppe Bagadonuts of the world - the ones the governments are serving and need the support of for the wars. Kind of odd that the they are the ones left out of the loop, isn't it?
"Okay, here's your modelling assignment for today."
"Go to museum and gaze longingly at penis in a jar. I should have stayed in college."
I come back to the argument. If you are doing nothing wrong then there will be no probable cause to get the info. It is eventually deleted and I'm not going to send anything important over something like a text message. Maybe to the gf to see when she is coming over. They can read those till they are blue in the face. As long as they don't show them to our parents.
So you do have something to hide. Seeing your girlfriend isn't against the law, so why would you be afraid of anyone finding out? What else are you doing? Drugs? Physical contact? Reading inappropriate books? Why are you trying to hide things from your parents? They can't arrest you, you know.
Alternately, you could move out of the basement...
so what's the point of Office?
Well, it doesn't have built-in PDF creation, so adobe probably likes it...
But being ordered to remove information pertaining to the specifics of an ongoing legal case is not censorship.
I know that in some countries publicly discussing court matters is a big no-no, but in the USA it's pretty common. Frex, if you are a multimillionaire ex-NBAer, you can go on national tv to explain that you're really a nice family man who would never try to cover up negligently gunning down his limo driver, but not do the same under oath and it's perfectly legal. The idea that the government could arrest someone for say, robbery, and not say who was robbed or what was stolen is odd, and tends to make a good, government-doubting American a little skeptical. But not letting the accused give the details of wat they are charged with does fall under censorship. The government is not allowing someone (in this case a group) speak or publish freely. You may feel that the censorship is justified, because the threat to security is so high, or that community standards of decency are violated by saying "We were charged under the PATRIOT ACT for x, y, and a whole lotta z," or because the ACLU are a bunch of whining liberals who should just have a nice, big glass of shut the fuck up, but it's still censorship.
Blago - is that you? Or are you one of his idiot consultants?
"I used to work near the hydrant factory, but I had to quit. You couldn't park anywhere near the place."