They should mix it up a little more, there are plenty of fairly famous works out there that could be used. For instance, "Ask Slashdot: Is Second Life Filling Up? Make Room! Make Room!" or "US States Unify Age of Childhood's End".
No one has a reasonable expectation of privacy once they are outdoors.
Yet if I were to follow a woman around everywhere she went outdoors I'd be branded a stalker, because here in the real world, people expect to have privacy. Just because a supreme court justice says I don't expect to be videotaped does not make it true.
As for flash memory, I'll believe it when I see it.
I don't think any magic whizbang stuff is needed, the vast majority of these devices are FAT filesystems where undelete.exe can recover deleted files. Or they do "fast formats" which just write out a new file allocation table without actually erasing any of the data (Not sure if the "full format" actually writes over data either, Microsoft's KB says the difference is that the full format scans for bad sectors).
You've got work to be done and guys who want to get work done. In fact, they even take pride in getting work done. How hard to do you have to work to screw this up?
You forgot the most important part of the equation: the money. Once money comes into the picture, it's a free-for-all over every last scrap. Worker against worker, department against department. From there comes inflated promises, inflated budgets, office politics, backstabbing, sabotage, and so on.
Do the people who support racial profiling only support it because they know that it's not them that will be profiled?
I think they demand racial profiling because they're offended by being treated like criminals, when only the people who look like they might be criminals should be treated like criminals. Never mind that Oklahomans are responsible for the second largest terrorist attack on US soil, or more recently, attempting to bring a pipebomb on the plane. Never mind that kid with the gun in a teddy bear. Or the right-wing racists with their hydrogen-cyanide bombs. Of course, the UK has their share of right-wing homicidal nutters defended by the government. I'm even willing to bet the Russians who dragged radioactive crap through a number of European airports didn't look Islamic at all.
"But that's ok, as long as I don't have to stand in line and be searched, and they don't have to go over my children's stuff all that closely, I'm perfectly fine with getting blown up as long as it's not by a Muslim." pretty much sums up their thought process.
Bush's administration has failed at their #2 job, which is telling the American people what the hell is going on, but this has been compounded and greatly muddied by a fleet of talking heads that spit venom.
Whoa, whoa, what now? I'll admit there's a shitload of biased crap out there, I'll admit that I have my own bias, but Bush's problems with dealing honestly with the American public is a direct result of the culture of secrecy that he's created all by his lonesome. I don't see CNN news anchors going out and telling people that they have ABSOLUTE PROOF that WMDs are on the move and heading this way, but they can't show anyone anything because of national security. I don't see the BBC removing their historical archives because it might embarrass someone in the government. I don't see MoveOn out there redacting overcharges on KBR's audits. What do "talking heads that spit venom" have to do with any of that?
The only positive point of this president is that he's done great things for the economy
Hey, I can do great things on my economy too, too bad I can't convince a bank to extend me the kind of credit limit Bush has. What's going to happen when all of this comes due? You don't honestly believe that Iraqi Oil is going to be able to pay for this war, do you? (We're not at war for Iraqi Oil, we've always been at war to free Iraq from Saddam)
First, I am not a die-hard Republican. Are you a die-hard Liberal?
You could say I'm a die-hard Libertarian, I think they have the best ideas for running the country as long as loud-mouthed people like me make sure they don't descend down the same path of corporate socialism that the Republicans have started down (take illegal immigration for example: Bush has done next to nothing in enforcing immigration law because for some reason corporations "deserve" below-market-rate labor, just like the comrades in USSR would laugh and play all day and share their caviar). Take a good, hard look at where Bush has taken the Republican party. As I mentioned to another poster, the opposite of "die-hard Republican" isn't "die-hard Liberal".
In case you haven't noticed, the Constituion doesn't describe laws. It describes freedoms.
Actually, the vast majority of the Constitution describes limitations of the federal government. Things like enumerating all of the powers of the office of the President (hint, signing statements that change the law being signed is not one of those powers), as well as the rest of the government. The Bill of Rights was added on specifically because our forefathers had the foresight to believe that somewhere down the line, someone would find loopholes (interstate commerce, invention of new methods of communication, etc) and try to use the power of government against its people.
they have some semblance of respect for the office of the presidency.
If they had some semblance of respect for the office, they'd demand that the President execute the laws faithfully as the Constitution demands, and not use his "signing statements" to override or twist the laws to his own ends.
The Administration is effectively neutered.
Thats what they said the first time they killed the Total Information Awareness program.
Trying to suggest polarization after someone defending the opposing standpoint broached it is unfair and disingenuous.
You HAVE to recognize that Bush has been the number one polarizer in modern USA, he's inches from the all-time record, saved by the fact that at least he hasn't managed to cause any states to withdraw from the Union. As for Bush being something of a pariah, that's rather an understatement when you consider the fact that he's driving long-standing Republicans like former Congressman Bob Barr to the Libertarian party. The only mistake is in assuming the opposite of a "die-hard Republican" is a "liberal".
let's demand someone who can produce results we want.
Who knows, maybe in 2008 we'll start seeing some L's after people's names in the news. Hopefully by giving a new party a shot at running things, they'll stick to their core beliefs in attempt to prove that they deserve to stay.
Re:My responses to the Slate article.
on
2006's Bill of Wrongs
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Given the attacks on the USA, can you really expect us not to be at least a little sensitive to the possibility? So we found out many of them weren't. That is why we released them.
Actually, we did not release most of the people who were released from Guantanamo Bay, we shipped them to other countries for "rendition" and those countries let them go. Furthermore, that court hasn't even been built, we haven't "found out" anything either way. Innocent until proven guilty is a great idea, shame the Republicans only believe in it when DeLay is getting hammered by their worldview.
Do you have proof they are injuring civil liberties out of mere selfish political drive?
What would that proof mean to you? That it's OK to "injure civil liberties" as long as you're not being selfish about it?
Not enough people are active enough to contribute to the voice of the country.
The voice of the country is perfectly healthy these days as long as you toe the party lines. Suggest after 9/11 that the pentagon was a valid military target, and even though it would have been the act of war that could have justified everything that followed, you end up getting death threats because that's not the politically expedient thing to suggest while the administration twists and grasps for any other excuse to go to war. In the years following that, over and over the same thing: if you don't say we're winning and things are going great, you're "aiding and abetting the enemy", grounds for a capital offense of treason, I believe. The only difference is that later, the threat was to use the power of government to execute you, rather than the suggestion that someone might break into your house at night and stab you in your sleep.
Since this is about "activist courts" I'll throw in the observation that Bush's "signing statements" have been every bit as activist as the justices he decries. "Legislating from the White House" has no basis whatsoever in the Constitution, which specifically gives him the power to veto bills he does not like. The rest, he has sworn to faithfully execute.
The rest of your post is the same pointless parroting "it couldn't have happened if the people didn't want it to". This, of course, can excuse anything from murder to p2p filesharing. The fact that we are "a nation of laws, not of men" is lost on you, Bush, and the rest of the die-hard Republicans. I'll believe that the "people wanted it to happen" when the Republicans obey the legally defined constitutional amendment process and set the laws of our nation to permit these things.
Until then, we're going to be stuck listening to the same blowhards that have been spouting off the last 5 years. They'll be begging the Democrats not to impeach Bush over "partisan bickering" and it will probably work. These masses will hear about how changing presidents mid-war will be a sign of weakness (just like any other company, if a person quitting mid project or getting hit by a bus kills the company, you were doing it wrong), and they'll believe it. These masses will be told that the people complaining about Joseph Padilla, Maher Arar, international wiretaps, domestic call tracking, torture, and so on and so forth... they all want the terrorists to win and Americans to die, and they'll buy it.
The interesting question is, how do you know whether you're listening to the message or the pad? What if one station's bunch of random numbers is broadcasting the one time pad, which is then later used by the other station to broadcast other numbers that are the actual message?
After that, end the programs and use the money right here.
And people wonder how, with trillions of planets out there, we haven't run into another space-faring species. I think this is the solution to the Fermi Paradox right here.
Show with 100% certainty that the Bush administration is 100% responsible for the war in Iraq.
Let's try it your way:
1) Muslim clerics who continue to stir up the populace ordered the US Army into Iraq. [2 dozen snipers could have dealt with this in two weeks] 2) Foreign terror groups who intentionally target civilians ordered the US Army into Iraq. [ditto, with the added bonus that if you blew up a few apartment complexes and pinned the blame on these terror groups, they'd evaporate in a few months once they became unpopular with their neighbors] 3) Iran and Syria ordered the US Army into Iraq. [Don't know what to tell you here, other than our army appears to be in the wrong fucking nation, now doesn't it?] 4) Iraqi politicians ordered the US Army into Iraq to be their own personal army. [Iraqi politicians with personal armies? First I've heard of it, though I know over there anyone wanting to maintain law and order pretty much HAVE to be an army unto themselves] 5) Corrupt leftovers of the Saddam era regime ordered the US Army into Iraq. [Ditto on the snipers]
There were good (even if some turned out wrong) reasons why our army went into Iraq. You listed NONE of them. We ran out of good reasons once we dug Saddam out of his hole.
it's "a single product of a single administration"
The buck stops at the top. Who failed to plan for your #1-5? Who failed to plan for "what happens next" after Saddam was gone? Who failed to plan for insurgency when just about everyone outside of the administration pointed out that evicting the last secular regime in the middle east would have created a power vacuum that'd make seasoned whores blush?
It's just more of today's buck-passing culture at work. Boy smashes in a window... must be the baseball coach's fault for giving him the bat, must be the gangsta rapper's fault for glorifying violence, must be the video game's fault for teaching the kid how to break windows, must be Hollywood's fault for creating an anti-authoritarian culture. But the boy's fault? Never!
Granted, it should be spent regardless as government information about private citizens (i.e., social security numbers) should be protected at all costs
Well, this should be fully analyzed to see whether it's actually going to protect anything, or whether it's just "Something must be done! This is something my brother who runs this one company told me about, therefore we must do it!" For instance, laptops are involved in the majority of data loss cases. If someone suspends a laptop and sets it down somewhere, will the OS purge the key from memory so that when Evil Dude picks it up he can't simply resume with full access to the drive? What about cases where people close the lid thinking the laptop will automatically hibernate, but for whatever reason it doesn't?
Here's a thought for you: how much would it cost me to get the government to quit putting sensitive information on so many laptops?
in other words, it takes the government a few months to go over every line on every page with a black marker. The pages might be declassified (but see if you can read the information!)
Actually, given Bush's penchant for re-classifying classified information that might embarrass the government, the delay is in retyping the whole stack in disappearing ink.
I don't see anything wrong with either version of the experiment. Nobody is actually getting hurt, nad afterwards the unknowning victim (the button pusher) is told that it's all fake either way.
It's the "unknowing victim" part that's at issue here, whether or not they were told after the fact that it was all an act (though in this case, one would presume that they would understand that nobody is being hurt, yet the results show that it's not that clear cut...)
That said, it would be interesting to compare the results of this study to some other variations... say a computer figure that "wants to eat a slice of pie", and you have to electrocute it to keep it from eating the pie. If a person is given a task other than "just electrocute the guy for the hell of it" are they more likely to go through with it? (This could also be used to measure the effect of stress on reaction time... is the participant going to be able to hit the button in time when the figure reaches out to grab the pie if they know the figure is going to start convulsing? As an "unknowing victim" the participant would even be told that it's a test of reaction time.)
Funny, I was able to find them (buried in a mess of useless program titles, like one called "Thomas Confirmation" which was a recording of a high school debate team's discussion of the confirmation).
The floor debate and confirmation vote are the two that are actually the confirmation process in action, the others are programs by C-SPAN (or edited bits and pieces)
It's still idealism. We wouldn't have to have whistle-blower laws if corporations were falling all over themselves to hire such honest people. After all, which would YOU rather count on when it comes to hiding your corruption?
Yeah, because stopping you, scanning your passport, then letting you on through was SO much faster than stopping you, sliding your passport through a stripe reader, and letting you through.
Refer to a map, please, like this one. Unless you're going to claim Tuvalu and Kiribati (you know, the other nations that are becoming "washed up") are part of the "Pacific Ocean River Delta" just to try to convince everyone you're right.
It's time for Congress to just give it up as a bad job
I agree. I'm tired of the whining from people saying "but at least it's something, and something is better than nothing!" At some point you have to admit that the only "something" in the TSA is handwaving, and lots of it, and that it's no better than "nothing" but costs a whole lot more.
Slashdot Mirror
They should mix it up a little more, there are plenty of fairly famous works out there that could be used. For instance, "Ask Slashdot: Is Second Life Filling Up? Make Room! Make Room!" or "US States Unify Age of Childhood's End".
You can protect yourself by shielding yourself from functional MRI technology
;)
Are wrenches as effective against fMRI machines as they are against regular MRI machines?
Briefly, if any guy can legally get see you somewhere, then you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy there.
But if I look in a window and see you changing, I'm a peeping tom and a sex offender.
Whose definition of reasonable is this?
No one has a reasonable expectation of privacy once they are outdoors.
Yet if I were to follow a woman around everywhere she went outdoors I'd be branded a stalker, because here in the real world, people expect to have privacy. Just because a supreme court justice says I don't expect to be videotaped does not make it true.
As for flash memory, I'll believe it when I see it.
I don't think any magic whizbang stuff is needed, the vast majority of these devices are FAT filesystems where undelete.exe can recover deleted files. Or they do "fast formats" which just write out a new file allocation table without actually erasing any of the data (Not sure if the "full format" actually writes over data either, Microsoft's KB says the difference is that the full format scans for bad sectors).
You've got work to be done and guys who want to get work done. In fact, they even take pride in getting work done. How hard to do you have to work to screw this up?
You forgot the most important part of the equation: the money. Once money comes into the picture, it's a free-for-all over every last scrap. Worker against worker, department against department. From there comes inflated promises, inflated budgets, office politics, backstabbing, sabotage, and so on.
How can you "forward" an im to another person or group of people?
I use bash.org for that.
Do the people who support racial profiling only support it because they know that it's not them that will be profiled?
I think they demand racial profiling because they're offended by being treated like criminals, when only the people who look like they might be criminals should be treated like criminals. Never mind that Oklahomans are responsible for the second largest terrorist attack on US soil, or more recently, attempting to bring a pipebomb on the plane. Never mind that kid with the gun in a teddy bear. Or the right-wing racists with their hydrogen-cyanide bombs. Of course, the UK has their share of right-wing homicidal nutters defended by the government. I'm even willing to bet the Russians who dragged radioactive crap through a number of European airports didn't look Islamic at all.
"But that's ok, as long as I don't have to stand in line and be searched, and they don't have to go over my children's stuff all that closely, I'm perfectly fine with getting blown up as long as it's not by a Muslim." pretty much sums up their thought process.
to try and identify problem passengers BEFORE the plane takes off seems only prudent doesn't it?
Great idea! Now explain why the information has to be kept for over 3 years AFTER the plane takes off?
In fact, the law specifically states what may be classified, and by who.
I bet the law doesn't say that KBR can redact entries from its audit that demonstrated that they overcharged Americans, but they got to do it anyway.
However, shitheads like you just accuse everyone of working with classified material as conspirators.
They must have had help from the inside. I mean, I can't just go into the IRS office and redact my taxable salary if I want to, now can I?
Bush's administration has failed at their #2 job, which is telling the American people what the hell is going on, but this has been compounded and greatly muddied by a fleet of talking heads that spit venom.
Whoa, whoa, what now? I'll admit there's a shitload of biased crap out there, I'll admit that I have my own bias, but Bush's problems with dealing honestly with the American public is a direct result of the culture of secrecy that he's created all by his lonesome. I don't see CNN news anchors going out and telling people that they have ABSOLUTE PROOF that WMDs are on the move and heading this way, but they can't show anyone anything because of national security. I don't see the BBC removing their historical archives because it might embarrass someone in the government. I don't see MoveOn out there redacting overcharges on KBR's audits. What do "talking heads that spit venom" have to do with any of that?
The only positive point of this president is that he's done great things for the economy
Hey, I can do great things on my economy too, too bad I can't convince a bank to extend me the kind of credit limit Bush has. What's going to happen when all of this comes due? You don't honestly believe that Iraqi Oil is going to be able to pay for this war, do you? (We're not at war for Iraqi Oil, we've always been at war to free Iraq from Saddam)
First, I am not a die-hard Republican. Are you a die-hard Liberal?
You could say I'm a die-hard Libertarian, I think they have the best ideas for running the country as long as loud-mouthed people like me make sure they don't descend down the same path of corporate socialism that the Republicans have started down (take illegal immigration for example: Bush has done next to nothing in enforcing immigration law because for some reason corporations "deserve" below-market-rate labor, just like the comrades in USSR would laugh and play all day and share their caviar). Take a good, hard look at where Bush has taken the Republican party. As I mentioned to another poster, the opposite of "die-hard Republican" isn't "die-hard Liberal".
In case you haven't noticed, the Constituion doesn't describe laws. It describes freedoms.
Actually, the vast majority of the Constitution describes limitations of the federal government. Things like enumerating all of the powers of the office of the President (hint, signing statements that change the law being signed is not one of those powers), as well as the rest of the government. The Bill of Rights was added on specifically because our forefathers had the foresight to believe that somewhere down the line, someone would find loopholes (interstate commerce, invention of new methods of communication, etc) and try to use the power of government against its people.
they have some semblance of respect for the office of the presidency.
If they had some semblance of respect for the office, they'd demand that the President execute the laws faithfully as the Constitution demands, and not use his "signing statements" to override or twist the laws to his own ends.
The Administration is effectively neutered.
Thats what they said the first time they killed the Total Information Awareness program.
Trying to suggest polarization after someone defending the opposing standpoint broached it is unfair and disingenuous.
You HAVE to recognize that Bush has been the number one polarizer in modern USA, he's inches from the all-time record, saved by the fact that at least he hasn't managed to cause any states to withdraw from the Union. As for Bush being something of a pariah, that's rather an understatement when you consider the fact that he's driving long-standing Republicans like former Congressman Bob Barr to the Libertarian party. The only mistake is in assuming the opposite of a "die-hard Republican" is a "liberal".
let's demand someone who can produce results we want.
Who knows, maybe in 2008 we'll start seeing some L's after people's names in the news. Hopefully by giving a new party a shot at running things, they'll stick to their core beliefs in attempt to prove that they deserve to stay.
Given the attacks on the USA, can you really expect us not to be at least a little sensitive to the possibility? So we found out many of them weren't. That is why we released them.
Actually, we did not release most of the people who were released from Guantanamo Bay, we shipped them to other countries for "rendition" and those countries let them go. Furthermore, that court hasn't even been built, we haven't "found out" anything either way. Innocent until proven guilty is a great idea, shame the Republicans only believe in it when DeLay is getting hammered by their worldview.
Do you have proof they are injuring civil liberties out of mere selfish political drive?
What would that proof mean to you? That it's OK to "injure civil liberties" as long as you're not being selfish about it?
Not enough people are active enough to contribute to the voice of the country.
The voice of the country is perfectly healthy these days as long as you toe the party lines. Suggest after 9/11 that the pentagon was a valid military target, and even though it would have been the act of war that could have justified everything that followed, you end up getting death threats because that's not the politically expedient thing to suggest while the administration twists and grasps for any other excuse to go to war. In the years following that, over and over the same thing: if you don't say we're winning and things are going great, you're "aiding and abetting the enemy", grounds for a capital offense of treason, I believe. The only difference is that later, the threat was to use the power of government to execute you, rather than the suggestion that someone might break into your house at night and stab you in your sleep.
Since this is about "activist courts" I'll throw in the observation that Bush's "signing statements" have been every bit as activist as the justices he decries. "Legislating from the White House" has no basis whatsoever in the Constitution, which specifically gives him the power to veto bills he does not like. The rest, he has sworn to faithfully execute.
The rest of your post is the same pointless parroting "it couldn't have happened if the people didn't want it to". This, of course, can excuse anything from murder to p2p filesharing. The fact that we are "a nation of laws, not of men" is lost on you, Bush, and the rest of the die-hard Republicans. I'll believe that the "people wanted it to happen" when the Republicans obey the legally defined constitutional amendment process and set the laws of our nation to permit these things.
Until then, we're going to be stuck listening to the same blowhards that have been spouting off the last 5 years. They'll be begging the Democrats not to impeach Bush over "partisan bickering" and it will probably work. These masses will hear about how changing presidents mid-war will be a sign of weakness (just like any other company, if a person quitting mid project or getting hit by a bus kills the company, you were doing it wrong), and they'll believe it. These masses will be told that the people complaining about Joseph Padilla, Maher Arar, international wiretaps, domestic call tracking, torture, and so on and so forth... they all want the terrorists to win and Americans to die, and they'll buy it.
And so the world turns...
The interesting question is, how do you know whether you're listening to the message or the pad? What if one station's bunch of random numbers is broadcasting the one time pad, which is then later used by the other station to broadcast other numbers that are the actual message?
After that, end the programs and use the money right here.
And people wonder how, with trillions of planets out there, we haven't run into another space-faring species. I think this is the solution to the Fermi Paradox right here.
Show with 100% certainty that the Bush administration is 100% responsible for the war in Iraq.
Let's try it your way:
1) Muslim clerics who continue to stir up the populace ordered the US Army into Iraq. [2 dozen snipers could have dealt with this in two weeks]
2) Foreign terror groups who intentionally target civilians ordered the US Army into Iraq. [ditto, with the added bonus that if you blew up a few apartment complexes and pinned the blame on these terror groups, they'd evaporate in a few months once they became unpopular with their neighbors]
3) Iran and Syria ordered the US Army into Iraq. [Don't know what to tell you here, other than our army appears to be in the wrong fucking nation, now doesn't it?]
4) Iraqi politicians ordered the US Army into Iraq to be their own personal army. [Iraqi politicians with personal armies? First I've heard of it, though I know over there anyone wanting to maintain law and order pretty much HAVE to be an army unto themselves]
5) Corrupt leftovers of the Saddam era regime ordered the US Army into Iraq. [Ditto on the snipers]
There were good (even if some turned out wrong) reasons why our army went into Iraq. You listed NONE of them. We ran out of good reasons once we dug Saddam out of his hole.
it's "a single product of a single administration"
The buck stops at the top. Who failed to plan for your #1-5? Who failed to plan for "what happens next" after Saddam was gone? Who failed to plan for insurgency when just about everyone outside of the administration pointed out that evicting the last secular regime in the middle east would have created a power vacuum that'd make seasoned whores blush?
It's just more of today's buck-passing culture at work. Boy smashes in a window... must be the baseball coach's fault for giving him the bat, must be the gangsta rapper's fault for glorifying violence, must be the video game's fault for teaching the kid how to break windows, must be Hollywood's fault for creating an anti-authoritarian culture. But the boy's fault? Never!
Granted, it should be spent regardless as government information about private citizens (i.e., social security numbers) should be protected at all costs
Well, this should be fully analyzed to see whether it's actually going to protect anything, or whether it's just "Something must be done! This is something my brother who runs this one company told me about, therefore we must do it!" For instance, laptops are involved in the majority of data loss cases. If someone suspends a laptop and sets it down somewhere, will the OS purge the key from memory so that when Evil Dude picks it up he can't simply resume with full access to the drive? What about cases where people close the lid thinking the laptop will automatically hibernate, but for whatever reason it doesn't?
Here's a thought for you: how much would it cost me to get the government to quit putting sensitive information on so many laptops?
in other words, it takes the government a few months to go over every line on every page with a black marker. The pages might be declassified (but see if you can read the information!)
Actually, given Bush's penchant for re-classifying classified information that might embarrass the government, the delay is in retyping the whole stack in disappearing ink.
I don't see anything wrong with either version of the experiment. Nobody is actually getting hurt, nad afterwards the unknowning victim (the button pusher) is told that it's all fake either way.
It's the "unknowing victim" part that's at issue here, whether or not they were told after the fact that it was all an act (though in this case, one would presume that they would understand that nobody is being hurt, yet the results show that it's not that clear cut...)
That said, it would be interesting to compare the results of this study to some other variations... say a computer figure that "wants to eat a slice of pie", and you have to electrocute it to keep it from eating the pie. If a person is given a task other than "just electrocute the guy for the hell of it" are they more likely to go through with it? (This could also be used to measure the effect of stress on reaction time... is the participant going to be able to hit the button in time when the figure reaches out to grab the pie if they know the figure is going to start convulsing? As an "unknowing victim" the participant would even be told that it's a test of reaction time.)
Funny, I was able to find them (buried in a mess of useless program titles, like one called "Thomas Confirmation" which was a recording of a high school debate team's discussion of the confirmation).
g e=product_video_info&products_id=22040-1g e=product_video_info&products_id=22041-1g e=product_video_info&products_id=22095-1g e=product_video_info&products_id=21107-2
Floor Debate: http://www.c-spanstore.org/shop/index.php?main_pa
Confirmation Vote: http://www.c-spanstore.org/shop/index.php?main_pa
Call-in interview segment with two senators (one for, one against) following the vote: http://www.c-spanstore.org/shop/index.php?main_pa
Selected Clips: http://www.c-spanstore.org/shop/index.php?main_pa
The floor debate and confirmation vote are the two that are actually the confirmation process in action, the others are programs by C-SPAN (or edited bits and pieces)
It's still idealism. We wouldn't have to have whistle-blower laws if corporations were falling all over themselves to hire such honest people. After all, which would YOU rather count on when it comes to hiding your corruption?
Yeah, because stopping you, scanning your passport, then letting you on through was SO much faster than stopping you, sliding your passport through a stripe reader, and letting you through.
the islands are part of a river delta.
Refer to a map, please, like this one. Unless you're going to claim Tuvalu and Kiribati (you know, the other nations that are becoming "washed up") are part of the "Pacific Ocean River Delta" just to try to convince everyone you're right.
It's time for Congress to just give it up as a bad job
I agree. I'm tired of the whining from people saying "but at least it's something, and something is better than nothing!" At some point you have to admit that the only "something" in the TSA is handwaving, and lots of it, and that it's no better than "nothing" but costs a whole lot more.