It's because the evidence isn't there to justify them. This is why Bush directed the NSA to go around FISA and just wiretap whenever they felt they needed to, oversight (and evidence) be damned.
The problem is that you won't have any real "evidence" until after the terrorist act is committed and people are dead. The question any politician must as is... "Do I want to be the one to tell the American people... yea, we knew about this guy, and we obeyed the law and didn't go get him, and he was able to kill thousands..?"
One of these wiretaps was able to stop a guy by the name of Iman Ferris who was plotting to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge. Can anyone imagine how horrific that would have been, especially during the recent NYC transit strike? The death toll would have easily passed that of 9/11. Personally, I don't care if the government found out that he had an outstanding parking ticket (as an example) to keep this guy off the streets so that he can't go and kill thousands of people.
This whole situation reminds me of when the IRS went and finally busted Al Capone. That agency was able to do what no other government agency could, and they did it by nailing him on tax laws for which you cannot use the standard courts to defend yourself (you go to U.S. Tax Court for that). I am sure that most of the people in Chicago were happy to have his butt off the streets, no matter what the reason was for initially nailing him.
Verizon is probably the most notorious./me glances at his moto v710 with crippled bluetooth
Whose fault is it for buying such a phone? Did Verizon hold a gun to your head and force you to purchase it? The V710's crippled Bluetooth implementation wasn't exactly a secret. Heck, if you had googled for the term "v710" one of the first entries tells you that the phone is crippled.
You cannot indict the cell phone companies in the USA based on a single ill-informed purchase. There are many people who buy unlocked, uncrippled phones from other providers (like what I did) and have had no problems at all with their phones.
In some states felons lose the right to vote permanently. This is politely known as "Civil Disenfranchisement". In Midevil times it was associated with the term "Civil Death". Felons are also forbidden from obtaining some jobs (in government), and have to tell all other employers of their status. They are also often forbidden from obtaining some scholarships and grants.
On the bright side, they will never get called for jury duty.
Perhaps that is because you only see the suggestions as complaining. "Don't start a war with someone that isn't a threat based on lies" isn't a complaint. It is a factual statement of where the Democrats would have saved money that Jr. didn't.
Wrong. Back in 2002, the Democrats were just as gung-ho about going to war in Iraq as the Republicans. You can even go back to 1998 and hear Bill Clinton explain how great of a threat Saddam Hussein was and why he needed to be removed. Other major Democratic leaders like Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy and even John Kerry also explained why Saddam had to be removed from power. Now most people in the USA understand that support was just pre-election poo-pooing so that the swing voters would not think the Democrats were a bunch of peacenik wimps (with their losses in the 2000, 2002 and 2004 elections, that did not work), but these statements are on the record, and the Democrats will not get away with a post-war rewrite of history.
Why do you need to see some concrete plan to notice that the Democrats are the only surplus generator in recent histroy
Clintons' surpluses only started after the Republicans took control of Congress in 1995. The U.S. was still coming out of a recession from 1993 to 1995, and Bill Clinton also signed into law a very hefty tax hike, both of which accounted for the shrinking deficit, but during the time the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House (1993-1995) there was no focus on controlling spending at all. Repealing that tax hike is what helped to bring us out of the 2000-2002 recession.
When the debt is gone, taxes will be 25% less than they are now, and the budget will be balanced. If you want a 25% cut in taxes, you have to take the small tax increase now.
Heh. The problem with that idea is that any extra revenue realized from tax hikes (prior to their killing the economy) is going to be wasted on more useless BS like TV subsidies. The government needs less money, not more, but there needs to be a legal cap on how much money the government can spend before it can borrow more money.
I realize this is in an 'analysis' piece, but I would be very surprised if it were actually true. Unless by cutting back, he means cutting back in the rate of growth.
Neither is true. Anyone who tries to criticize the current administration for spending less on anything is either ill-informed or has been living in a box for the past 6 years. During George W. Bush's term in office, Federal spending has increased at a rate opposite of free fall. Its one of the things that many conservatives like myself find appalling, but we don't see the Democrats as offering any real alternatives to Bush's spending plans (all they do is whine and complain).
I hate how other (alleged) "small government" conservatives try to "argue away" this issue. I am sure that for a president to get the things he wants out of Congress he needs to give a little on the spending side, and I can completely understand that winning a war requires spending money. But Bush literally went off the deep end when he expanded Medicare to cover prescription drug costs, spent tons of money on a useless Farm Bill, and threw even more money at an ineffective Education Department.
There are a lot of conservatives out there would be more than happy with a president who was not only serious about winning the War on Terror but who was also more concerned with keeping the size of the Federal government as small as possible. This idea of offering TV subsidies to people to switch is beyond ludicrous. No one has a Federally-guaranteed right to free TV. If someone wants a television, there's nothing stoping most people from going and working for the money to buy one.
However, the fact that so many people were neither surprised nor outraged that the original story might have happened in the US... just indifferent... was rather depressing.
I remember as soon as I heard this story the first thing that came to my mind was it was just another college prank. However, the student clearly knew that someone would believe his story which is probably the reason he told it. It's no different than when Susan Smith killed her 2 children and then blamed the crime on black men. People believed her because she knew that story would be more plausible than if a more politically correct group of people had victimized her.
Did you get the same going rate as a person in a contract would?
I paid a lot more for the phone, but it was the MPx220 when it first came out, so the price difference between $350 and $500 wasn't too bad. One major benefit of paying in full is that the phone is unlocked (The phone was from Cingular and I tested this by slipping in a friend's T-Mobile SIM into the phone and it worked). But as for monthly rates I still pay the same.
Basically, I splurchased the phone because I wanted it right now (and my old phone was literally falling apart!). I know it was not a rational decision but it still proves that buying the phone outright and not getting service is possible.
I don't think cell phone contracts are all that bad really. They enable someone to get a cell phone at a price that is much cheaper than what they would pay if they bought the phone outright. I don't think a system in which you would be required to buy the phone prior to getting the service is a good one because it prices out people with lower incomes who want to get cell phone service.
I'd like to know where the hell you've seen that. I can tell you right now that Verizon, Cingular, SprintPCS, and Nextel require a minimum 1 year contract regardless of what you pay for the phone.
I can tell its true because I did it myself. I purchased a phone outright from Cingular and I was able to maintain month to month service.
Market deregulation is good and all until someone wins outright and gains the monopoly then you'll be complaining about the skyrocketing prices and bad service
Put the blame where it belongs, on a government regulators that for the past 20 years has allowed for unprecedented consolidation in numerous industries. The high prices of cable TV, oil and telecom services show how this consolidation has done nothing good for the customer. Regulators should have stopped collecting bribes from the companies and instead applied some logic. Everyone knows that fewer companies providing a product or service with constant demand leads to higher prices.
And locks you into a 2 year contract just for purchasing their service.
If you are referring to cell phones in the USA, this is not a true statement. You can always purchase a phone for full price and not have to deal with a contract. Of course, some vendors (like Verizon or Sprint) only allow you to purchase their phones, others, like Cingular and T-Mobile let you get any phone you want from anywhere and use it. You can also purchase prepaid service (as long as its not from Verizon) which allows you to directly control how much you pay and how long you pay with no contract at all.
I'm figuring cell phone companies provide a no-contract option because there is a market for it. If there wasn't you wouldn't have any choice but to get into a contract (and pay full price for the phone!).
If anything, intelligence and security agencies should be recruiting the "dumb teenagers" to act as a fifth column against the organized criminals and terrorists.
Aside from the fact that most teenagers lack the type of skills needed to stop terrorism and organized crime, this approach presents a bigger problem. If all these teenagers found out that there was a nice paycheck that went along with writing viruses and worms, then that demand alone will result in even more worms being written and/or script kiddied. You will for sure end up with a lot of "dumb teenagers," but you won't get anyone who can help you fight crime or terrorism.
Point is, there was no "Al Qaeda" in name or organization prior to 9-11 -- but now there is.
You are a fucking idiot. Whoever modded this post "Insightful" is even more of a fucking idiot. Do you really believe what you are saying? Are you going to tell me that the USS Cole bombing and the Dharan base bombings were carried out by the Boogeyman?
What bin Laden is, is a nutjob, and he has a small cadre of nutjobs that are with him. He can't declare war. He's not a country. He's a criminal. Send police after him. SAME with these nutjobs.
Send the cops after terrorists? We did that after the 1993 WTC bombing and we put the terrorists in jail. That sure prevented the WTC from being attacked again! And what was that about Osama not being able to declare war on the USA?
Gonna keep killing "terrorists" until the world runs out of them, as you've implied?
Let's see, that worked with the Nazis in Germany, the Facsists in Italy and many other enemies of the free world. We certainly did not care about "swelling their ranks" as we killed them because they were certainly more than willing to kill as many of us as they possibly could.
People like you need to understand that there are people out there who want us all dead and they are willing to do whatever it takes to kill each and every one of us. No amount of cajoling, coddling or conversation will ever change the way they think. The only way to be 100% sure that they can never hurt us is to kill 100% of them.
From CNN -- "US keeps control over internet computers"
From the Brits -- "US appears to affirm its authority on the internet"
From the Canadians -- "US to control internet traffic"
India -- "US won't cede monopoly on the internet"
You forgot:
FOX News- "Bush saves American Internet from Evil Foreigners!"
Screw a break, I want a series based of the Mirror Universe.
If I had a mod point, I would shower you with it! That's actually a really great idea. There aren't too many intersections with the "main" ST universe which reduces the chances of fubaring things.
It would also be an interesting plot twist to see the "Federation" as the bad guys.
You can't realistically expect Joe SixPack, who doesn't know the difference between the CD tray and a coffee cup holder, to keep his computer up to date with the latest service pack or patch.
Why not? Most people don't know anything about how their cars work but do know that the oil needs to be changed at regular intervals and when the "Service Engine Soon" light comes on, it's time to visit a mechanic. They also know that if they don't do this their car will cease to function.
I'm really sick of the whole "people who don't know computers should be exempt from the rules" attitude. You know? Personal computers have been around for a very long time now, they aren't novelty items and people who use them should be expected to be courteous enough to keep them virus-free.
I for one am glad a major ISP is finally cutting off people who are too lazy to keep their computers secure. I hope more ISPs do this.
He doesn't use NY roads, his kids don't use NY schools, he deosn't get to vote for NY legislators, senators or anything, he doesn't use NY public transport.
That sounds a lot like what Hillary Clinton wasn't doing in 1999.
I bought a 3500$ tv which only had 1 year warranty on it. It stops working 366 days after buying it and costs 2000$ to repair or worst case, I have to replace it, that 300$ 4 year extended warranty is going to seem pretty cheap.
I agree with you here. I also bought a similar TV from Best Buy not too long ago. I also bought the extended service plan for $250. This is probably one of the few times I would make such an investment. The only reason being is that if anything does happen to the TV, the repair people will come to your house to fix it. Considering how hard it is to lug a 500 pound 48" projection TV around, which is what I would need to do if I wanted to make use of the manufacturer warrenty, I would say this is a good deal. It would cost me at least $200 or so to rent a truck big enough to lug the TV around in anyway.
On top of that, if the TV needs more than 3 repairs, I get a brand new one that is similar in specification to my current one. Not bad if you ask me.
While things may or may not appear in a google search, how the heck does that have anything to do with the current administration or national security?
Agreed. If you google for "Miserable Failure" you still get linked to President Bush's official White House page. If there was any sort of political influence on Google that would have been changed.
No one on/. complained about cybersquatting in 2000 when the Democrats registered "bush-cheney.net" and set up an anti-Bush site. I guess political cybersquatting is only a bad thing when Republicans do it.
As for Rep. Van Hollen, I think he needs to fire whoever he has onboard as an Internet-related advisor, because clearly that person missed the mark when it came to not registering these domain names.
For those students who aren't on an athletic team, how are the athletics at a school any different from "perks" like internet access?
I wouldn't consider student athletes to be receiving any perks at all. Sure they may go to school for free or for reduced cost, but look at that they are getting in return:
Because such students are frequently "waved-through" their courses, they receive a watered-down-at-best education which has absolutely no usefulness in the real world.
They give away for free some of their best playing years of their lives when they could be making real money playing professionally.
The university receives all the benefits of their work while the student athlete shoulders all of the burden.
And of course, if such students are the victims of career-ending injuries while in college, they are totally screwed. They can't fall back on their worthless education and they will most likely flunk out of class due to being forced to do "real" academic work like everyone else.
Contrary to popular belief though, collegiate sports is a huge money-maker for any given university. A profitable athletic program can easily subsidize the academic activities of a university... provided they don't waste the money giving away useless freebies like iPods and Napster subscriptions to students.
Oh please, how can anyone say that GWB is quashing anyone's right to dissent when Farenheight 9/11 has grossed over $100 million? Go to any bookstore these days and you'll find literally whole sections of material dedicated to Bush-bashing. How would that be possible if Bush was somehow quashing dissent?
On the other hand, John Kerry is trying to get a book made by one of the Swift Boat Vets, Unfit For Command banned... why isn't anyone accusing him of quashing those who don't agree with him?
Slashdot Mirror
Franklin was also a bit the ladies man.
Scientist, Geek, Statesman, Politician, Abolitionist and a Player too. Is there anything not to love about good ol' Ben Franklin? :)
It's because the evidence isn't there to justify them. This is why Bush directed the NSA to go around FISA and just wiretap whenever they felt they needed to, oversight (and evidence) be damned.
The problem is that you won't have any real "evidence" until after the terrorist act is committed and people are dead. The question any politician must as is... "Do I want to be the one to tell the American people... yea, we knew about this guy, and we obeyed the law and didn't go get him, and he was able to kill thousands..?"
One of these wiretaps was able to stop a guy by the name of Iman Ferris who was plotting to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge. Can anyone imagine how horrific that would have been, especially during the recent NYC transit strike? The death toll would have easily passed that of 9/11. Personally, I don't care if the government found out that he had an outstanding parking ticket (as an example) to keep this guy off the streets so that he can't go and kill thousands of people.
This whole situation reminds me of when the IRS went and finally busted Al Capone. That agency was able to do what no other government agency could, and they did it by nailing him on tax laws for which you cannot use the standard courts to defend yourself (you go to U.S. Tax Court for that). I am sure that most of the people in Chicago were happy to have his butt off the streets, no matter what the reason was for initially nailing him.
Verizon is probably the most notorious. /me glances at his moto v710 with crippled bluetooth
Whose fault is it for buying such a phone? Did Verizon hold a gun to your head and force you to purchase it? The V710's crippled Bluetooth implementation wasn't exactly a secret. Heck, if you had googled for the term "v710" one of the first entries tells you that the phone is crippled.
You cannot indict the cell phone companies in the USA based on a single ill-informed purchase. There are many people who buy unlocked, uncrippled phones from other providers (like what I did) and have had no problems at all with their phones.
In some states felons lose the right to vote permanently. This is politely known as "Civil Disenfranchisement". In Midevil times it was associated with the term "Civil Death". Felons are also forbidden from obtaining some jobs (in government), and have to tell all other employers of their status. They are also often forbidden from obtaining some scholarships and grants.
On the bright side, they will never get called for jury duty.
Perhaps that is because you only see the suggestions as complaining. "Don't start a war with someone that isn't a threat based on lies" isn't a complaint. It is a factual statement of where the Democrats would have saved money that Jr. didn't.
Wrong. Back in 2002, the Democrats were just as gung-ho about going to war in Iraq as the Republicans. You can even go back to 1998 and hear Bill Clinton explain how great of a threat Saddam Hussein was and why he needed to be removed. Other major Democratic leaders like Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy and even John Kerry also explained why Saddam had to be removed from power. Now most people in the USA understand that support was just pre-election poo-pooing so that the swing voters would not think the Democrats were a bunch of peacenik wimps (with their losses in the 2000, 2002 and 2004 elections, that did not work), but these statements are on the record, and the Democrats will not get away with a post-war rewrite of history.
Why do you need to see some concrete plan to notice that the Democrats are the only surplus generator in recent histroy
Clintons' surpluses only started after the Republicans took control of Congress in 1995. The U.S. was still coming out of a recession from 1993 to 1995, and Bill Clinton also signed into law a very hefty tax hike, both of which accounted for the shrinking deficit, but during the time the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House (1993-1995) there was no focus on controlling spending at all. Repealing that tax hike is what helped to bring us out of the 2000-2002 recession.
When the debt is gone, taxes will be 25% less than they are now, and the budget will be balanced. If you want a 25% cut in taxes, you have to take the small tax increase now.
Heh. The problem with that idea is that any extra revenue realized from tax hikes (prior to their killing the economy) is going to be wasted on more useless BS like TV subsidies. The government needs less money, not more, but there needs to be a legal cap on how much money the government can spend before it can borrow more money.
I realize this is in an 'analysis' piece, but I would be very surprised if it were actually true. Unless by cutting back, he means cutting back in the rate of growth.
Neither is true. Anyone who tries to criticize the current administration for spending less on anything is either ill-informed or has been living in a box for the past 6 years. During George W. Bush's term in office, Federal spending has increased at a rate opposite of free fall. Its one of the things that many conservatives like myself find appalling, but we don't see the Democrats as offering any real alternatives to Bush's spending plans (all they do is whine and complain).
I hate how other (alleged) "small government" conservatives try to "argue away" this issue. I am sure that for a president to get the things he wants out of Congress he needs to give a little on the spending side, and I can completely understand that winning a war requires spending money. But Bush literally went off the deep end when he expanded Medicare to cover prescription drug costs, spent tons of money on a useless Farm Bill, and threw even more money at an ineffective Education Department.
There are a lot of conservatives out there would be more than happy with a president who was not only serious about winning the War on Terror but who was also more concerned with keeping the size of the Federal government as small as possible. This idea of offering TV subsidies to people to switch is beyond ludicrous. No one has a Federally-guaranteed right to free TV. If someone wants a television, there's nothing stoping most people from going and working for the money to buy one.
However, the fact that so many people were neither surprised nor outraged that the original story might have happened in the US... just indifferent... was rather depressing.
I remember as soon as I heard this story the first thing that came to my mind was it was just another college prank. However, the student clearly knew that someone would believe his story which is probably the reason he told it. It's no different than when Susan Smith killed her 2 children and then blamed the crime on black men. People believed her because she knew that story would be more plausible than if a more politically correct group of people had victimized her.
Did you get the same going rate as a person in a contract would?
I paid a lot more for the phone, but it was the MPx220 when it first came out, so the price difference between $350 and $500 wasn't too bad. One major benefit of paying in full is that the phone is unlocked (The phone was from Cingular and I tested this by slipping in a friend's T-Mobile SIM into the phone and it worked). But as for monthly rates I still pay the same.
Basically, I splurchased the phone because I wanted it right now (and my old phone was literally falling apart!). I know it was not a rational decision but it still proves that buying the phone outright and not getting service is possible.
I don't think cell phone contracts are all that bad really. They enable someone to get a cell phone at a price that is much cheaper than what they would pay if they bought the phone outright. I don't think a system in which you would be required to buy the phone prior to getting the service is a good one because it prices out people with lower incomes who want to get cell phone service.
I'd like to know where the hell you've seen that. I can tell you right now that Verizon, Cingular, SprintPCS, and Nextel require a minimum 1 year contract regardless of what you pay for the phone.
I can tell its true because I did it myself. I purchased a phone outright from Cingular and I was able to maintain month to month service.Market deregulation is good and all until someone wins outright and gains the monopoly then you'll be complaining about the skyrocketing prices and bad service
Put the blame where it belongs, on a government regulators that for the past 20 years has allowed for unprecedented consolidation in numerous industries. The high prices of cable TV, oil and telecom services show how this consolidation has done nothing good for the customer. Regulators should have stopped collecting bribes from the companies and instead applied some logic. Everyone knows that fewer companies providing a product or service with constant demand leads to higher prices.
Donald Trump had the right idea when he said
He's right on the money here.And locks you into a 2 year contract just for purchasing their service.
If you are referring to cell phones in the USA, this is not a true statement. You can always purchase a phone for full price and not have to deal with a contract. Of course, some vendors (like Verizon or Sprint) only allow you to purchase their phones, others, like Cingular and T-Mobile let you get any phone you want from anywhere and use it. You can also purchase prepaid service (as long as its not from Verizon) which allows you to directly control how much you pay and how long you pay with no contract at all.
I'm figuring cell phone companies provide a no-contract option because there is a market for it. If there wasn't you wouldn't have any choice but to get into a contract (and pay full price for the phone!).
Maybe we should call him Minister Moonbeam!
Is this some new commericial tie-in gadget?
That would be true only if it was Krusty-brand Wireless.
If anything, intelligence and security agencies should be recruiting the "dumb teenagers" to act as a fifth column against the organized criminals and terrorists.
Aside from the fact that most teenagers lack the type of skills needed to stop terrorism and organized crime, this approach presents a bigger problem. If all these teenagers found out that there was a nice paycheck that went along with writing viruses and worms, then that demand alone will result in even more worms being written and/or script kiddied. You will for sure end up with a lot of "dumb teenagers," but you won't get anyone who can help you fight crime or terrorism.
Point is, there was no "Al Qaeda" in name or organization prior to 9-11 -- but now there is.
You are a fucking idiot. Whoever modded this post "Insightful" is even more of a fucking idiot. Do you really believe what you are saying? Are you going to tell me that the USS Cole bombing and the Dharan base bombings were carried out by the Boogeyman?
What bin Laden is, is a nutjob, and he has a small cadre of nutjobs that are with him. He can't declare war. He's not a country. He's a criminal. Send police after him. SAME with these nutjobs.
Send the cops after terrorists? We did that after the 1993 WTC bombing and we put the terrorists in jail. That sure prevented the WTC from being attacked again! And what was that about Osama not being able to declare war on the USA?
Gonna keep killing "terrorists" until the world runs out of them, as you've implied?
Let's see, that worked with the Nazis in Germany, the Facsists in Italy and many other enemies of the free world. We certainly did not care about "swelling their ranks" as we killed them because they were certainly more than willing to kill as many of us as they possibly could.
People like you need to understand that there are people out there who want us all dead and they are willing to do whatever it takes to kill each and every one of us. No amount of cajoling, coddling or conversation will ever change the way they think. The only way to be 100% sure that they can never hurt us is to kill 100% of them.
From CNN -- "US keeps control over internet computers"
From the Brits -- "US appears to affirm its authority on the internet"
From the Canadians -- "US to control internet traffic"
India -- "US won't cede monopoly on the internet"
You forgot:
FOX News- "Bush saves American Internet from Evil Foreigners!"
Screw a break, I want a series based of the Mirror Universe.
If I had a mod point, I would shower you with it! That's actually a really great idea. There aren't too many intersections with the "main" ST universe which reduces the chances of fubaring things.
It would also be an interesting plot twist to see the "Federation" as the bad guys.
You can't realistically expect Joe SixPack, who doesn't know the difference between the CD tray and a coffee cup holder, to keep his computer up to date with the latest service pack or patch.
Why not? Most people don't know anything about how their cars work but do know that the oil needs to be changed at regular intervals and when the "Service Engine Soon" light comes on, it's time to visit a mechanic. They also know that if they don't do this their car will cease to function.
I'm really sick of the whole "people who don't know computers should be exempt from the rules" attitude. You know? Personal computers have been around for a very long time now, they aren't novelty items and people who use them should be expected to be courteous enough to keep them virus-free.
I for one am glad a major ISP is finally cutting off people who are too lazy to keep their computers secure. I hope more ISPs do this.
He doesn't use NY roads, his kids don't use NY schools, he deosn't get to vote for NY legislators, senators or anything, he doesn't use NY public transport.
That sounds a lot like what Hillary Clinton wasn't doing in 1999.
I bought a 3500$ tv which only had 1 year warranty on it. It stops working 366 days after buying it and costs 2000$ to repair or worst case, I have to replace it, that 300$ 4 year extended warranty is going to seem pretty cheap.
I agree with you here. I also bought a similar TV from Best Buy not too long ago. I also bought the extended service plan for $250. This is probably one of the few times I would make such an investment. The only reason being is that if anything does happen to the TV, the repair people will come to your house to fix it. Considering how hard it is to lug a 500 pound 48" projection TV around, which is what I would need to do if I wanted to make use of the manufacturer warrenty, I would say this is a good deal. It would cost me at least $200 or so to rent a truck big enough to lug the TV around in anyway.
On top of that, if the TV needs more than 3 repairs, I get a brand new one that is similar in specification to my current one. Not bad if you ask me.
While things may or may not appear in a google search, how the heck does that have anything to do with the current administration or national security?
Agreed. If you google for "Miserable Failure" you still get linked to President Bush's official White House page. If there was any sort of political influence on Google that would have been changed.
No one on /. complained about cybersquatting in 2000 when the Democrats registered "bush-cheney.net" and set up an anti-Bush site. I guess political cybersquatting is only a bad thing when Republicans do it.
As for Rep. Van Hollen, I think he needs to fire whoever he has onboard as an Internet-related advisor, because clearly that person missed the mark when it came to not registering these domain names.
For those students who aren't on an athletic team, how are the athletics at a school any different from "perks" like internet access?
I wouldn't consider student athletes to be receiving any perks at all. Sure they may go to school for free or for reduced cost, but look at that they are getting in return:
Contrary to popular belief though, collegiate sports is a huge money-maker for any given university. A profitable athletic program can easily subsidize the academic activities of a university... provided they don't waste the money giving away useless freebies like iPods and Napster subscriptions to students.
How's that for freedom of speech.
Oh please, how can anyone say that GWB is quashing anyone's right to dissent when Farenheight 9/11 has grossed over $100 million? Go to any bookstore these days and you'll find literally whole sections of material dedicated to Bush-bashing. How would that be possible if Bush was somehow quashing dissent?
On the other hand, John Kerry is trying to get a book made by one of the Swift Boat Vets, Unfit For Command banned... why isn't anyone accusing him of quashing those who don't agree with him?