I think the difference here is what you'd call a dragnet. The Obama position (as I understood it) is that wiretapping individuals without a warrant is acceptable under certain circumstances. Gathering communication indiscriminately is different and objectionable.
Personally I like the way FISA was set up in 1978 and feel that 72 hours to obtain a retroactive warrant from a secret classified court is sufficient latitude for intelligence gathering in the "war on terror." Eliminating oversight by the judicial branch completely is totalitarian.
For more support of this point, read Warrior Girls by Michael Sokolove. The book is about sports injuries among school age girls playing sports, and more specifically about tearing the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL.) The tears happen disproportionately to girls, and put them out of action for 9 months to 1 year. Frequently, and more to the parent's point, these athletes are so driven and motivated to play (mostly soccer in this book) that they try to complete the rehab faster than they should and suffer further injury or loss of mobility down the road.
Actually it's the fact that most people don't speculate on the AH that allows you the profits you're getting. So, you shouldn't be sorry that the GP hasn't started that.
Or, for example let's say that some news organization was critical of the budget reconciliation process that congress has been using lately. If they criticize it now, and they didn't when the other party did it, then that's purely political. Their problem isn't with reconciliation process, it's with the other party. This is different from criticizing the budget itself.
I really mean that if Fox ran a story criticizing the current administration's stand on executive branch power, it would be pretty clearly political, since they didn't criticize the same actions when Bush was in power.
Here is Kevin Bankston, EFF on Olbermann last night. MSNBC is not the mouthpiece of the right wing. Olbermann was about as enthusiastic for Obama as anyone I saw during the campaign.
Here and here are some current left wing blogs being very critical of this policy stand as they were when it was Bush's stand. Meanwhile the right wing media like Fox are spreading FUD and holding up Michelle Bachmann as an exemplar. I do understand that Fox has no credibility criticizing this since they were so nakedly in favor of Bush.
Yeah if it were me, from hell's heart I stab at [Nimoy] and then I would chase him round the Alamo Drafthouse and round the bat bridge and round perdition's flames before I gave him up.
The main deflector. It is simultaneously nonessential (in First Contact, when assessing the Borg threat to the ship) and the answer to nearly every limitation of the ship's capability. "If we modify the main deflector to emit _______, we MIGHT be able to generate a pulse that would ________. That MIGHT just do the trick." Thanks, Geordi, the sooner you get started the sooner you can get back to masturbating into the holodeck.
Olbermann covered this yesterday and will be talking about it again with Kevin Bankston from EFF today. Olbermann was really pro-Obama during the campaign, and that's not stopping him from excoriating these policies and actions on his show. I'd like to see more journalistic integrity and independence such as this. This demonstrates that Olbermann was not and is not simply anti-Bush. Although he does continue to attribute the policy (correctly) to the Bush administration, I think that's just historical accuracy. From the linked clip comes the notion that the Obama administration is taking these actions to gain favor with the intelligence community. Sounds like fear, and maybe it's quite reasonable fear.
Also I wish the conservative media would take up this kind of criticism instead of presenting sensationalist stories which are mostly speculation. It could be that I'm wrong about the conservative media since I tend to ignore them.
If the small snips of reviews I've read are any indication, only spoilers can explain this. So we'll have to wait and see, or not see. I'm on the fence like I was with Watchmen.
The FISA Amendment Act of 2008 gives the Attorney General the power to make such a wiretap between persons in the US legal. He simply needs to write a letter. What's at issue here is whether the Executive Branch can make this kind of determination by itself, without any checks from the Judicial Branch. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court established by FISA in 1978 is supposed to be the body that governs this kind of activity.
The wasted vote problem is not something that people can lightly dismiss because there's some truth to it. The real solution lies in another voting system. William Poundstone makes a pretty strong case for range voting. Plurality voting leads candidates to expand their platform just enough to accomodate 50% + 1 voters. I don't think this was Obama's aim though in this past election. I think he was clearly trying to get as big a mandate as possible.
They are and they aren't. After only a cursory examination of their www site, I posted my post from earlier, but it seems that the company was "re-formed" in 2006. There's no way to know if these people simply want to cash in on the company's name reputation or want to continue the tradition of war games with depth.
They developed Close Combat, which was an innovative game in the war genre. This suggests to me that the game won't treat the subject like an arcade shooter or a Michael Bay movie. So that's good, at least. I don't see how this production is different from, say, the tv miniseries Generation Kill, which was based on a book about the invasion. When you watch (or read) that, you see a lot of conflicting viewpoints about the war, even among the military personnel themselves. If this game preserves that feature, it can only be good. That is, unless you're a war cheerleader who doesn't want anyone saying anything about the inherent evils of war.
Left and right are largely contrived political categories, in that they're so vague as to be meaningless. Lots and lots of people are not into politics at all.
OH shit Rockefeller is a bastard. Rockefeller was the driving force behind telecom immunity. If any one person can be said to be the driving force behind something that had so much support in the rest of the legislature.
Why would anyone in Congress want to expand executive power and cut itself out of the oversight? That doesn't even make self-interest sense.
Well, I don't mean to say that he's not heroic or isn't a hero. The movie's central conflict is between the joker and society. Not the collection of people that make up a society, but the construct of society itself. The joker believes that it's all a thin veil masking a war of all against all. As such, the boat resolves the central conflict. Batman's actions to save people are important but they're treating the symptoms, so to speak.
The Joker's point throughout the movie is that people are self-serving and will turn on heroes as soon as it suits their whim. When he talks to Batman in the police station, he basically says as much, explaining that Batman's token obedience to his "one rule" counts for shit when the chips are down. To prove his point, he gives the people on the boat the means to save themselves at the expense of breaking what we would hope is each person's "one rule." The fact that they didn't is the movie telling us that there is hope for people and that we're not just a base collection of alienated individuals. The people on the boat are the ones who really defeated Joker in the movie by rejecting his premise. That's why the ending was so comparatively weak. Batman's not really the hero.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the difference here is what you'd call a dragnet. The Obama position (as I understood it) is that wiretapping individuals without a warrant is acceptable under certain circumstances. Gathering communication indiscriminately is different and objectionable.
Personally I like the way FISA was set up in 1978 and feel that 72 hours to obtain a retroactive warrant from a secret classified court is sufficient latitude for intelligence gathering in the "war on terror." Eliminating oversight by the judicial branch completely is totalitarian.
For more support of this point, read Warrior Girls by Michael Sokolove. The book is about sports injuries among school age girls playing sports, and more specifically about tearing the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL.) The tears happen disproportionately to girls, and put them out of action for 9 months to 1 year. Frequently, and more to the parent's point, these athletes are so driven and motivated to play (mostly soccer in this book) that they try to complete the rehab faster than they should and suffer further injury or loss of mobility down the road.
Actually it's the fact that most people don't speculate on the AH that allows you the profits you're getting. So, you shouldn't be sorry that the GP hasn't started that.
Or, for example let's say that some news organization was critical of the budget reconciliation process that congress has been using lately. If they criticize it now, and they didn't when the other party did it, then that's purely political. Their problem isn't with reconciliation process, it's with the other party. This is different from criticizing the budget itself.
I really mean that if Fox ran a story criticizing the current administration's stand on executive branch power, it would be pretty clearly political, since they didn't criticize the same actions when Bush was in power.
Here are some examples to support your point.
Here is Kevin Bankston, EFF on Olbermann last night. MSNBC is not the mouthpiece of the right wing. Olbermann was about as enthusiastic for Obama as anyone I saw during the campaign.
Here and here are some current left wing blogs being very critical of this policy stand as they were when it was Bush's stand. Meanwhile the right wing media like Fox are spreading FUD and holding up Michelle Bachmann as an exemplar. I do understand that Fox has no credibility criticizing this since they were so nakedly in favor of Bush.
Before you start relaxing, pay attention to what the current DOJ is doing. The Bush years live on to some degree.
Yeah if it were me, from hell's heart I stab at [Nimoy] and then I would chase him round the Alamo Drafthouse and round the bat bridge and round perdition's flames before I gave him up.
What other Trek cliches have run their course?
The main deflector. It is simultaneously nonessential (in First Contact, when assessing the Borg threat to the ship) and the answer to nearly every limitation of the ship's capability. "If we modify the main deflector to emit _______, we MIGHT be able to generate a pulse that would ________. That MIGHT just do the trick." Thanks, Geordi, the sooner you get started the sooner you can get back to masturbating into the holodeck.
All my opinions about Watchmen (the movie) are spoiler free since I haven't seen it :)
Olbermann covered this yesterday and will be talking about it again with Kevin Bankston from EFF today. Olbermann was really pro-Obama during the campaign, and that's not stopping him from excoriating these policies and actions on his show. I'd like to see more journalistic integrity and independence such as this. This demonstrates that Olbermann was not and is not simply anti-Bush. Although he does continue to attribute the policy (correctly) to the Bush administration, I think that's just historical accuracy. From the linked clip comes the notion that the Obama administration is taking these actions to gain favor with the intelligence community. Sounds like fear, and maybe it's quite reasonable fear.
Also I wish the conservative media would take up this kind of criticism instead of presenting sensationalist stories which are mostly speculation. It could be that I'm wrong about the conservative media since I tend to ignore them.
If the small snips of reviews I've read are any indication, only spoilers can explain this. So we'll have to wait and see, or not see. I'm on the fence like I was with Watchmen.
This post is a better movie than Nemesis.
If by few short years you mean during the American Civil War, then yes.
The FISA Amendment Act of 2008 gives the Attorney General the power to make such a wiretap between persons in the US legal. He simply needs to write a letter. What's at issue here is whether the Executive Branch can make this kind of determination by itself, without any checks from the Judicial Branch. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court established by FISA in 1978 is supposed to be the body that governs this kind of activity.
The wasted vote problem is not something that people can lightly dismiss because there's some truth to it. The real solution lies in another voting system. William Poundstone makes a pretty strong case for range voting. Plurality voting leads candidates to expand their platform just enough to accomodate 50% + 1 voters. I don't think this was Obama's aim though in this past election. I think he was clearly trying to get as big a mandate as possible.
They are and they aren't. After only a cursory examination of their www site, I posted my post from earlier, but it seems that the company was "re-formed" in 2006. There's no way to know if these people simply want to cash in on the company's name reputation or want to continue the tradition of war games with depth.
You seem to be under the delusion that Americans have more of a right to live than everyone else, and seemingly by virtue of a large "defense" budget.
They developed Close Combat, which was an innovative game in the war genre. This suggests to me that the game won't treat the subject like an arcade shooter or a Michael Bay movie. So that's good, at least. I don't see how this production is different from, say, the tv miniseries Generation Kill, which was based on a book about the invasion. When you watch (or read) that, you see a lot of conflicting viewpoints about the war, even among the military personnel themselves. If this game preserves that feature, it can only be good. That is, unless you're a war cheerleader who doesn't want anyone saying anything about the inherent evils of war.
Left and right are largely contrived political categories, in that they're so vague as to be meaningless. Lots and lots of people are not into politics at all.
Once you figure out a way to do this, you should patent it and then the real money starts rolling in.
OH shit Rockefeller is a bastard. Rockefeller was the driving force behind telecom immunity. If any one person can be said to be the driving force behind something that had so much support in the rest of the legislature.
Why would anyone in Congress want to expand executive power and cut itself out of the oversight? That doesn't even make self-interest sense.
Isn't this accumulation of stimuli the way counting works?
Well, I don't mean to say that he's not heroic or isn't a hero. The movie's central conflict is between the joker and society. Not the collection of people that make up a society, but the construct of society itself. The joker believes that it's all a thin veil masking a war of all against all. As such, the boat resolves the central conflict. Batman's actions to save people are important but they're treating the symptoms, so to speak.
The Joker's point throughout the movie is that people are self-serving and will turn on heroes as soon as it suits their whim. When he talks to Batman in the police station, he basically says as much, explaining that Batman's token obedience to his "one rule" counts for shit when the chips are down. To prove his point, he gives the people on the boat the means to save themselves at the expense of breaking what we would hope is each person's "one rule." The fact that they didn't is the movie telling us that there is hope for people and that we're not just a base collection of alienated individuals. The people on the boat are the ones who really defeated Joker in the movie by rejecting his premise. That's why the ending was so comparatively weak. Batman's not really the hero.