I find it interesting that many Republicans are against trial lawyers. Trial lawyers allow the market to punish badly behaving individuals and companies. If you remove this market, you have to add regulators to make sure that individuals and companies are punished and removed from the market. In thiis instance the Democrats are generally pro market and the Republicans are pro regulators.
For instance, say a doctor rapes some of his patients while working at a clinic. The clinic had several reports of this and did nothing. Currently that would be settled by suing the clinic. If that option is removed, there would have to be more regulation to stop the clinic from acting in this manner. Regulators would be needed to shutdown the clinic if it continued to allow this behavior.
There is a problem with comedy news and that is that they have no accountability. If they make false statements they just say that are a comedy program. If they are news they should be held to account like everyone else or they are not held to account and everyone should know they are not news. I remember when Jon Stewart claimed that the picture was not Anthony Wiener, since he had seen his junk and it was not that big. That turned out to be false and I did not hear Jon make an apology. It was a big story since it ended the political career of a rising star and member of Congress. Jon Stewart made several false claims to try to help his friend.
Obama received quite a bit of money from telecom industry, Including fundraisers at the Comcast/NBC chairman's home. I would say the President is also awash in this money. The chairman of the FCC we are turning this over to regulate is a former telecom lobbyist. If President Obama does a good job with net neutrality I will be impressed, but he has been better with words than actions.
Sounds good so far, but we better stay vigilant. I remember when Obama was elected the Net Neutrality group I joined disbanded because their job was done. That has not worked out so far. We will need to pay close attention to final rules.
ACA (Obamacare) passed the Senate filibuster (60) by one vote in the Senate on a party line vote. This is why when Scott Brown won they had to use the once a year budgetary exception on the bill in conference. The Senator he is referring to is Ted Stevens, apparently there was issue with the prosecution coaching one witness and hiding another witness. The judge at the time said it was some of the most egregious behavior he had ever seen by a prosecutor.
Holder has made three statements to congress that were not true. There was a statement on the new black panthers, fast and the furious, and in regard to criminally investigating journalist. He did this because he does not believe he should have any oversight. He is a political hack and uses his office to further political ends. If you expect anything for the AG office you have not been paying attention.
If the police department has this equipment it is going to feel the need to use it. I was amused when the Brevard Sheriff used their armored personnel carrier in a hostage situation that involved a knife. I am sure this equipment requires expensive maintenance and it needs to justified in the budget, so it will be necessary to use it periodically.
It looks to me to just be a Democrat ad attacking Scott Brown. These super PACs to end all super pacs ends up being another left leaning PAC. I guess I saw that coming when it was named the MayDay PAC. A pro union holiday is what the PAC is named after makes sense it is supporting the Union candidate.
I need a citation for this claim the corporations are required to maximize share holder value. Here is the wikipedia for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareholder_value. Are you claiming there requirement is for short term or long term share holder value. If we are talking long term, if your users leave how much is your site worth. An internet companies value is closely related to the number and enthusiasm of their users, so we are definitely not discussing long term value.
It would seem to me that Mr. Rosen is calling for censorship. He believes that only one view point should be presented. This causes people to not understand how anyone could possibly have a different view, so they demonize people who do not agree with them. You expose people to the facts for and against something. If a fact does not fit the narrative you should not ignore it. This is exactly what is wrong with journalism today.
This post has been overcome by events. It was too early to give Captain Johnson his victory lap. After this day of little violence there were a number of days with rioting and looting. The national guard was called in to try to restore peace. A number of business were looted and will not recover.
Another amusing fact about all this is that the Library of Congress reports to the President not Congress. The Obama PR campaign knew that few people would know this so they could blame the whole thing on congress. A member of the Obama Administration (the head of the Library of Congress) changed the rules. All they needed to do was replace this over reaching person with someone who would follow the past precedent and the problem would have been solved. Alternately they could have used the name of the institution to score cheap political points and do very little to solve the issue.
Obama does not do difficult decisions. He answers yes and no. He takes action, but is not responsible for the action since he was forced to do it, because of some other circumstances. He doesn't take action, but that is because it was someone else's fault. He is not into solutions since there is responsibility associated with that. He prefers to play the blame game. He would not be a great person to work with.
I used the example because the guy who got this information out of the guy (He was a deputy of Saddam) was on TV for a while talking about how he did it without torture. Saddam deputy's relatives were arrested and placed in Iraqi prisons where some of them were raped and killed. The guy talked to have the rest of his relatives released.
We did not torture the guy or his relatives. We just set up circumstances where this would happen.
To claim torture never works is juvenile. Torture gets you more information. This information may or may not be accurate, but pretty much all information gathering can lead to false information. Accepting that torture works makes it a real discussion you can then decide if the loss of the high ground is worth the extra information.
We intuitively know that closely held secrets would not be given up without some sort of distress. In Chinatown the director and actors decided to change the script to have Jack Nicholson slap the actress to have her confess my daughter, my sister repeatedly. They felt that it was unbelievable to just have her just come out and say it.
If you believe that torture never works there is no moral dilemma. Someone who smacked someone to get information is just a sadistic person doing it for their own enjoyment. People who allowed torture are all also sadistic people who would just smack people around for fun and cover it up.
I prefer to live in a grown up world where things have a cost and a benefit and there are tough decisions to make.
The other thing about torture is to remember that there are worse things than torture. The guy who's information led to the capture of Saddam Hussian was not tortured. His innocent family members were jailed and some may have been raped and/or killed.
When I go to https://www.dni.gov/ and I accept the bad cert it does not take me to the site. It takes you to a page that says the site is down. They are using akamai as a CDN and have not configured it for https access.
If he outed all politicians that would be one thing. He outed a politician in part because he did not agree with his politics. If you are a political operative that is one thing, but do not claim to be doing it for a higher moral purpose. You are doing it to further your political ends.
This reminds me of when Brian Ross who is the Head of Investigative Reporting for ABC News bought the list of clients of the DC Madam (I keep hearing they do not pay for news stories). He then only released the names of Republicans, because they took a stance on morality and this made them hypocrites. If Brian Ross had been a Republican operative not a Democratic one he could have only released the names of Democrats since they have taken a stance supporting woman's rights and this made them hypocrites.
So you are either a reporter or a political operative. If you are a political operative you can behave in a partisan manner, if you are a reporter you cannot. The guy who runs this blog is a political operative and should be treated accordingly.