Reminds me of Sen. Diane Feinstein, who strongly believes in snooping everyone's emails but her own. She sure was furious at the CIA for snooping her stuff. Might that have something to do with Congress finally reining in the scofflaws running the intel and enforcement bureaucracies?
Maybe the critics of secret government would be at a disadvantage in a court of law, but when did the courts ever side with voters against government officials?
OTOH it'd make a great hit piece in a campaign. "Did you vote for Aaron Peskin or Supervisor Kim? Shouldn't you wonder what they're hiding in all those messages they won't put on the record? It's the law that a business has to keep a record. Why isn't it the law for Peskin or Kim?
...and so forth. Sometimes the good ol' boy back room politicians and bureaucrats just need to be prodded into better behavior. You'll never keep 'em from being venal but shining a light might at least be therapeutic for the suckers who voted for them.
It'd be interesting to see asset seizure figures for the Zellerbach period on these drug war cases. Even more interesting if some of the seized assets wound up in the private hands of Zellerbach or Judge Hernandez. Just a thought.
Actually, when content of any kind is suppressed for stated reasons that make no real sense at all, the jump to "censorship" is the natural conclusion. If it isn't censorship of material that might be useful to a prisoner, at least give us a reason that makes sense. Even an admission that it was the reflexive move of a schoolyard bully given a badge would improve on the nonsense they handed out.
I love the way a certain type of troll uses "sigh" as a signal that they have superior knowledge and that even bothering to comment is a chore requiring their supreme patience. It's a semi-hidden form of ad hominem attack ("you're too bad, stupid or ignorant to acknowledge the obvious, sigh"). Funny how many such comments favor viewpoints most reasonable people don't share, such as that the Constitution doesn't mean what it says and the history of copyright isn't one of shifting exclusive rights to material from authors/artists/inventors to businesses with no hand in the creation.
Not desperate, just corporate-greedy and acting according to its parasitic nature. Reminds me of the mafia don on Staten Island who reportedly complained that a successful restaurant hadn't even offered to give him his unearned cut. Never heard if the restaurant burned down later, but the similarities to CBS are kinda eerie.
So United declares openly that it distrusts its own customers and expects them to behave without honor. What I don't get is why anyone would voluntarily pay to put their lives in the hands of a company with such attitudes. If they won't trust me, it probably reflect the distrust they feel they themselves have earned. They expect you to treat them the way they know they treat you - it's a sort of mirror principle. Why on earth would I trust such people with my life?
Well... maybe. One thing you can say for certain: He never did anything to disappoint the richest of his business constituents. If he cosponsored this bill that siphoned more money into Fig Pharma's owners' pockets, it was no accident.
@Paraquat said "Solar power is feasible during the day, but could not produce sufficient heat to survive the night."
Energy storage technology has had so many breakthroughs it's hard to keep up. If solar can support a colony during the day, it can support a colony during the night. Just get a bigger battery/capacitor/whatever.
Humans are pouring radioactive waste into the Pacific at a prodigious rate. Some Asian countries no longer consider shellfish safe to eat because, as filter feeders, they're turning into nasty little tumor bombs by concentrating toxic reactor wastes. As for other effects of the Japanese reactor containment failure, it's still early days. We don't know but those who follow such matters closely are not optimistic about long-term effects.
Having poisoned Earth, do we really want to risk doing the same to Mars? There have got to be better approaches. Let's learn from our mistakes.
Most smaller corporations have one or two primary stockholders, I have read. Wouldn't it be interesting to go after them in court. Might go nowhere under the current U.S. corporate misgovernment political system, but getting their names out in public might at least cause reputation problems at the country club. Nah. In their circles, they'd probably be admired.
How could anyone outside the club know if the lawyer's a member? I was told years ago, by someone most definitely inside the club, that the HA have members in all sorts of professions, including law and the judiciary, who simply don't expose their colors to outsiders. I wonder if the club mounts its trademark lawsuits in some particularly, er, "friendly" courts...
Maybe you forgot to look at the picture? Traditionally, if a cop walked into a house after a noise complaint and found a kid in that shape, he'd assume child abuse and call the local Protective Services. The adults in charge would face some difficult questions and, probably, criminal charges.
This is a clear case of child abuse, however it happened (including criminal police malfeasance), and the DA is just as clearly complicit in an illegal action.
1950s: The policeman is your friend. 2013: You're safer facing a mugger than a cop.
I've wondered for awhile now what the NSA has on Feinstein to keep her so compliant. Perhaps it's related to her unstinting support of whatever the RIAA and MPAA want.
Makes me think a forensic audit would turn up some interesting stuff on her. But that's probably true of any senator who truckles to corporate lobbyists.
Anyone with a checkbook can buy a Senator's vote and Feinstein has always been a corporate tool. Let's not forget where the real spiders live, inside the NSA, CIA, DIA and other spy-on-Americans bureaucracies.
"and its worse simply because they are REPUBLICAN and willingly whore themselves out to corporate interest?"
Gee, I reread the comment and nothing like that was said. Just that all five were cross-waving, flag-wrapped hypocrites. And Republicans. Don't jump on people for noticing that cross-waving, flag-wrapped politicians tend to be Republicans. Democratic politicians wrap themselves in different symbols and seem, on average, to keep themselves less masked. They don't go out whoring at night and then thunder during the day about Christian morals.
Of course any politician of any party who talks about integrity, then takes corporate "free speech" money before pushing some corporate lobbyist's legislative agenda deserves to be snorted at. Just as hypocritical politicians deserve to have their noses rubbed in the fact.
Be as defensive as you need to be, but please try to speak to the point, not to some never-was-there interpretation of somebody's comment.
"These people can't help it, like any govt agency, they're incompetent and what most people consider common sense these people consider innovative. That's what happens when you have a govt that does anything to help secure your job. It's the same reason why the only innovation that comes from cableco companies is higher prices (remember, DVR's came from TIVO and cable companies copied and now they charge a fortune)."
What an amazing mix of non sequiturs. (a) All government agencies are incompetent (available data sez otherwise, btw)followed by (b) Therefore if government provides or guarantees your job you will become incompetent (huh?), followed by (c) That (i.e. government incompetence) is why legislated monopolies like cable will always grasp for money and contribute nothing new.
It's kind of jaw-dropping. But maybe Anonymous Coward can explain it a bit better...?