It must be maddeningly frustrating to be an inspector general. We hear of these various agency scandals, screwups, and abuses, and woven through almost every story is "inspector general issued numerous reports over many years detailing serious problems and urging immediate action to correct them..." Yet no one seems to listen to them.
The son of Bangor Daily News cartoonist George Danby said LePage made the remark after he asked what the governor thought of his father's cartoons Wednesday during an event at Dirigo Boys State, a youth leadership program.
But just in case it isn't... Amnesty International doesn't just sit on evidence of human rights violations. It investigates, it reports, and it makes evidence publicly available when it is possible to do so without putting people at greater risk. That is why (aside from the general overall violation of privacy) this spying is so disturbing and so serious: It endangers the lives of people who report human rights abuses.
Amnesty is rightfully incensed about the whole thing: “How can we be expected to carry out our crucial work around the world if human rights defenders and victims of abuses can now credibly believe their confidential correspondence with us is likely to end up in the hands of governments?
I'm guessing David Cameron thinks discouraging people from reporting human rights abuses is a beneficial byproduct of GCHQ spying.
The logical response -- to avoid any risk of trademark infringement -- would be for no one to talk about football (the NFL version, anyway). In fact, to be safe, no one should watch it, either in person or on TV, lest they be tempted to infringe by talking. And buying NFL-branded goods also encourages infringers to make their own for sale, so none of that. It all makes perfect sense now.
Strangely, her blog posts are competently written and she's very responsive in her comment section, so this doesn't seem to be "crazy person has keyboard" sort of thing.
Profound mental illness and competent writing are not mutually exclusive.
That said, could she be using some bizarre keyword (or not even keyword) search? My completely unscientific survey of her fourth notice shows that the word "fake" appears at least once in every one of the Yelp and Wordpress pages cited. The same word appears 15 times in the offending techdirt article. (It's a fairly common word, and it doesn't appear in some of the other pages I noticed as I jumped around the list, but don't kill my fakescience buzz with your inconvenient facts. And maybe she's searching for other words as well.)
it's Harper saying "we just publish what we believe to be the position of the British government."
See... this actually would be OK, as a starting point. There's no inherent problem in reporting what the government claims, as the government's claims only, if they also take time to investigate them.
The Sunday Times could have reported, "Two sources in the British government claim X. We requested but have not been provided any evidence to support X. These other people who are familiar with the circumstances say that X is untrue/unlikely, and have offered this evidence in support."
That really would have been a very simple thing to do. If they cared at all about journalistic integrity. Or facts.