Pangloss

Why is it illegal? Just because Russia and China don't like it?

I didn't phrase that very well, but I was talking about politically correct memes. I don't think it's very smart to smoke, but I completely agree with your OP -- licensing is a ridiculous, nanny-state action. I tried to defend smokers from the sketchy second-hand smoke claims in this thread about a 18 months ago and got ripped apart by people who seemed to take the position that almost any anti-smoking action was legitimate. I'd love to see their reaction to this thread -- I wonder if they would support this licensing thing. At any rate, this reply from Swansont in that thread would seem to be relevent to the licensing question: Will licensing smokers statistically save lives? If so you'd better man up and go get two wallet-size photos made, cuz this is gonna happen whether you like it or not.

How do they know it breaks the law? Again, this isn't a statement, it's an honest question. I realize they should know their business, and that's what they have lawyers for, but is it possible they didn't know that an order from a Federal authority might put them in violation of the law? This is obviously not a question you or I can fully answer -- but it is a question that a judge can answer, which I sense is your point.

(shrug) Okay. When I asked if they were just doing what they were legally obligated to do, it was an honest question, not a political statement, iNow. So if the question is whether or not the telephone companies acted properly, what would determine whether these actions were appropriate or not? Your "militaristic orders from the government" notion (and its implication) is irrelevent. I agree that we don't want corporations acting under threat from the government, but I don't get the impression that was the case here -- I think it's intuitively obvious that they felt they were being given legal orders. Ideological spin is unhelpful here. What needs to be determined is whether these corporations acted legally. If that's the case then it may well be necessary for a legal case to proceed, I agree. But if Democrats taint that with ABB or anti-corporation partisanship, we won't get our answer, and they won't win any open minds. That seems like a valid point, I agree. I'm afraid I have to agree with these points as well, much to my own chagrin. In fact I'm increasingly (over the space of the last few minutes) concerned about efforts to stop that. I was under the impression this was just a case of partisans going after corporations. But these strike me as important and relevent questions that should be addressed by a court. Sorry I've been posting from an out-of-touch perspective on this, but I appreciate you and iNow answering my questions.

Is that what happened? I thought congress passed a law, the president signed it, and the service providers were then legally obligated to carry it out. What would you expect them to do? Are you SURE you want corporations refusing to abide by the laws of this country? Isn't that what lefties are always saying is WRONG with this country -- corporations not abiding by the law? Maybe I'm missing something here? Are we talking about surveillance that took place before the law was passed?

I wish I could say I at least agreed with your prediction that Florida voters will suddenly become irate after they're surprised at the convention by the discovery that their delegates won't be seated, but I'm afraid the truth is more likely that Floridians know exactly what's happening to them, and they don't care enough to do anything about it. Every single person I've mentioned this to over the past few months was already aware of it. --------- Thanks for the show link, I didn't realize MTP was online. Well, even more to the point, Charlie Crist was a big part of the move to bring the primary up to January. He's not about to back off from that position now. But in fairness I don't think Crist did that for partisan reasons. You have to remember that this was a move designed to make Florida relevent, not to harm Democrats. And Republicans have paid a price for it as well. There's a larger battle here that has to be recognized. And there are plenty of Florida Democrats running around saying it was worth it (some of them Hillary supporters, too). Not that you were claiming partisanship, but I've read plenty of analysis around the 'net revolving around that point and I think it's a mistake to look at it that way, especially since Crist is seen as a moderate (he's often the target of Rush Limbaugh jokes and rants, for example).

Agreed! Post of the week, for sure, not just for the "threatened by another movie adaptation" bit but also for the Hayden Christensen tirade -- he's being similarly lambasted right now for "Jumper" (though in fairness I did like him in Shattered Glass). Thanks for the chuckle. They should pick a different Gibson novel. Some of them strike me as quite adaptable. I recently enjoyed Pattern Recognition, which I think would play very well on the big screen.

Right, HD DVD also used a blue laser, and the current low-end player is selling at Amazon for only $139. That's practically dumpster-diving territory already. (grin) What could you do with something like that, YT? Just curious.

I guess this time they read the law. Wasn't that the complaint back in September, that they didnt realize they had passed a domestic surveillance authorization? (grin) Oh well, I guess it's easy to pick on congress. I tend to agree with the OP, although I'm not sure I understand why the telcos are supposed to be liable here. Weren't they just doing what they were legally (at the time) ordered to do? Is this just a case of "victim" greed, or is there something more to it? Corporations aren't supposed to be our defense against despotism. They're supposed to obey the law, not stand up to it in violation of it.

What exactly would qualify you to buy a smoking license? A degree in stupidity? Suicide methodoloy training? How about a smoking certification? "Why yes, I do hold a Master Smoking Technician certification from RJR-Nabisco!"

I always listen very closely to anything John Pike has to say.

It's good of you to bring this up again; I was a bit leery about raising it because I have an iron in this fire myself, and I was afraid I might be bugging folks here with my numerous posts on the subject. I wish I'd caught that Meet The Press; it sounds like they had an interesting show this week. I'm mystified how law gets involved in a DNC rule, did they expand on what that means? Or was it just a figure of speech? I think a good case could be made that Florida would have fallen as it did either way (does nobody in Florida own a TV?), but I agree that it's not entirely representative, and if we're going to have our delegates counted then candidates have to campaign here first -- it's the American way. We should have a caucus, with appropriate notice and both candidates campaigning here. Also some staunchly-Democrat friends of mine raised an interesting point over the weekend, which was that they voted for Edwards, who is no longer in the race. A caucus would allow them to make an appropriate decision between the remaining candidates. (Did they talk about the caucus suggestion on MtP? Just curious. There has been some discussion about it here in FL, but no real movement as yet. Here's an article.) (Yes, I have friends who voted for John Edwards!)

The rumor mill was flying this morning on the Reuters story that Toshiba is about to cease manufacturing. This follows Wal-Mart's announcement on Friday that they would stop stocking the players. http://www.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSL1643184420080216

Yes, it's pretty weak, I agree. Sure, but just to clarify, I think both candidates have been relatively consistent (so far as I can tell) on the subject of warrentless wiretapping specifically. My comment was intended to be of a more general nature based on the politics of needing to be "strong on national security" in order to appeal to moderate/right voters. (Or really anybody since 9/11 who doesn't live in Berkeley or San Francisco.) To be specific (and again this is just my opinion) Clinton supported Iraq at one time (authorizing the use of force, anyway), and Obama expressed willingness to attack Al Qaeda in Pakistan whether Pakinstan wanted us to or not. These are completely different subjects, I readily admit, but the point I'm making here is that both have expressed willingness to extend administrative power into areas where it is not currently the accepted norm. Asking whether either would reconsider their position on warrantless wiretapping once they achieved the White House is a reasonable thing to do, in my view. I think this is something people will look at. Democrats will look at this issue as well as Republicans who are considering crossing the aisle, and some will question whether one candidate or the other is more likely to stick to their word on this issue. I suspect that this works more in Obama's favor than Hillary's, for what it's worth. But again, I'm trying to be fair here, and I believe both Obama and Clinton did vote against the currently-expiring FISA overhaul act which passed the Senate late last summer (but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). If anything both candidates have to be said to have been specific on this issue, and specifically they say "no".

The really interesting question is whether you can believe they would have voted against the surveillance bill, as they claim. I think there is plenty of reason to doubt those statements, both on historical (voting record) reasons AND on political grounds (appeal to centrists/moderate-rights).

BTW, if McCain flip-flopped on Waterboarding, then one would have to say that Obama and Clinton copped out yesterday on surveillance, electing not to vote.

Doh, now I'm gonna have to move this back to General Physics! (lol)

On a somewhat related note, did anyone catch the Nova ep this past week about the American MOL and Soviet Almaz projects? That's the first time I'd heard that Almaz stations were equipped with a 23mm cannon. Apparently this sort of thing has been going on longer than we thought.

It's the same subject, man. I'm amazed nobody wants to tell me how badly my country lags behind the progressive agenda in this area. If Europe is abridging free speech, then isn't that right and appropriate and necessary? Shouldn't the US be abridging free speech too?

That makes a little bit more sense than the declarations of hypocrisy and flip-flopping. And I note for the record that the vote was 51-45. NOT a 60% majority. And yet nobody's filibustering........................ ........................... .... and (....)

Bubbas for Boarding? (shrug) You could well be right. I'm surprised by this vote and cannot explain it, so your answer is as good as any other I've heard, as far as political analysis is concerned -- I'll be happy to give you that credit.

They're stupid, huh?

I agree with the OP and just have a general comment to add on this: Pulling out of Iraq would inarguably have a larger impact on the economy than, for example, the economic stimulous package (which we also cannot afford -- literally -- but at least there we can argue the point about deficit spending with some degree of logic). That having been said, I still support remaining in Iraq until the job is done. But then I don't have a violently partisan and ideological axe to grind here, so that's easy for me to say.

Cop-out! But I've amended the subject to help you out. Here's a description of Britain's Incitement to Ethnic or Racial Hatred law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement_to_ethnic_or_racial_hatred Anybody have a comment on that? Are we "backwards" or "forwards" of Europe on this issue?

I just want to note for the record that this thread contains post after post of of personal "rhetoric" towards me, and absolutely none from me directed at any member here. That's been happening all along in this thread, so the post above is certainly nothing new. In addition I asked for acknowledgement that I was talking about human contribution TO global warming, not GW itself, and rather than collegially acknowledge that point, I was ignored. So not only was I demonized, but I was deliberately misrepresented. You asked me before if I was proud of myself over this thread, iNow. The answer to that question is a resounding yes.