Obama Admin Fights Missing White House Email Lawsuit
DesScorp writes "The AP reports that the Obama administration has picked up where the Bush administration left off on the missing White House email issue by trying to have a lawsuit dismissed that would have kept investigating whether or not email was still missing. Two advocacy groups suing the Executive Office of the President expressed disappointment with the Obama administration's actions. Tom Blanton, director of the National Security Archive, noted that President Barack Obama on his first full day in office called for greater transparency in government. The Justice Department 'apparently never got the message' from Obama, Blanton said."
Whoo-hoo, CHANGE!
Yay, Obama is bringing CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN to the White House!
Iraqi shoe-thrower's case is adjourned
Throngs crowd a court in support of Muntather Zaidi, the man who hurled his shoes at President Bush. Judges will decide March 12 whether the assault charge is warranted.
Reporting from Baghdad — It was the hottest ticket in town. It drew spectators from as far away as Sweden and sparked a scramble for choice seats. Police formed human chains to block the crowds that surged forward to glimpse the star attraction: a defiant-looking man in black loafers.
And, of course, what you will never hear from the liberal media is how Bush let this violent man throw his shoes at him and *gasp* left him alone.
What you will hear from the liberal media is how this violent man hates Bush for representing the American ideal, and how "justified" his hatred is.
Say what you will about the Bush presidency (and I have quite a few to say as well, since along the statist-libertarian lines, Bush is more statist than libertarian), but you will never hear this: "Bush abridged fundamental rights as described in the First Amendment".
Will the liberals be able to say the same for the One, 4 years from now when he leaves office?
Court Reinstates Proof-of-Age Requirement For Nude Ads
arbitraryaardvark writes "An Ohio swinger's magazine objects to keeping proof on file that its advertisers are over 18. I reported here in 2007 that the 6th circuit struck down U.S.C. Title 18, Section 2257 as a First Amendment violation. The full 6th circuit has now overturned that ruling. The case might continue to the Supreme Court. The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports."
If you think this is trivial, think again.
Because the next requirement will probably be some kind of proof that the the music/movie/ad/etc in question was not produced under the influence (of marijuana, crack, or whatever the feds feel like should be illegal at the time).
Obama Anti-Trust Chief on Google the Monopoly Threat
CWmike writes "The blogosphere regularly excoriates Microsoft for being a monopoly, but Google may be in the cross-hairs of the nation's next anti-trust chief for monopolistic behavior, writes Preston Gralla. Last June, Christine A. Varney, President Obama's nominee to be the next antitrust chief, warned that Google already had a monopoly in online advertising. 'For me, Microsoft is so last century. They are not the problem,' Varney said at a June 19 panel discussion sponsored by the American Antitrust Institute, according to a Bloomberg report. The US economy will 'continually see a problem — potentially with Google' because it already 'has acquired a monopoly in Internet online advertising.' Varney has yet to be confirmed as antitrust chief, and she said all this before she was nominated. Still, it spells potentially bad news for Google. It may be time for the company to start adding to its legal staff."
What a joke. Is this the same government that grants monopolies (or oligopolies, if you look at it nationally) to cable companies and wireless carriers that serve their customers so well?
Is this the same government that grants monopoly of "life of the author + 65 years" (or is it 75 years now) for any kind of "creative work"?
Is this the same government that grants monopoly of some 20-30 years for ideas that are worthless than prototypes for perpetual motion machine (unless, of course, the bits of similar idea happen to appear independently in different products at which point the troll proceeds to sue the life out of the manufacturers)?
There is nothing wrong about monopolies, except the ones that the looters, i.e. the government, establishes, and our experiences justify this claim: Google has become a monopoly on online advertising because they are so good (which now the government wants to break up), but ISPs and wireless carriers hold their monopoly with government support and say, how do they compare to their foreign counterparts?
U.S. Protests Mexi-Canadian Overpass
WASHINGTON, DC—After nearly nine years of construction, the Mexi-Canadian Overpass, the controversial $4.3 trillion highway overpass linking Guadalupe and Winnipeg, was finally completed last week, drawing harsh criticism from U.S. citizens and officials alike.
Well, can't we just suicide bomb it or something?
Ron Paul on 1210 Radio 02-17-09 Part 1 of 2
Finally, some convincing condemnation of Greenspan (not that I was eager to hear one).
I mean, when Nancy Gibbs of TIME magazine tried to blame Greenspan for the recession on the account of his libertarian leanings and aversion of regulations, it was just unconvincing, like one trying to blame the destruction of a rain forest on an activist that kept the loggers out (rain forest being the metaphor for the market economy and the loggers being the looters, i.e. the government).
But now when Ron Paul blames Greenspan for using governmental powers to meddle in the market forces, despite his libertarian leanings, THAT finally makes sense. In fact, how can anyone deny that it was the Federal Reserve's interventionist lower-interest policy that kept the housing bubble going (and everyone knew there was a bubble even back in 2000) and make it what some statists call "catastrophic"?
Without the government fueling speculation, the rising prices would have guided the invisible hand and sucked the life out of the bubble before it could burst.
California's Big Race to Succeed Schwarzenegger
"There are two ways to respond to our current crisis," Newsom said. "One, we can cut our way out. But then we enter a downward spiral of disinvestment. The other is, we can grow our way out of our problems. That's where I am.
What a typical statist (and Democrat, for the most part, although some Republicans are guilty of this grave sin though) response to the problem of overspending. "You think we have spent too much on social programs and worthless government meddling? Guess what? I will spend EVEN MORE!"
If you still think that sounds reasonable by any definition of "reason", consider who spoke: "My father made your yoke heavy; I will make it even heavier. My father scourged you with whips; I will scourge you with scorpions," and remember how badly his fate turned out to be.
Disinvestment is not necessarily good thing. But continuing to spend money on worthless people who produce nothing of value is even worse sin.
Did France's Secrecy Cause a Nuclear-Sub Collision?
A collision between a British nuclear-powered submarine carrying multiple nuclear warheads and a French nuclear submarine armed with a similar payload may have been the result of lack of communication between France and NATO nations, according to a former British submarine commander whose revelations were partially corroborated by an official at the French navy.
Maybe it's time all the NATO nations, including the United States, just cut France off. Next time somebody invades France, let France handle it—or, if history is any evidence, let France not handle it.
Just don't come crying to Uncle Sam.
Edit: Just look at the French military history. Anyone still not sure whether France as an "ally" is a bad thing?
The Whole World Is Rioting as the Economic Crisis Worsens — Why Aren't We?
Joshua Holland writes for AlterNet
Americans are rightfully angry about the economic decline, but with a few small exceptions, quietly so. Why? It depends on whom you ask.
...
Mark Ames, author of Going Postal: Rage, Murder, and Rebellion -- From Reagan's Workplaces to Clinton's Columbine and Beyond, argues that Americans have been beaten down to a degree that they're now a pacified population, largely willing to accept any economic outrage its elites impose on them.
Totally the wrong conclusion. Americans are not rioting because the United States of America is the greatest, freest country in the world.
There is no need to riot when there is no central government strangling the very life out of the private sector with its "economic planning", like they do in the Europe, both in the West and East.
There is no need to riot when one can simply go find another job from a company that does hire (case in point: even investment banking companies like D.E. Shaw Group hasn't stopped hiring; whenever you hear about layoffs, if you think of it more as a company shedding dead weight so that it can hire more competent, better-suited people, that would be far more accurate).
There is no need to riot when one can take charge of his life and make something out of himself---unlike in Europe, where one first needs to fight the government and the union before he can do anything with himself.
Americans are not rioting because, quite simply free people do not riot. Free people solve problems. Free people fight, if necessary (but, unlike in Europe, the free men of America haven't needed to do that yet). Slaves, who have no legal way of making something of themselves, like the workers of Europe, riot.
In a 2005 interview with AlterNet, Ames said the "slave mentality" is stronger in the U.S. than elsewhere, "in part because no other country on earth has so successfully crushed every internal rebellion."
Slaves in the Caribbean for example rebelled a lot more because their oppressors weren't as good at oppressing as Americans were. America has put down every rebellion, brutally, from the Whiskey Rebellion to the Confederate rebellion to the proletarian rebellions, Black Panthers, white militias ... you name it. This creates a powerful slave mentality, a sense that it's pointless to rebel.
You can dismiss anyone who says something like this as a crackpot who doesn't understand the history, the very divisiveness of the Civil War. Just look at the number of secessions leading up to the war: after Virgina seceded from the Union, the "West Virgina" seceded from Virgina itself. Two other states, Missouri and Kentucky, were deeply divided within the states themselves.
It was a miracle that USA emerged intact from that bloody struggle (unlike, say, France with its French revolution which accomplished absolutely nothing beyond beheading the king). Anyone who marginalizes this tragedy as "America putting down rebellion" is someone with an axe to grind against America.
FDA Approves Depressant Drug For The Annoyingly Cheerful
The Onion reports:
Also, being excessively cheerful wastes energy. This drug promises to help Mother Earth support larger and larger population on her limited land and resources.