Bravo. Exquisitely balanced use of deadpan irony, satire and sarcasm to make these points in a much more thought provoking way than would otherwise have been possible. People seem to have completely missed this.

Satire is never quite as funny when it has to be explained, but what he did through this dialog was bring out in the open numerous ingrained (and many would agree, wrong) views on the subject of migrant labor (esp on farms). Food for thought, pardon the pun.

Also WTF is up with the lady checking her Blackberry when someone is speaking? I find it staggering that members of this House Judiciary sub-committee haven't been issued Droid Incredibles.

Selfish asshole. He screwed over his own workers, The health of the people his mines operate in, the environment as a whole, and within the process corrupted judiciaries to do his bidding.

When I watched this, the part that struck me as ironic was the last line.

The word "terrorist" is used as a synonym to "enemy", but it literally means something else.

In this case it could reasonably be used to describe secret police who stalk and attempt to entrap people, and use extra-judiciary means to extract information. In the literal sense not "one of those guys", but all of the officers can be described as terrorists.

Hey, congrats on your ruby!

On another note, dupe alarm

http://www.videosift.com/video/NH-Rep-Tells-Judiciary-Comittee-She-s-Not-into-Anal -> http://www.videosift.com/video/NH-State-Representative-Explains-Butt-Sex

>> ^shole:
reformat is irrelevant.. it can be recovered just as easy as deleted files.. you'd have to do a multiple pass security format which can take an hour or so depending on disk size and speed
this 1984 shit will force us all to encrypt our harddrives and internet connections
then what will they do?

No you don't. A single pass is nearly good because of the drive density, and overlapping rewrites on a drive as the sectors are rewritten on a normal pass. You should look up some of the more current information on drive fragmentation and magflip recovery using pass electron microscopes. Seriously if they're going to use an electron microscope to look at your drive, they're only going to recover 30% or so anyway.

Topic at hand: I'm just going to say that the law in the US on this stuff is broken. You guys are pretty set on the whole "think of the children" no matter what, yeah well wake and start fixing your judiciary as well as your laws. He had possession by the barest thread of proof, but he didn't have knowledge of it. KCC people. Knowledge, Consent, Control.

There is no greater voice of pressure on legislatures than law enforcement and prosecutors. If people can show law enforcement that there is no need to punish this act, or if you can get prosecutors to be so unconcerned or even frustrated with the numbers of pot offenses in their offices, legislative change would not be far behind. Legislators (read: elected politicians) don't want to seem "soft on crime," that's why they are slow to move on decriminilization of pretty much anything. But if the people who are enforcing the law are fed up with it, or can show it's too much of a tax on the system without real benefit to society, they can put pressure on the legislature (and even the judiciary if the legislature doesn't respond) to make changes. Decriminilization of pot is going to be an arduous battle, and I think conducting massive smokeouts without any further resulting crime is a great tactic.

^ From the presence of Senator Franken, I deduce it is in the US Senate. From the caption text I deduce it is a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing!

The discussion seems to suggest an inquiry into misuse of the Patriot Act and the constitutional legality of said Act in general.

Captain Obvious strikes again!

>> ^peggedbea:
>> ^brain:
THOUGHT EXPERIMENT: Following all of the same logic, should we have socialized car insurance?

No!

We should. Private car insurance gives scenarios like this (in Quebec at least): when you have an accident, your insurance company pays for the damage you have done to the other car, not your own. So far so good. However, if you bump into a passerby, the SAAQ (public government insurance) pays for personal "damages" which are in addition to healthcare costs already covered by the public healtcare system. It pays them both to you if you were injured in the collision and to the passerby. OK. But the weird thing is, that if your car is damaged by your hitting the passerby, HIS CAR INSURANCE will have to pay for the repairs on your car, because the SAAQ only ever covers personal injuries : property damage is covered by (mandatory if you own a car) private insurance! This is in spite of the fact that he was on foot and notwithstanding which party is responsible for the accident : you could have been drunk driving and it wouldn't make a difference. If the passerby doesn't have property insurance (i.e. if he doesn't own a car or doesn't own a house with blanket property insurance, etc.), he pays out of his own pocket. This has been tested in court (with a drunk driver claiming thousands of dollars of damages to the family of his dead victim) and found perfectly logical and true to the letter of the law on property insurance policies. If the SAAQ covered both personal injuries and property damage on cars this scenario couldn't happen.

Of course you can modify the laws to cover this scenario, but more laws equals more potential loopholes and generally testify to how rotten a system has become. It also empowers the judiciary and unduly enrich the lawyers. The moral is : the SAAQ should cover property insurance insurance on cars since it is mandatory. The same logic should be applied to all types of insurance found to be mandatory. I do not like top-down representative governments, but between them and the mini-tyrannies called corporations, I prefer the former.

>> ^quantumushroom:
If you don't execute them now you'll be reading/hearing about them in a few years' time, and not for receiving Grammys.
Let Africa Sink.
http://www.theothersideofkim.com/index.php/essays/36/


This article is nonsense.

It suggests that colonialism was beneficial and once that ended in the '60s, everything went to shit. Well no duh, it's not exactly a revelation that revolutions tend to lead to populist, despotic, autocratic dictators that steal from their people. It's a trend that happened all over the world and was not helped by the Cold War wranglings thereafter where these same dictators were propped up to serve the interests of their beneficiaries.

It makes the argument that charity and foreign aid is the only way to stimulate development. It's not, in fact unless it's in response to something unexpected such as emergency disaster relief, it's for the most part only beneficial in the short run and at worst counter productive, showing time and time again to create dependence. What has seen many African countries prosper is the opening of trade barriers, the promotion of foreign direct investment over portfolio investment which gives corporations a stake in their target country, and the promotion of democratic governments and impartial judiciaries.

Tribal warfare on the level that you no longer see in other continents of the world is a product of the lack of urbanisation and agglomeration of split social groups. The US is coming up against the same problem in Afghanistan for that matter. You can't come into Africa, try to force democracy on it cold turkey and expect it to work. Mutually trustworthy social relationships between disparate tribes don't appear overnight, although they are needed for an effective representative democracy and for a thriving business sector that brings together entrepreneurs and those with capital and funds to actualise those ideas. They are also needed dealing with natural distasters, diseases and creating safe habitable environments.

If one party controls the house, the senate, the presidency, the judiciary, and no filibuster is available, the opposing party might as well stay home. The majority party members become the unchallengeable rulers of the country.
...
If you have no problem with this, imagine if the republicans had such power... you'd be marching in the streets.


The flipside of that is if the party that the American people have voted for in overwhelming numbers are struggling to get their popular and moderate agenda passed because of a minority party that filibusters every bill, the American people are likely to elect a filibuster-proof majority, not embrace a minority party that's sticking to a thoroughly discredited set of policies.

If Republicans want to retain some power, they need to find a way to appeal to the American people in a constructive way, not fearmonger about one-party rule in the immediate aftermath of having controlled all three branches of government for 6 (and arguably years.

Specter is about as moderate a Republican as John Boehner is.


Here's a brief rundown:

In the 110th Congress, Specter voted with his party 70.6 percent of the time

• Rated 12% by APHA, indicating a anti-public health voting record.
• Rated 81% by the Christian Coalition.
• Rated 0% by SANE, indicating a pro-military voting record.
• Rated 0% by the ARA, indicating an anti-senior voting record.


• Voted YES on Bush Administration Energy Policy.
• Voted YES on defunding renewable and solar energy.
• Voted YES on drilling ANWR on national security grounds
• Voted YES on allowing some lobbyist gifts to Congress.
• Voted NO on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore.
• Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives.
• Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage
• Voted YES on Amendment to prohibit flag burning.
• Voted NO on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
• Voted NO on including oil & gas smokestacks in mercury regulations.
• Voted NO on background checks at gun shows.
• Voted NO on negotiating bulk purchases for Medicare prescription drug.
• Voted NO on including prescription drugs under Medicare.
• Voted YES on Strengthening of the trade embargo against Cuba.
• Voted NO on requiring FISA court warrant to monitor US-to-foreign calls.
• Voted YES on telecomm deregulation.
• Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq


On March 9, 2006, the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 was signed into law. It amended the process for interim appointments of U.S. Attorneys, written into the bill by Arlen Specter during his chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee.[18] The change allowed the Bush Administration to appoint interim U.S. attorneys without term limits, and without confirmation by the Senate. The Bush administration used the law to place at least eight interim attorneys into office in 2006.



There's ungodly amount more of really piss-poor judgment.

I think I can fill out most of the list:

#1. The House Sergeant at Arms (left), and I think he's accompanied by the Senate Sergeant at Arms.
#2. Special guests
#3. From left to right, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), Senator Chuck Shumer (D-NY), and in front of them looks like Supreme Court Justice Sam Alito.
#4. From left to right, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geitner, and HRC herself (Secretary of State).
#5. In the middle is Congressman Charlie Rangel (D-NY), I'm guessing he's with other House Representatives from NY.
#6. Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) currently also Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee (kinda important atm)
#7. From left to right, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA), and House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH). These two are the current Republican House leadership.
#8. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV).
#9. Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH), who had a brief flirtation with being Obama's Commerce Secretary.
#10. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). He's the current Republican Senate leadership.
#11. Earl Devaney, the new Inspector General Obama was talking about seconds before (who helped bust Jack Abramaoff)
#12. Not sure who the guy picking at his ear is, but the other two are Housing and Urban Development Secretary (HUD) Shaun Donovan, and Labor Secretary Hilda Solis.
#13. Juggs magazine. Or the text of the speech he's listening to. Oh, and it's Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL), who's the ranking Republican on the Senate Banking Committee (and former chair).
#14. The infamous Joe Lieberman (I-CT), former Democrat who campaigned for John McCain.
#15. Senator Arlen Spector (R-PA), one of the 3 Republicans to vote for the Stimulus bill.
#16. Senators Evan Bayh (D-IN), and Roland Burris (D-IL) the latter of Blagojevich fame.
#17. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) in the middle, not sure of anyone else. He's the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
#18. I'm forgetting his name, but he's a House Republican, and most likely so is the woman next to him.
#19. Peter Orszag, new Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), formerly Director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel is to his left.
#20. Chuck Shumer again.
#21. Secretary of Veterans Affairs (VA) Eric Shinseki
#22. Not sure, I think he's a House Republican.
#23. Energy Secretary Steven Chu.
#24. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
#25. Don't know.
#26. Don't know. I'll wager a guess it's a House Democrat though.
#27. Senator Carl Levin (D-MI)
#28. Don't know.
#29. Senator Dick Lugar (R-IN)
#30. Don't recognize him, but he must be an Obama cabinet member, since that's who he's sitting amongst.
#31. Evan Bayh (D-IN) again.
#32. On the left is Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL), not sure who's next to him.
#33. Don't know.
#34. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), buddy of John McCain.
#35. From left to right, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, Defense Secretary Bob Gates, Treasury Secretary Tim Geitner, and Hillary something or other.
#36. I only know the one on the left, Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but those are the *cough* Joint Chiefs of Staff; the heads of the Navy, Army, Air Force, and Marines (in that order unless I've misidentified the uniforms).
#37. No clue, but it's likely they're part of the JCS organization.
#38. Dunno, but he's sure to be on this list somewhere. To his left is Ted Strickland, Governor of Ohio (D).
#39. Don't know. I think that's the Republican House section, though.
#40. Don't know.
#41. Captain Sully Sullenberger. Pilot of this plane.
#42. Mayor Bob Dixon, from Greensburg, Kansas; the city Obama's talking about.

Phew.

Ask why you won't see a FEDERAL judge talking about this regardless of which party they were appointed by. I have to conclude that they would lose big time if the drug prices collapsed. They are equity stock holders in the war on drugs. The judiciary holds a controlling interest of preferred stock in this industry. The legislative and executive branch combined only hold a minority (49%) share.
It is not publicly traded.

It's anti-semitism. Read the final notation by pausing at 2:50.

The Jews are behind NWO, and are trying to implement the 7 Noahide Laws?

For reference, those are:

1. Prohibition of Idolatry: You shall not have any idols before God.
2. Prohibition of Murder: You shall not murder. (Genesis 9:6)
3. Prohibition of Theft: You shall not steal.
4. Prohibition of Sexual Promiscuity: You shall not commit adultery.
5. Prohibition of Blasphemy: You shall not blaspheme God's name.
6. Dietary Law: Do not eat flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive. (Genesis 9:4)
7. Requirement to have just Laws: You shall set up an effective judiciary to enforce the preceding six laws fairly.


You mean I can't eat the flesh of a living animal? That fucks up my whole weekend.

I suppose a whackjob could believe that it also means decapitation for worshiping Jesus, Allah, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but that's gonna be a tall order.

Sounds like something the fuhrer would've done -- or was that just giving a speech in an outdoors stadium? I forget.

Commentary about lying from someone who should be in jail for obstruction of justice for his own refusal to testify when subpoenaed by the House Judiciary Committee. Oh, it is delicious.