Fezmid

Actually, and someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you get compensation for a coach getting a promotion... CW

Scary stuff. Note that this isn't really limited to Amazon wishlists either. http://www.applefritter.com/bannedbooks CW

Similar lines, but focusing on the executive branch and not about one specific event: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Security Threat of Unchecked Presidential Power Last Thursday [15 December 2005], the "New York Times" exposed the most significant violation of federal surveillance law in the post-Watergate era. President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to engage in domestic spying, wiretapping thousands of Americans and bypassing the legal procedures regulating this activity. This isn't about the spying, although that's a major issue in itself. This is about the Fourth Amendment protections against illegal search. This is about circumventing a teeny tiny check by the judicial branch, placed there by the legislative branch, placed there 27 years ago -- on the last occasion that the executive branch abused its power so broadly. In defending this secret spying on Americans, Bush said that he relied on his constitutional powers (Article 2) and the joint resolution passed by Congress after 9/11 that led to the war in Iraq. This rationale was spelled out in a memo written by John Yoo, a White House attorney, less than two weeks after the attacks of 9/11. It's a dense read and a terrifying piece of legal contortionism, but it basically says that the president has unlimited powers to fight terrorism. He can spy on anyone, arrest anyone, and kidnap anyone and ship him to another country ... merely on the suspicion that he might be a terrorist. And according to the memo, this power lasts until there is no more terrorism in the world. Yoo starts by arguing that the Constitution gives the president total power during wartime. He also notes that Congress has recently been quiescent when the president takes some military action on his own, citing President Clinton's 1998 strike against Sudan and Afghanistan. Yoo then says: "The terrorist incidents of September 11, 2001, were surely far graver a threat to the national security of the United States than the 1998 attacks. ... The President's power to respond militarily to the later attacks must be correspondingly broader." This is novel reasoning. It's as if the police would have greater powers when investigating a murder than a burglary. More to the point, the congressional resolution of Sept. 14, 2001, specifically refused the White House's initial attempt to seek authority to preempt any future acts of terrorism, and narrowly gave Bush permission to go after those responsible for the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center. Yoo's memo ignored this. Written 11 days after Congress refused to grant the president wide-ranging powers, it admitted that "the Joint Resolution is somewhat narrower than the President's constitutional authority," but argued "the President's broad constitutional power to use military force ... would allow the President to ... [take] whatever actions he deems appropriate ... to pre-empt or respond to terrorist threats from new quarters." Even if Congress specifically says no. The result is that the president's wartime powers, with its armies, battles, victories, and congressional declarations, now extend to the rhetorical "War on Terror": a war with no fronts, no boundaries, no opposing army, and -- most ominously -- no knowable "victory." Investigations, arrests, and trials are not tools of war. But according to the Yoo memo, the president can define war however he chooses, and remain "at war" for as long as he chooses. This is indefinite dictatorial power. And I don't use that term lightly; the very definition of a dictatorship is a system that puts a ruler above the law. In the weeks after 9/11, while America and the world were grieving, Bush built a legal rationale for a dictatorship. Then he immediately started using it to avoid the law. This is, fundamentally, why this issue crossed political lines in Congress. If the president can ignore laws regulating surveillance and wiretapping, why is Congress bothering to debate reauthorizing certain provisions of the Patriot Act? Any debate over laws is predicated on the belief that the executive branch will follow the law. This is not a partisan issue between Democrats and Republicans; it's a president unilaterally overriding the Fourth Amendment, Congress and the Supreme Court. Unchecked presidential power has nothing to do with how much you either love or hate George W. Bush. You have to imagine this power in the hands of the person you most don't want to see as president, whether it be Dick Cheney or Hillary Rodham Clinton, Michael Moore or Ann Coulter. Laws are what give us security against the actions of the majority and the powerful. If we discard our constitutional protections against tyranny in an attempt to protect us from terrorism, we're all less safe as a result. This essay was published on December 21 as an op-ed in the "Minneapolis Star Tribune." < http://www.startribune.com/562/story/138326.html > Here's the opening paragraph of the Yoo memo. Remember, think of this power in the hands of your least favorite politician when you read it: "You have asked for our opinion as to the scope of the President's authority to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. We conclude that the President has broad constitutional power to use military force. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution, Pub. L. No. 93-148, 87 Stat. 555 (1973), codified at 50 U.S.C. §§ 1541-1548 (the "WPR"), and in the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (2001). Further, the President has the constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations. Finally, the President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11." There's a similar reasoning in the Braybee memo, which was written in 2002 about torture: Yoo memo: < http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm > Braybee Memo: < http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/natio...jinterrogationm emo20020801.pdf > This story has taken on a life of its own. But there are about a zillion links and such listed here: < http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005...urity_th_1.html > I am especially amused by the bit about NSA shift supervisors making decisions legally reserved for the FISA court.

(of course some will dismiss it because Bruce Sneier isn't a REAL security person ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NSA and Bush's Illegal Eavesdropping (Note: I wrote this essay in the days after the scandal broke.) When President Bush directed the National Security Agency to secretly eavesdrop on American citizens, he transferred an authority previously under the purview of the Justice Department to the Defense Department and bypassed the very laws put in place to protect Americans against widespread government eavesdropping. The reason may have been to tap the NSA's capability for data-mining and widespread surveillance. Illegal wiretapping of Americans is nothing new. In the 1950s and '60s, in a program called "Project Shamrock," the NSA intercepted every single telegram coming into or going out of the United States. It conducted eavesdropping without a warrant on behalf of the CIA and other agencies. Much of this became public during the 1975 Church Committee hearings and resulted in the now famous Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978. The purpose of this law was to protect the American people by regulating government eavesdropping. Like many laws limiting the power of government, it relies on checks and balances: one branch of the government watching the other. The law established a secret court, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), and empowered it to approve national-security-related eavesdropping warrants. The Justice Department can request FISA warrants to monitor foreign communications as well as communications by American citizens, provided that they meet certain minimal criteria. The FISC issued about 500 FISA warrants per year from 1979 through 1995, and has slowly increased subsequently -- 1,758 were issued in 2004. The process is designed for speed and even has provisions where the Justice Department can wiretap first and ask for permission later. In all that time, only four warrant requests were ever rejected: all in 2003. (We don't know any details, of course, as the court proceedings are secret.) FISA warrants are carried out by the FBI, but in the days immediately after the terrorist attacks, there was a widespread perception in Washington that the FBI wasn't up to dealing with these new threats -- they couldn't uncover plots in a timely manner. So instead the Bush administration turned to the NSA. They had the tools, the expertise, the experience, and so they were given the mission. The NSA's ability to eavesdrop on communications is exemplified by a technological capability called Echelon. Echelon is the world's largest information "vacuum cleaner," sucking up a staggering amount of voice, fax, and data communications -- satellite, microwave, fiber-optic, cellular and everything else -- from all over the world: an estimated 3 billion communications per day. These communications are then processed through sophisticated data-mining technologies, which look for simple phrases like "assassinate the president" as well as more complicated communications patterns. Supposedly Echelon only covers communications outside of the United States. Although there is no evidence that the Bush administration has employed Echelon to monitor communications to and from the U.S., this surveillance capability is probably exactly what the president wanted and may explain why the administration sought to bypass the FISA process of acquiring a warrant for searches. Perhaps the NSA just didn't have any experience submitting FISA warrants, so Bush unilaterally waived that requirement. And perhaps Bush thought FISA was a hindrance -- in 2002 there was a widespread but false belief that the FISC got in the way of the investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui (the presumed "20th hijacker") -- and bypassed the court for that reason. Most likely, Bush wanted a whole new surveillance paradigm. You can think of the FBI's capabilities as "retail surveillance": It eavesdrops on a particular person or phone. The NSA, on the other hand, conducts "wholesale surveillance." It, or more exactly its computers, listens to everything. An example might be to feed the computers every voice, fax, and e-mail communication looking for the name "Ayman al-Zawahiri." This type of surveillance is more along the lines of Project Shamrock, and not legal under FISA. As Sen. Jay Rockefeller wrote in a secret memo after being briefed on the program, it raises "profound oversight issues." It is also unclear whether Echelon-style eavesdropping would prevent terrorist attacks. In the months before 9/11, Echelon noticed considerable "chatter": bits of conversation suggesting some sort of imminent attack. But because much of the planning for 9/11 occurred face-to-face, analysts were unable to learn details. The fundamental issue here is security, but it's not the security most people think of. James Madison famously said: "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." Terrorism is a serious risk to our nation, but an even greater threat is the centralization of American political power in the hands of any single branch of the government. Over 200 years ago, the framers of the U.S. Constitution established an ingenious security device against tyrannical government: they divided government power among three different bodies. A carefully thought out system of checks and balances in the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch, ensured that no single branch became too powerful. After watching tyrannies rise and fall throughout Europe, this seemed like a prudent way to form a government. Courts monitor the actions of police. Congress passes laws that even the president must follow. Since 9/11, the United States has seen an enormous power grab by the executive branch. It's time we brought back the security system that's protected us from government for over 200 years. A version of this essay originally appeared in Salon: < http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2005/...0/surveillance/ > Text of FISA: < http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/usc...10_36_20_I.html > or < http://tinyurl.com/d7ra4 > Summary of annual FISA warrants: < http://www.epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/fisa_stats.html > Rockefeller's secret memo: < http://talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/rock-cheney1.html > Much more here: < http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005...nd_bushs_i.html >

And true!

That's a cop-out. 99% of places with trees can still get DirecTV. I should take a picture of a place in my neighborhood that has DirecTV -- it looks like the dish is pointed right at the roof! CW

So now playoff teams suck too? The only good team in the NFL is the one that wins the Superbowl or something?! CW

http://www.directv.com

Whats ares yous talkings abouts? Is thinks yours crazys!

You have enough deductions to offset the standard deduction? And this is the first year you're doing your taxes?! Not an insult, just kinda surprising to me. If you're really unsure about something, I would recommend calling the IRS directly (they have a 1800 number on the tax form), or better yet, go to H&R Block or the like and have them done there. It'll cost a bit (probably $75-$100), but you have a lesser chance of being audited, and if you are, at least you'll know it was done correctly (or if it wasn't, it's not your fault). CW

I don't think you can be your own dependent... Since I'm assuming you're pretty much right out of school (or still in school), based on your post, can't you just use the 1040EZ form? Or better yet, telefile? CW

NFL Network does some stuff in HD. If I recall correctly, I've read that (on DirecTV at least), it's on a channel in the 90s when they do broadcast HD. That's far and few between right now, but it does exist. http://www.nfl.com/nflnetwork/listings Look at the "Game of the Week," for example. CW

They were in the playoffs.... More than we can say for our team

Oh, really?

They say they do, but it's not true. You need it for software updates of the DVR, and if you buy PPV. In addition, if it's not connected, the TiVo gives you a nag screen every day, but it doesn't affect functionality. I had mine disconnected for a couple of years and they never said anything. CW

Your cable box doesn't accept OTA inputs either? Stupid cable company... CW

Can't you go out and buy a $20 antenna to get the ABC feed off the air? The Silver Sensor is supposed to work really really well. It'd be worth it in my mind Check out www.antennaweb.org to see how far you are from the towers. CW

Actually, both DirecTV and Dish have NFLN already... More incentive for everyone to switch. CW

Come on people. The cigarette tax hasn't stopped people from smoking. The "sin tax" hasn't stopped people from drinking beer. Hell, toll roads in WNY havn't stopped people from driving as much (and the roads are still crap) You really think that adding an extra 50 cents to a McDonalds value meal, or an extra nickel to a twinkie is really going to have ANY affect? And as AD said, the money won't go back to help teach nutrition, make "healthy food" cheaper or anything like that. It'll just line someone's pockets. Why is this so hard for most people to figure out?!

So did you go to McDonalds or Sonics?! I'm so confused....

Yeah, between reading that people don't mind being spied on by the government, it's good to give up freedoms for "security," and now this crap... I wonder what our forefathers would say. Maybe we should start taxing tea again... CW

From what I read, Firefly was insanely popular, as was Buffy.

You honestly believe that people go to McDs and the like because it tastes great? I'd disagree with that one. The reason we're eating so much fast food (and at restaurants as well) is due to TIME. With people working 60 hour weeks, there just isn't time to have a home cooked meal anymore, not like in the past. And if you have kids with all of their structured time (band practice at 4, soccer practice at 6, piano lessons at 8), then it's even worse. We're just so fast paced that we don't/can't stop and smell the roses, so to speak. And as was pointed out before, you ARE already taxed on "unhealthy" fast food. All prepared food is automatically taxed, whereas unprepared food is not. A candy bar is taxed, an apple isn't. The list goes on. EDIT: I missed this part the first time through: What the hell is that about?! What does a video game have to do with obesity? If you're going to tax anything that has the potential for making people lazy, then don't you have to tax televisions, recliners, movies, books, and music? CW

For some reason, I thought this was going to be a bigger hit...

That's why I said an EXTRA tax. Not only is it a sin (like cigs), but it also makes you fat (like Twinkies). CW