Bayosphere

David E. has a great post about this story and anonymous sources:

http://fablog.ehrensteinland.com/

What’s wrong with America is as simple as A B C”

Ashcroft
Bush
Cheney

Josh Marshall’s Talking Points Memo
site–http://talkingpointsmemo.com/–
raises any number of pertinent,
not to mention impertinent, questions
that will have to be answered before
this is all over.

For the record, although Mike Allen/
Dana Priest’s WP piece advances the story
by a magnitude, it’s worth noting that
it was NBC that broke the news that the
CIA had asked DoJ to investigate the
White House in regard to Joseph Wilson’s
wife’s blown cover, and the story has
been widely reported today.

Call me naive, but I don’t think recklessly
exposing a CIA agent and her contacts is
an event can be swept under the rug as
easily as most of what the media give this
White House a pass on. Anybody want to form
a pool on when we’ll first hear that reportage
on the inquiry imperils national security
and gives aid and comfort to Saddam Hussein?

reportage
on the inquiry imperils national security
and gives aid and comfort to Saddam Hussein
=====================

dang took the words right outa my mouf

Well, gosh, I can’t imagine why the “Justice” Department’s name is in quotes. After all, they did such a professional and vigorous job of investigating various and sundry unsavory events under the preceding administration: Travelgate, the Weaver shootings at Ruby Ridge, Waco, Elian Gonzalez… no doubt there are others.

Sniff if you like, but remember that to some extent, the Attorney General is a figurehead. It’s the career Justice Department bureaucrats who, IMO, are the real reason why this scandal probably won’t be investigated as fully as it should.

*WHY* has a felony, that jeopardizes national
security and committed for political gain, that
was alleged by a journalist who is highly
respected in the conservative community, gone
uninvestigated for two months? This *DOES* fall
into the category of high crimes (forget the
misdemeanors). This leak may have caused the
deaths of field agents. It has almost certainly
destroyed vital, hard won intelligence assets in
the search for WMD’s. But we’ll never know
because releasing that information could cause
even more damage. It has also done irreparable
harm to our ability to recruit new operatives,
just when we need them the most.

Don’t try to tell me that John Ashcroft doesn’t
read Robert Novak’s column. Mr. Ashcroft has been
screaming that prosecutors go for the maximum
penalties in all of their criminal cases and he
ignores this one?

This Administration doesn’t care what it destroys
in furthering its agenda. Not the economy, the
environment, our relationships with other nations
or even the safety of our citizens.

Note to Degustibus: Reportage is a real word and
is used in correct context in Fisher’s post.

Well, Bush has admitted that he skims headlines and lets Condi Rice do his world affairs reading for him. John Ashcroft probably only reads the Bible – mostly the Old Testament.

Can someone answer me this question: Which is more serious, blowing the cover of a covert operative to get revenge on her husband, or sneaking into the back room for a knobjob from someone to whom you aren’t married?

I agree with fisher – Josh Marshall has been doing a great job connecting dots. He also dug up an old Esquire piece showing the Karl Rova got in trouble before for selective leaking to Robert Novack.

Coincidence?

Rush Limbaugh hit this story hard today.
This, and the Wes Clark candidacy, have his
jammies all clenched.

The above was the second time I’ve read that Bush said he rarely reads newspapers; he just skims the headlines then lets advisors fill him in. Having taught in school, when students don’t read, it is often due to a disability. Question: Is Bush dyslexic? His C average in high school may be the result of same. Coming from his family, unless there was a strong undercurrent that said you don’t have to work, his parents would have pushed him to get good grades. So, what happened? Some in the US will try to say a strong leader need not be burdened by details because he needs to make decisions based on his gut instinct. Equally as many will be appalled to read a quote that helps to explain why he is so out of touch with basic issues, why he ridiculed Gore’s good statistics
as “fuzzy math,” almost as though Bush can’t keep up with others’ reading.

One problem with this approach is that candidates can (and often do) propose solutions that may sound appealing but won’t work. Think about how many candidates for office claim they will increase services without raising taxes by “cutting fat”, for example. It may not even be obvious whether they are deliberately throwing out a sop to the voters in the form of an unrealistic plan or whether they are simply too inexperienced to recognize the failings of their plans.

A second problem with this approach is that many of the candidates have more-or-less equivalent positions on the issues. For example, there were no substantive differences between most of the abortion-rights or gay marriage statements; there were four in favor, one opposed. Matching opinions with a “black-and-white” multiple choice– rather than shades of gray– makes the survey virtually worthless in choosing a single candidate.

There were to many things breaking especially for older machines according to sites with long threads of bugs. I think Apple now has the G3, G4, G5 (64bit) machines and some really old graphics cards to support mainly because most (with the exception of the PowerMacs) cannot be upgraded. This means new machines for the people with older ones. There is a point where supporting the old hardware will cripple the OS X system going forward. This will cause lots of problems with updates going forward I fear.

Many other companies have unsuspecting beta testers at their disposal. It it par for the course these days. The general plan is to get the software out there and we’ll fix the bugs later. I remember Microsoft releasing a certain patch that mercilessly killed my Internet connection. Of course, Microsoft was quick to point out it only affected a small number of users. A small number of users from Microsoft’s viewpoint is significant in number. A reminder to wait a week or so after a patch or update is released is wise.

it just installed w no problems for me.

its faster, and I lost weight and am a happier person

It would be interesting to interview the judge in this case. Here is his number.

Chambers Page for

The Honorable Lee R. West
Senior United States District Judge
Western District of Oklahoma

U.S. Courthouse
200 N.W. Fourth St. Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Rm 3001, Courtroom 303, Third Floor
Chambers Telephone: 405-609-5140
Chambers Facsimile: 405-609-5151

Chambers Staff:
Wilma Administrative Assistant 405-609-5140

Beverly Courtroom Deputy – Case Manager 405-609-5142

Cindy Law Clerk
Jacqueline Law Clerk

Tim Court Reporter 405-609-5163

Well, I’ve never been nice to telemarketers who call. Now it’s time for open war. Turn up your headsets, kiddies!

Well this as well as the post about California’s new spam law will just force telemarketers to move to India, Canada, and other foreign locations where US law can’t touch them.

Unsolicited Telephone Calls
Unsolicited Emails
Unsolicited Search Engines

OPT-IN is the True Way!

It won’t be hard to render this decision moot.

Congress should act immediately to unambiguously
grant the necessary authority to the FTC.

Woe to any congresscritter that votes against it.

I use the ‘Seinfeld defense’ and it works for me: in a friendly voice, I say, “sorry, I can’t talk right now, but please leave me your phone number and I’ll call you at dinnertime”. Normally they get it. If they don’t then, back to the usual routine

Of course, this defense is completely useless if (very often in Spain, where I’m based) it’s an automated voice a recording. They never get it

I’m not sure there is a clear victory in sight for either side — the battle will escalate, as it has for email spam, and then the telemarketers will eventually switch to using VoIP because the consumers have, and then there is no centralized strucutre for the FTC/FCC to mandate over.

We all need to get comfortable with personal, customizable content filters for admission control, be it for email, voice (caller-id already serves as a crude method) or video communications. As the price of communications goes to zero, the amount of garbage directed at us is going to increase and legislation is not going to stem the tide globally…

I’m pretty lonely, so I’ll try to talk SEXY to ‘em.. yknow – it’s alot cheaper than phone sex!

So much for free speech, I guess. Not like we didn’t know it was dead long ago. The disclaimer below says it all I guess. Still, even with the New World Order of journalism, I thought we were allowed to keep our senses of humor, irony, and as Cornel West puts it (to paraphrase), “the ability to revel in the absurdity that IS life in this country, today.” Sadly, I guess all of those human traits go down with the free speech ship. Wow. Maybe that’s why the founders counted it so fundamental, because without free speech, our humanity is choked off. One censored word at a time.

I guess my censored post falls in the “otherwise objectional to us in any way” bucket, seeing as it didn’t fit in any of the others. Just out of curiosity, it would be interesting to see a brief post describing the nature of the offense committed by the censored post so that myself and other readers can avoid that sin in the future. In any game, it’s hard to stay inbounds if the boundaries keep closing in during the game.

No need to freak out and go on an IP address hunt, I’ve spent years around Internet security, so all you have to do is ask and I’ll gladly provide phone contact information.

As they say, every time there’s an earthquake all the nuts roll into Californiat.

I apologize to humanoid. I apparently removed it from here, where it did fit the theme, when I removed it from another posting on a completely unrelated subject. I hope he’ll re-post his comment here.

[crunch, crunch, chomp, crunch, blech!] Sound of humanoid eating crow for screwing up the posting in the first place. He did hit STOP immediately upon realizing his mistake, and a reload of the page convinced him of success, but it must not have been soon enough. /me thinks confession may be good for the soul but it’s a nuke for unjustifiable pride.

[clank, swish, plink, clunk] Sound of humanoid cleaning up dishes after eating an entire humble pie for desert.

[sigh] Sound of humanoid thinking that he’ll use the Opera Browser note function in the future as a way to protect himself from himself.

[pray, pray, pray] Sound of silent plea that Dan, purely out of unmerited favor, delete this entire thread of evidence of humanoid’s embarrassing knee-jerk response without asking first, as any reasonable humanoid would have done.

[mutter, mumble, mope] Sound of humanoid justifying himself under his breath for the knee-jerk, due to having just settled a three month debate with soulless Washington Mutual automatons just hours prior to encountering the eJournal 404 Not Found. {whiny violins mode} Consequently, humanoid is compelled to confess the sin that he was having some issues with being unheard and misunderstood that particluar day. Even though WAMU (wham-you) conceded that the bank was in error for trashing his credit RIAA style, it still cost humanoid hours of needless distraction which will continue as he now goes through the credit rating exhoneration process. Humanoid appreciates that the eJournal feels his pain, because, in the words of the infamous Harry Tuttle, “we’re all in this together.” {/whiny violins mode}

[whirr...clack] Sound of humanoid opening the DVD drive to insert Terry Gilliam’s 1986 “Brazil” movie for peer-intervention-ordered recovery therapy.

[snore, wheeze, snore] Sound of humanoid falling asleep and dreaming of his mother, “if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all.”

Hehe, that was funny.

This sounds like overreaching stupidity, but couldn’t
it just be tunnel-visioned legal stupidity? The context
from the Sun terms of use document says “Sun trademarks
must not be used as a noun” — aren’t they just saying
they don’t want the “Kleenex” or “Xerox” problem?

I’m not saying that it’s valid, I’m just saying that maybe
it’s boilerplate legalese — not a creative new form of
stupidity.

I believe trademarks are always supposed to be used as adjectives. So the Sun trademark guidelines are just expressing the proper way to use trademarks.

I worked at Apple for many years, and (no surprise) Apple is very big on proper trademark and logo usage. In fact, Apple has its own page of trademark guidelines:

http://www.apple.com/legal/guidelinesfor3rdparties.html

There’s also an up to date list of Apple’s trademarks online, which makes for an interesting trip down memory lane:

http://www.apple.com/legal/appletmlist.html

Compare that to the Knight-Ridder trademark notice at http://www.knightridder.com/notices.html which says you can’t use them in any way at all.

Ooops, I just used a Knight-Ridder trademark without permission! Oh no, I did it again!

Now we just need ISEN.RSS so we can keep up proper-like using our fave blogragator.

C’mon Isen.Dude, you late-adopter laggard, you.

Unfortunately, “President Bush… has threatened to reject any measure that rolls back the FCC’s decision….”

>Are the authorities really this paranoid?

Yes, at least in NYC they are, but you know what? If they’d been that paranoid before 9/11 might not have happened. All last year I worked downtown on Broad Street and right outside our front door was where they stopped all the vehicles headed towards the stock exchange so bomb sniffing dogs could inspect them. There were cops dressed like soldiers carrying automatic weapons right outside the exchange. We were all glad they were all there. It made it easier working next to a target.

Where do you draw the line? One of the things I learned working as a bartender in this town is that most people don’t recognize violence happening in front of them until it’s too late to keep it from happening. Americans just don’t recognize it for what it is let alone know how to prevent it. We’ve always depended on other people to do it for us. I think we are now experiencing the price of freedom as some people in other countries do.

>cameras?

Nothing fancy, they use regular cameras and look like tourists from all I’ve read. Easier to not be noticed.

Sorry, Jim, but Dan’s right. There is no way any security issues are going to be hanging out on the street for any passerby with any camera and any motive to photograph. And if there is, then shame on the morons who put the “secret stuff” in plain view.

This kind of paranoiac over-reaction reeks of a police state, which of course means it fits right into the right-wing religio-political agenda of the Bush Regime.

Not to make light of this, but ok, sorry, ….

If you’re a Fed, and see someone taking pictures of your building using a common camera, then you need to fill the nearest van full of bullets. Someone is trying to measure your response.

If you’re a Fed, and see someone taking pictures of your building using a common camera, then sit back and relax, do nothing to reveal your true preparedness, but start up a cointel op.

If you’re a Fed, and see someone taking pics of your building using a common camera, then harass the individual mercilessly, thus disseminating the false information that our culture may soon face a collapse of our civil liberties, thus enabling the fly paper theory and bringing our enemies out of the woodwork so as to pile on us and bring us down.

If you’re a Fed, and see someone taking pics of your building using a common camera, then harass the folks mercilessly, because you have to justify your budget and because absolute power corrupts.

If you’re not a Fed and observing the Busco and the Justice department, use Occam’s Razor.

I am an amature photographer and I like to take pictures of old buildings. If the police came up to me while taking pictures of a federal building and asked to see my ID and were courteous I wouldn’t have a problem. I sure wouldn’t make them have to run me down… Unless of course I was doing something wrong at the time.
– Quote – I’m writing this to alert all of you to be very aware WHERE you are shooting while in the United States! Yesterday I was out doing some street shooting and apparently I wandered a little too close to our Federal Building downtown with my camera and I was immediately ran down by four officers, detained and questioned for over an hour. end quote.

I think perhaps we haven’t heard the whole story. I don’t believe the police are going to act like storm troopers unless provoked. Like by running when confronted or refusing to co-operate by showing ID. I hope we aren’t making this molehill into a mountain.

This is probably true. I tried to take a picture of the local US 5th Circuit Courthouse one Sunday, with the idea that our law firm’s website needed a picture of a local court. I was immediately approached by a security officer who asked that I not do that. I asked him since when did it become illegal to take a picture of a public building from a public location? He was uncomfortable and I made it clear that I was a lawyer and I truly wanted to know what his opinion was. He of course had to keep his ‘game face’ on and so I relieved his anxiety by telling him that I would accede to his request to make things easier; but I also informed him that he was really on shaky legal ground.

Interestingly, I had another window into the soul of federal security when I ran into the Head Marshall of the local federal district court at a fundraiser. I told him I was pleased to hear the announcement that the local court was finally going to allow cellphones in the court; he said that I was misinformed. I told him that the Chief Judge of the Court had made the annoucement at a public meeting. He said that was a silly thing to do and that she didn’t understand the security risk. I asked what security risk a cellphone would pose. He said “plastic explosives.” In the phone, I asked? Yes, he replied. What about the PDAs that are allowed in? He said those shouldn’t be allowed either.

I’m surprised that they let us wear clothes. If it were up to him we’d all change into Orange jumpsuits. Ah, the mind of the diligent security-conscious government official. It’s really a sad thing to behold.

A co-worker was taking pictures on his lunch hour in downtown Chicago year or so ago, not real long after 9/2001 and had a cop threaten to confiscate his (new, expensive, digital) camera. If I remember correctly (which I may or may not) he had to delete the image in their presence for them to let him go.

I thought it was depressing then. It’s more depressing to think it’s still going on.

It is heartening to see that more and more Americans are willing to protest the conversion of our once free nation into a police state, though.

Hey, you can still photograph the White House.

I walked around Washington, DC a few weeks ago as a tourist, taking photos of all kinds of federal buildings, the Capitol, etc. and no one said anything. It is a tradition there to take photos of our nation’s landmarks. Why should it be different anywhere else?

I’ve read that you can even take photos on the DC Metro, which I did, as long as you don’t use a tripod. But for some reason you can’t take photos on the New York subways without a permit. Seems inconsistent to me. Source: http://www.nycsubway.org/faq/photopermits.html

You all maybe interested in this: Legal Handbook for Photographers (http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm)

I’m an amateur photographer, I’d thought about wandering around our county taking pictures of the “Art in Public Places” that are part of any buildinjg built with govt funds. Decided not to as stories similar to this one have been in the news since right after 9/11/01 – one guy in NY got interrogated because the statue in public he was photographing faced a govt. building.

and don’t forget the guy who was interrogated in DC for videotaping the monuments – a very abnormal thing for a tourist to do.

Silly question: these are the people who banned nail
clippers from airliners in the name of “national security”.

Outside the USA too.
I was hassled by the RCMP in Canada when taking
a photo of a US consulate and this was before 9/11/2001.

I didn’t say what alledgedly happened was right, it was certainly an amateurish encounter as described.

What I said was:
1. Yes authorities are paranoid
2. Not only did we get used to working in a secure area but came to appreciate it
3. Americans usually don’t notice danger in real life because they are unaccustomed to it
4. I’ve seen statements related to terroist recon that said the people involved appeared as a tourists taking pictures and if you stop and think about it clandestine efforts would be more obvious than touristy type activities
5. I asked where we draw the line

I do not agree with unprofessional police behavior nor am I impressed by “my rights” rants. There is a realistic middle ground that has yet to be recognized. We will lose some “rights” and nothing will change that. When I was a bartender we could spot non-New Yorkers because they just weren’t aware of the space around them. New Yorkers cover their space instinctivly to avoid unpleasant situations. Most Americans, unlike Israelis, South Aficans, or many other populations an ocean away, have only seen violence as entertainment and when it, or the preperation for it, is happening in front of their faces have no idea what they are seeing. The natural consequence of this lack of education and experience is repressive amateurish policy and procedure with “victim” backlash.

It is going to take some time to flesh out realistic policies and procedures to deal with activities that may or may not be security risks. Until that has happened we will all be subject to abuses from the lowest paid, least educated minions of law enforcement (the guys who carry guns and make decisions in the street).

Until then then, my experience with the police has taught me it doesn’t matter what the law is at any given moment, the legality isn’t judged until the next day or later in a dispassionate objective way. If one of these guys stops you, be polite and cooperative. You can make a case the following day.

Of course, if you want to be pro-active, don’t do anything to draw attention to yourself to begin with. If you want to be part of the solution start pushing for clarification of security procedures and be willing to pay more taxes for the neccessary educationa of police and the public.

I don’t like it but I do believe that no matter what we say or do our world has changed and freedom as we have experienced it will be no more than a memory. Anything less than that is unrealistic.

You must not be a railfan, Dan.

There are people whose hobby is photographing locomotives, cars, track, buildings, structures, equipment, scenery, and pretty much everything around railroads. There have been railfans nearly as long as there have been railroads and cameras, and model railroaders who want their layouts to be historically accurate are very grateful to them.

I’ve read several reports in the hobby press of photographers being stopped by railroad security officers and local police. Since a lot of law enforcement officers have never heard of railfanning, sometimes they’re detained for quite a while. Some folks suggest carrying a railfan guide to the area with you.

While going onto railroad property or right of way has always been trespassing, in the past, so long as you looked like you weren’t likely to steal anything or hurt yourself, railroad security people would look the other way or even help you find a good vantage point for a shot. Nowadays, according to the hobby press, they tend to run you off or detain you.

When I was staying near Heathrow several years ago, I’d notice pretty good sized groups of aviation fans taking pictures, and I imagine it’s even harder on them.

You must not be a railfan, Dan.

There are people whose hobby is photographing locomotives, cars, track, buildings, structures, equipment, scenery, and pretty much everything around railroads. There have been railfans nearly as long as there have been railroads and cameras, and model railroaders who want their layouts to be historically accurate are very grateful to them.

I’ve read several reports in the hobby press of photographers being stopped by
railroad security officers and local police. Since a lot of law enforcement officers have never heard of railfanning, sometimes they’re detained for quite a while. Some folks suggest carrying a railfan guide to the area with you.

While going onto railroad property or right of way has always been trespassing, in the past, so long as you looked like you weren’t likely to steal anything or hurt yourself, railroad security people would look the other way or even help you find a good vantage point for a shot. Nowadays, according to the hobby press, they tend to run you off or detain you.

When I was staying near Heathrow several years ago, I’d notice pretty good sized groups of aviation fans taking pictures, and I imagine it’s even harder on them.

What are they going to do about the phone cameras? You can pretend to be looking up a number to make call and snap a picture of the forbidden target… No measure can prevent this.

“Homeland Security” or “Gestapo”?
“Fear of Terrorism” or “Domination”?
“Freedom of Individual Rights” or “Control”?
“Free Country” or “A Prisoner in our own Land”?
Which is it?

Dan, you disappoint me. Not in your concern about the knee-jerk security reactions (although I tend to agree with Jim Moran’s well-reasoned words).

What bothers me is the fact that you, a reasonably respected journalist, have reported what you admit is not a substantiated report as if that was irrelevant. Instead, you dismiss that as some other entities responsibility for verifying.

Isn’t that the kind of b.s. that the Bush administration pulls, quoting dubious sources to support their prejudices? C’mon, Dan…give us a standard to live up to…otherwise blognews becomes as useless in advancing the pursuit of truth as the nitwit callers on talk radio.

Do we need to rally the troops again as we did a few months ago regarding Starbucks?

I wonder how the ‘authorities’ would deal with individuals who, like me, don’t generally carry any form of ID. Usually the only thing in my wallet with my name on it is a credit card or two and a couple of business cards.

Sorry folks. This is the way it is. We have to destroy your freedom in order to save it.