Supernova

Supernova from Siggi Eggertsson on Vimeo.

"Supernova" - a music video by Siggi Eggertsson for artist / musician Lawrence Cepstral.

I found this at Synthopia.

William Shatner does Palin's farewell speech as it was intended to be...

Spore Galactic Adventures Video

NIN + Gary Numan

For years, I had some sort of problem with Trent Reznor. Something about him not having enough cred, with me being a fan of Skinny Puppy, Pigface, Ministry, and so on. That NIN was too commercial or some bullshit like that. At the end of the day, Trent is really standing for something out there when so many have long since sold out or died (Skinny Puppy tried, which proved to be quite dangerous).



Gary Numan's music has been very special to me for a long time, so finding out about this combination happening just a few days ago was really cool.

DJ Prince comes up with a really good mashup, which is part of The Sound of Funky Breaks compilation.

STEAMROLLER!

The Internet for Dummies by Dummies

We can buy tickets on the online!

Phone Manners

It is a little subtle, but fun just the same.

ESPN360 | "Billy Mays College"

More ESPN360 Billy Mays awesomeness.

ESPN360 | "Billy Mays Office"

Some more Billy Mays funny stuff.

Tiga // Shoes

Hmmm... I think I like it.

ESPN360 | "Billy Mays On the Run"

Billy Mays was awesome.

Ace Rimmer, what a guy! from Red Dwarf

Classic moment!

Back to the Future Alternate Ending

Awesome mashup.

Terry Wogan interviews Max Headroom

Open-mindedness

Remix some Peter Gabriel...

You can get the samples at realworldremixed.com right now.

I did not make this one, but it is the first Shock The Monkey one that I found and it is pretty good.

So, Earth Hour is about keeping lights off...

...so why are so many people now saying that keeping your lights on is the better idea? This is an idea that appears to have originated with the Objectivists. That, by itself, is a good reason to be very skeptical and just about reject it out of hand.

Turn off the lights. Take the opportunity to prove a point. Don't derail a good concept simply because you have a crummy attitude that causes you to rebel against anything that isn't based on selfishness. I have been there. I have done that. It doesn't prove anything, beyond you being an asshole.

Earth Hour 20:30 - 21:30, Saturday, March 28, 2009

C64 Longplay - Yie ar Kung Fu

I used to play this game a lot, back about 20 years or so.

Happy Birthday says Elvis

Hot damn right!

Disney is changing things up for somebody special?

What do you think of that?

Cheesus Loves me

Good stuff.

Glen Beck is a douchebag...

So, this guy is carrying on about what Benjamin Franklin and George Washington had to say about religion.

I am left wondering why it really matters. We know that these gentlemen are pre-Darwin, so they definitely had less to work with. Sometime I will try to get something more coherent together about the idiocy of Glen Beck.

Embracing Open Source Software for the Enterprise

There are many companies out there today that are willing to embrace Open Source Software for a lot of their production services. They will run servers on them, often using Linux. They will run their web services on them, through Apache, JBOSS, and other products. They will run their instant message services through a Jabber derivative. They run production monitoring/alert systems through OSS as well, using things like Zenoss and Big Brother. However, how many really try to take this to the next level? How many run their desktops on Linux? How many put it on their laptops?

In this current environment, where businesses are trying to cut costs at every turn. Wouldn't it be better to keep more employees on the payroll in exchange for dropping Microsoft? Don't use Microsoft Office, instead opting for Open Office. I would love to see more companies going this route. A lot of people in a lot of offices think they cannot function without Windows, but they can learn something new. As long as you provide them everything they need to get their job done, they will be fine on any operating system using any kind of tools. They will learn some new transferable skills that will help them land on their feet somewhere else, should the bottom still fall out of your company anyway. Beyond that, they will be part of something new and fantastic. A company that is not paying royalty/license fees to anyone. A company that can even give back to the Open Source community via the bug reports, feature requests, etc, that an entire enterprise running OSS could provide. In house development patches, fixes, etc, could be released to the Open Source community that would help even more enterprises go down this same road. It is a win-win for everyone involved...

So why won't a large enterprise make this switch? Or have some large ones already done it, from the top to the bottom, and I just have not managed to read about it somehow?

Cal Clutterbuck vs Steve Staios Jan 30, 2009

Steve with the big hit, good scrap, and the Oilers win a big game.

Supercar!

For those who have missed out on knowledge of this show, it is a great little sci-fi show, from many decades back, made by Gerry Anderson. It has been fun to watch this with my kids, passing on the legacy of a classic show that might otherwise end up lost in the annals of time.



I remember watching Terrahawks when I was a kid, which was the last series of its kind that Gerry Anderson ever made. My exposure to Supercar came from Higgins Boys & Gruber on The Comedy Channel in the US (not HA!, CTV, or Comedy Central).



We have almost finished watching this series from beginning to end. After we are done, we will move on to Fireball XL-5, Stingray, Thunderbirds, and Captain Scarlet (as well as others that I have not queued up yet).

Puppet Up - George Michael In The Handicapped Stall

Not Safe For Children/Work - From The Jim Henson Company

Go out and vote, as long as you have some thought behind it.

Severed Heads - Heart of the Party

TOM ELLARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Kon Kan - I Beg Your Pardon

Lost song of the 80s...at least for me.

Greater Than One - I Don't Need God - Waxtrax! Records 1989

All I need is an amoeba.

Chapterhouse - We Are The Beautiful

More classic tunes.

Chapterhouse - Pearl

A barrage of good music from years ago. If you somehow missed it the first time, take some time to enjoy it now.

AC Marias - One of our girls has gone missing

One of the under-appreciated songs from the golden age of Alternative music in the U.S.

Opie, Andy, Richie, The Fonz, and Ron Howard say...

See more Ron Howard videos at Funny or Die

David Byrne-Psycho Killer

In case you had any doubts, David Byrne is a freak.

David Byrne-Dance On Vaseline

David Byrne, of Talking Heads fame...

New Order Every Little Counts Reading 1989

Not the best video/audio, but one of the best songs and part of what went into the name of this blog. Enjoy.

Beaker does Beethoven

A different set of liberties and protections for the religious...

That is right. West Virginia is planning on granting extra privacy protection to religious people. Never mind the rational reason to be concerned about a government database linking personal information with photos. You people have nothing legitimate to be concerned about. Get used to a government that wants all your information and will likely put it all on CDs or laptops and leave them laying about. You don't have any way to stop them...unless you happen to be part of a religion that is against it. Apparently that is the only way to get out from under the thumb of these ever more oppressive governments in this nation. If you happen to have the right religion, you get special protection in a myriad of circumstances. Here is one more of those:

West Virginia started a pilot project Friday to keep driver's license photos out of a computer database to accommodate members of a small religious group, who believe digital storage is a "mark of the beast" that evokes biblical prophecy.

State Division of Motor Vehicles Commissioner Joseph Cicchirillo said Friday the group of Christians, who are not affiliated with a particular church, contacted the agency two or three years ago to object to their pictures "being on a database that can be exchanged throughout the world or hacked into."

Hudok and other members of his group have said bar codes and digital storage of photos are a way of numbering people, which they liken to a warning in the Bible's book of Revelation about a "mark of the beast" indicating the arrival of the Antichrist.

To accommodate their beliefs, state officials decided to issue licenses to the group members that are exactly like other West Virginia licenses except that the individual photos will be removed from the computer immediately after they are taken by a digital camera.

So, if I just don't trust the government, what is my recourse? Not to get a license, obviously. If I know they will eventually screw up security and give this information to unknown individuals, what is my recourse? Don't live in that state, obviously. Have some mythological fantasy that involves the fear of some "mark of the beast" thing going on? You get government protection, buddy! You get to opt out of a bad system that the rest of us get screwed on. Power goes to the nutty types out there, apparently.

Some insight from LEAP about the impact of the War on Drugs...

Is it really entry level if it requires experience?

Perhaps I have a completely different idea of what "entry level" means, but I think it is logical that "entry level (x)" would not require you to have experience doing (x).

I just perused a job posting for "Entry Level Help desk", which then had a stated requirement of 2 years experience in "help desk." Surely, after 2 years, you would not still be considered to be "entry level", right?

Armand van Helden - Koochy

Ok. Apparently it isn't really family or kid friendly, but it features video of "Box" (the robot) from the great film "Logan's Run." Not to mention any song based on a Gary Numan song ("Cars") is worth taking note of.

Serenity Con 2007 Nathan Fillion Surprises Alan Tudyk

He really does seem surprised...

Book Of Love - Pretty Boys And Pretty Girls

Only one of the best songs ever made. Let it into your soul.

Goodbye Mr Mackenzie - Goodbye Mr Mackenzie

Good band from Scotland, circa 1989/1990 or so. Yes, that was Shirley Manson singing backing vocals in her pre-Garbage days.

Barrow voters say ‘No’ to Brain Train...Or do they?

The headline is very deceptive, because I know I did not say "no" to the "Brain Train" and a careful reading of the ballot question reveals that you cannot determine whether people are opposed to the concept or not from this result. See, here is the question as it was asked on the ballot:

Would you favor raising any local taxes to pay Barrow's portion of the proposed Brain Train between Atlanta and Athens?

So, you can determine whether someone would be willing to have their taxes raised to pay for the Brain Train, but you cannot tell whether they support the concept of the Brain Train or not.

I like the concept, but if it has to be paid for with tax money then I expect them to cut something else to finance it. These "journalists" out there can't seem to prevent themselves from making up the news from time to time.

Kristi Reed gets it right in the article, but a lot of people will see the headline and think it means exactly what it says.

Barrow County residents will not be catching the Brain Train if current voter sentiment holds sway.

The Barrow County Republican Party included three non-binding questions on this year’s primary ballot. One of the questions was an attempt to determine county support for the Atlanta to Athens Brain Train.

By a large majority, citizens opposed raising local taxes to pay for Barrow’s portion of the proposed rail line.

Behind on the news... Helio joins up with Virgin Mobile!

I've been behind with reading my business RSS feeds, so I missed that Helio is finally being sold and integrated into Virgin Mobile. It is important to note that SK Telecom will own 17.7% of the new business, while EarthLink will have about 2.7%. Even more revealing is how Sky Dayton will not be involved at all.

I was somewhat excited about Helio before it launched. Once it hit the streets, I was generally unimpressed and did not think it had a reasonable chance to succeed. The biggest issue for me was their inability to understand the market. For some reason, the media in this country thinks that everything Sky Dayton touches will turn to gold. His name was made with EarthLink, primarily, which has burned through money for much of its life. Until they started laying off employees by the thousands in exchange for offshore workers, they were never able to generate a profit. Now they tell everyone they expect to have a declining customer base (you can find it in their SEC filings).

Imogen Heap - Goodnight and Go

Last Imogen Heap video... It's all good stuff, even if I'm catching on late in the game.

Frou Frou- Breathe In

Imogen Heap in a collaboration with Guy Sigsworth.

Headlock - Imogen Heap

I finally got around to checking out Imogen Heap and she has made some brilliant songs. It is cool to find musicians out there that play all the music themselves and sing as well.

Definitely not voting for Obama in November.

I feel like a chump for even getting sucked in by all the hype during his campaign against Hillary Clinton for the nomination of the Democratic Party. It is not like me to even consider voting for a Presidential candidate from that party, considering I have not done it once in my voting life. However, I began to believe the "hope" idea that he was selling. I began to believe that he was going to do things differently. That he was not going to "play the game" like so many others do. That all came crashing down today, as Obama voted for H.R. 6304, the FISA bill that grants retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies that enabled the Bush Administration to potentially violate the U.S. Constitution (as well as other existing law).

On one hand, I'd like to thank Obama for not carrying his charade all the way through November and taking my vote away from the Libertarian Party. At least I have been reminded that Democrats and Republicans are not likely to be people of principle. They don't embrace liberty above all else. They don't really want to change the system. When push comes to shove, they capitulate to the power of government and big business time and time again.

I am not personally fond of Bob Barr, which is primarily due to actions he engaged in while a member of the US House of Representatives (and a member of the GOP), but I simply must vote by my principles now and forget the fancy marketing and charismatic speeches of Barack Obama. At the end of the day, he will sell me out if it is convenient for him to do so. He had an uphill battle to win my vote, but the burden ultimately proved to be too difficult for him.

Republicans should be ashamed...

After watching and listening to (and later reading) the speeches of Senator Dodd and Senator Feingold regarding FISA, I am left feeling that Republicans should be very ashamed. They are part of a political party that proudly proclaims they are the party for the individual. Although we already knew that to be a sham, it's a little sad each time that it is demonstrated once again. I once was a member of the College Republicans, and voted proudly in step with the GOP in the 90s. I could see the GOP losing its place, though, and selling out to special interests within its party (big business and religion). I left for the Libertarians, which stood for principles that actually meant something.

The GOP should be ashamed that their allegiance with big business has let them be out-performed by members of the Democratic Party on the issue of the FISA bill (H.R. 6304) and on individual liberties in general. They should hang their heads and try to find out just when they lost their way.

Russ Feingold gets it as well...

Mr. President, I strongly support Senator Dodd's amendment to strike the immunity provision from this bill, and I especially thank the Senator from Connecticut for his leadership on this issue. Both earlier this year, when the Senate first considered FISA legislation, and again this time around, he has demonstrated tremendous resolve on this issue, and I have been proud to work with him.

Some have tried to suggest that the bill before us will leave it up to the courts to decide whether to give retroactive immunity to companies that allegedly participated in the President's illegal wiretapping program. But make no mistake, this bill will result in immunity being granted--it will--because it sets up a rigged process with only one possible outcome. Under the terms of this bill, a Federal district court would evaluate whether there is substantial evidence that a company received .....

a written request or directive from the Attorney General or the head of an element of the intelligence community indicating that the activity was authorized by the President and determined to be lawful.

We already know, from the report of the Senate Intelligence Committee that was issued last fall, that the companies received exactly such a request or directive. This is already public information. So under the terms of this proposal, the court's decision would actually be predetermined.

As a practical matter, that means that regardless of how much information the court is permitted to review, what standard of review is employed, how open the proceedings are, and what role the plaintiffs are permitted to play, it won't matter. The court will essentially be required to grant immunity under this bill.

Now, our proponents will argue that the plaintiffs in the lawsuits against the companies can participate in briefing to the court, and this is true. But they are not allowed any access to any classified information. Talk about fighting with both hands tied behind your back. The administration has restricted information about this illegal wiretapping program so much that roughly 70 Members of this Chamber don't even have access to the basic facts about what happened. Do you believe that? So let's not pretend that the plaintiffs will be able to participate in any meaningful way in these proceedings in which Congress has made sure their claims will be dismissed.

This result is extremely disappointing. It is entirely unnecessary and unjustified, and it will profoundly undermine the rule of law in this country. I cannot comprehend why Congress would take this action in the waning months of an administration that has consistently shown contempt for the rule of law--perhaps most notably in the illegal warrantless wiretapping program it set up in secret.

We hear people argue that the telecom companies should not be penalized for allegedly taking part in this illegal program. What you don't hear, though, is that current law already provides immunity from lawsuits for companies that cooperate with the Government's request for assistance, as long as they receive either a court order or a certification from the Attorney General that no court order is needed and the request meets all statutory requirements. But if requests are not properly documented, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act instructs the telephone company to refuse the Government's request, and it subjects them to liability if they instead decide to cooperate.

When Congress passed FISA three decades ago, in the wake of the extensive, well-documented wiretapping abuses of the 1960s and 1970s, it decided that in the future, telephone companies should not simply assume that any Government request for assistance to conduct electronic surveillance was appropriate. It was clear some checks needed to be in place to prevent future abuses of this incredibly intrusive power; that is, the power to listen in on people's personal conversations.

At the same time, however, Congress did not want to saddle telephone companies with the responsibility of determining whether the Government's request for assistance was legitimate. So Congress devised a good system. It devised a system that would take the guesswork out of it completely. Under that system, which is still in place today, the company's legal obligations and liability depend entirely on whether the Government has presented the company with a court order or a certification stating that certain basic requirements have been met. If the proper documentation is submitted, the company must cooperate with the request and it is, in fact, immune from liability. If the proper documentation, however, has not been submitted, the company must refuse the Government's request or be subject to possible liability in the courts.

This framework, which has been in place for 30 years, protects companies that comply with legitimate Government requests while also protecting the privacy of Americans' communications from illegitimate snooping. Granting companies that allegedly cooperated with an illegal program this new form of retroactive immunity in this bill undermines the law that has been on the books for decades--a law that was designed to prevent exactly the type of abuse that allegedly occurred here.

Even worse, granting retroactive immunity under these circumstances will undermine any new laws we pass regarding Government surveillance. If we want companies to obey the law in the future, doesn't it send a terrible message, doesn't it set a terrible precedent, to give them a ``get out of jail free'' card

for allegedly ignoring the law in the past?

Last week, a key court decision on FISA undercut one of the most popular arguments in support of immunity; that is, that we need to let the companies off the hook because the State secrets privilege prevents them from defending themselves in court. A Federal Court has now held that the State secrets privilege does not apply to claims brought under FISA. Rather, more specific evidentiary rules in FISA govern in situations such as that. Shouldn't we at least let these cases proceed to see how they play out, rather than trying to solve a problem that may not even exist?

That is not all. This immunity provision doesn't just allow telephone companies off the hook; it will also make it that much harder to get at the core issue I have been raising since December 2005, which is that the President broke the law and should be held accountable. When these lawsuits are dismissed, we will be that much further away from an independent judicial review of this illegal program.

On top of all this, we are considering granting immunity when roughly 70 Members of the Senate still have not been briefed on the President's wiretapping program. The vast majority of this body still does not even know what we are being asked to grant immunity for. Frankly, I have a hard

time understanding how any Senator can vote against this amendment without this information.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment to strike the immunity provision from the bill.

I yield the floor.

Senator Chris Dodd gets it...

Mr. President, it is very simple. Strike that section of the bill that grants immunity to a number of telecommunications companies that, for a period of roughly 5 or 6 years, literally vacuumed up phone conversations, faxes, e-mails, photographs, on a wholesale basis, of virtually every American citizen. The only reason it has come to a halt is because there was a whistleblower who identified the program. Otherwise the program would be ongoing. Again, none of us argue, at least I don't argue at all, about the importance of having the ability to get the cooperation of an industry that could help us identify those who would do us harm. That is not the debate.

The debate is whether there is an appropriate means by which those warrants are sought before these telecom companies would begin to turn over the private conversations, e-mails, and communications of American citizens. That is what this debate is about. It is a simple debate on whether we keep this section of the bill or strike it out and allow the judicial branch, a coequal branch of Government, to determine whether the acts by the executive branch were constitutional and if they were they legal.

If this amendment is not adopted, it will be a vote by the legislative body that determines whether they were legal. We are not competent or the appropriate constitutionally delegated body to perform that function. That is why we have three coequal branches of Government. The executive branch made this decision. We in the legislative branch have an obligation to insist that the judicial branch determine the legality of the actions taken.

I wish to thank as well my colleague, Senator Feingold of Wisconsin, my lead cosponsor, but also to mention, if I may, Senator Leahy, who has been a stalwart on this effort and always a great crusader against those who would do harm to the rule of law. I also want to thank Senator Reid, the Majority Leader, and Senators Harkin, Boxer, Sanders, Wyden, Kennedy, Durbin, Kerry, and Clinton for their support for this amendment. I also thank, if I may, Jay Rockefeller, who chairs this committee. While I am highly critical of title II of the bill, I have great respect for him and the work he has tried to do in leading the Intelligence Committee on this difficult issue. While I still have major reservations about title I of this bill, the fact that title II still exists in this bill makes it impossible to be supportive of this legislation, if that is retained in the bill that we vote on tomorrow.

For many Americans, the issue may seem a very difficult one to follow. It may seem like another squabble over a corporate lawsuit. But in reality, it is so much more than that. This is about choosing between the rule of law and the rule of men. You heard our colleague, Senator Levin, and the Majority Leader eloquently describe the situation as it presently exists.

For more than 7 years, President Bush has demonstrated time and time again, unfortunately, that he neither respects the role of Congress nor does he apparently respect the rule of law on these matters. Today, we are considering legislation which will grant retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies that are alleged to have handed over to this administration the personal information of virtually every American, every phone call, every e-mail, every fax, and every text message, and all without warrant.

Some may argue that, in fact, the companies received documentation from the administration stating that the President authorized the wiretapping program and that, therefore, it is automatically legal. These advocates will argue that the mere existence of documentation justifies retroactive immunity; that because a document was received, companies should be retroactively exonerated from any wrongdoing. But as the Intelligence Committee has already made clear, we already know that the companies received some form of documentation with some sort of legal determination.

But that logic is deeply flawed. Because the question is not whether the companies received a document from the White House. The question is, were those actions legal?

It is a rather straightforward and surprisingly uncomplicated question. Did the companies break the law? Why did the administration not go to the FISA Court as they were required to do under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act?

Since 1978, that court has handled 18,748 warrants, and they have rejected 5 since 1978, in almost 30 years, according to a recent published report in the Washington Post. So the issue raised for me is, why didn't these companies go before that court to determine whether a warrant was justified? Why did they decide merely to rely on some letter or some documentation, none of which has ever been established as a legal justification for their actions?

Either the companies complied with the law as it was at the time or they didn't. Either the companies and the President acted outside the rule of law or they followed it. Either the underlying program was legal or it was not. If we pass retroactive immunity, not a single one of these questions will ever be answered--ever. Because of this so-called compromise, Federal judges' hands will be tied and the outcome of these cases will be predetermined. Retroactive immunity will be granted.

So this is about finding out what exactly happened between these companies and the administration. It is about holding this administration to account for violating the rule of law and our Constitution. It is about reminding this administration that where law ends, tyranny begins. Those aren't my words, where the law ends, tyranny begins. Those words were spoken by the former British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher.

It is time we say no more, no more trampling on our Constitution, no more excusing those who violate the rule of law. These are our principles. They

have been around since the Magna Carta, even predating the Constitution. They are enduring. What they are not is temporary. And what we should not do at a time when our country is at risk is abandon them. That is what is at stake this evening and tomorrow when the vote occurs.

Allowing retroactive immunity to go forward is, by its very nature, an abandonment of those principles. Similar to generations of American leaders before us, we too are confronted with a choice. Does America stand for all that is right with our world or do we retreat in fear? Do we stand for justice that secures America or do we act out of vengeance that weakens us?

Whatever our political party, Republican or Democratic, we are all elected to ensure that this Nation adheres to the rule of law. That is our most fundamental obligation as Members of this great body, to uphold the rule of law--not as partisans but as patriots serving our Nation. The rule of law is not the province of any one political party or any particular Member of the Senate but is, rather, the province of every American who has been safer because of it.

President Bush is right about one thing. The debate is about security. But not in the way he imagines. He believes we have to give up certain rights in order to be safer. This false dichotomy, this false choice that to be more secure, you must give up rights is a fundamentally flawed idea. In fact, the opposite is true. To be more secure, you must defend your rights.

I believe the choice between moral authority and security is a false choice. I believe it is precisely when you stand up and protect your rights that you become stronger, not weaker. The damage done to our country on 9/11 was both tragic and stunning, but when you start diminishing the rights of your people, you compound that tragedy. You cannot protect America in the long run if you fail to protect the Constitution of the United States. It is that simple.

As Dwight Eisenhower, who served our country as both President and as the leader of our Allied forces in Europe during World War II, said:

The clearest way to show what the rule of law means to us in everyday life is to recall what has happened when there is no rule of law.

That is why I believe history will judge this administration harshly for their disregard for our most cherished principles. If we do not change course and stand for our Constitution at this hour, for what is best for our country, for what we know is just and right, then history, I am confident, will most certainly decide that it was those of us in this body who bear equal responsibility for the President's decisions--for it was we who looked the other way, time and time again.

This is the moment. At long last, let us rise to it. Support the amendment I am offering on behalf of myself and the other Members I mentioned earlier. We must put a stop to this idea of retroactive immunity. It is time we stood for the rule of law. That is what is at stake. The FISA Courts were created specifically to strike the balance between a secure nation and a nation defending its rights. That is why the law has done so well for these past 30 years, amended many times, to keep pace with the changes of those who would do us great harm.

At this very hour, in the wake of 9/11, to say we no longer care about that, that we will decide by a simple majority vote to grant retroactive immunity to companies who decided that a letter alone was enough legal authority for them to do what they did is wrong.

I have pointed out before in lengthy debate, not every phone company participated in the President's warrantless wiretapping program. Not everyone did. There were those who stood up to the administration and said, without a warrant, without proper legal authority, we will not engage in the vacuuming up of the private information of American citizens. They should be recognized and celebrated for standing for the rule of law.

For those who decided they were going to go the other way, let the courts decide whether that letter, that so-called documentation, was the legal authority that allowed them to do what they did for more than 5 long years.

Tomorrow we will vote around 11 o'clock on this amendment. I commend Senator Bingaman and Senator Specter. They have offered amendments as well dealing with other parts of this legislation for which I commend them. But I hope my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, would think long and hard about this moment. Senator Carl Levin of Michigan said something very important toward the conclusion of his remarks: That this in itself becomes a precedent, that some future administration, fearing they would not get permission from a FISA Court to engage in an activity that violated the privacy of our fellow citizens will no doubt use the vote tomorrow, if, in fact, those who are for retroactive immunity prevail. They will cite that act by this body as a legal justification for some future administration circumventing the FISA Courts in order to do exactly what was done in this case.

It becomes a legal precedent.

So there is a great deal at risk and at stake with this vote tomorrow. It is about the rule of law. It is not about whether you care about the security of our Nation. Every one of us cares deeply about that, and we want to do everything we can to thwart those who would do us great harm. This is about the simple issue of whether a court of law ought to determine whether these companies violated the Constitution. Did they or didn't they? If they did not, so be it. If they did, then those to whom they did harm ought to be compensated at what marginal or minimal level one would decide. But let the court decide this. Let's not decide it by a simple vote here and set the precedent that I think we would regret for years and years to come.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss continues to disregard individual liberties.

Saxby Chambliss comes out on the record in support of the Terrorist Surveillance Program, as it already existed, as well as being strongly in favor of giving retroactive immunity to private companies that likely violated the law while being part of the TSP. The fact remains that these private companies provided access and information to the government without being provided a proper legal order for it.

Here is some of what Saxby Chambliss had to say on the floor of the Senate, in an attempt to send the concept of individual liberty down the river for good:

The committee concluded that granting civil liability relief to the telecommunications providers was not only warranted, but required to maintain the regular assistance our intelligence and law enforcement professionals seek from them and others in the private sector. It was clear in discussions within the committee that most of us were concerned about the harm the Government could face if it cannot rely on the private sector. Without this provision, the harm faced by the Government will become a reality.

The problem with this comment is that a properly obtained and properly served order requires compliance from these private companies. It is not optional for them to assist when provided with such a request. So, how exactly would this or any other program be harmed? The answer is that it would not be harmed at all, unless they hope to act outside of the law at some point in the future and need their telecom cronies to do them some favors when that time comes.

I cannot understate the importance of this assistance, not only for intelligence purposes but for law enforcement too. The Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General stated, ``Extending liability protection to such companies is imperative; failure to do so could limit future cooperation by such companies and put critical intelligence operations at risk. Moreover, litigation against companies believed to have assisted the Government risks the disclosure of highly classified information regarding extremely sensitive intelligence sources and methods.'' There is too much at stake for us to deny those who assist the Government the liability relief they need, and deserve, or to delay its implementation.

So, the argument goes something like this... These poor telecom companies, with their teams of lawyers, were not able to tell whether the TSP requests were legal or not and assumed they were. They will somehow find a way to wriggle out of compliance with proper requests in the future. Also, despite the strong possibility that TSP was illegal, we'd better give these companies protection in order to keep any secrets obtained under this illegal program from seeing the light of day. We are a nation of laws, Mr. Chambliss, and you can bet that it should extend to every entity in this nation, regardless of how important or secret you think it should be. Perhaps, if it was really so important, the government should have acted within the law and therefore been able to keep it secret. They chose to operate outside of the law, of their own free will, and there are always consequences out there for those who choose to do such things.

Further, regardless of the Government's program, our companies should not be held liable for assistance that they were assured was lawful. Let the Government carry the burden for its own actions.

This argument is absurd. If you just think about the IRS, for instance. If you call them and they provide a response about your tax status or preparation, it carries no weight and will not absolve you, the individual, for being responsible for a different interpretation brought to the table by an auditor later. The government is rarely willing to carry any burden for its actions. Besides, if a private company is being sued for breaking a law, it is clearly about an action they engaged in. If they believe simply being asked by the government to do something is sufficient cover for their actions, why can't they argue that in court? Saxby Chambliss continues to believe that the interests of government and big companies outweigh the interests of individuals.

I have worked in subpoena compliance for a communications company in the past and I know that the very first thing you are supposed to do is ascertain whether the subpoena, or other legal order, is actually legal before providing any information at all. It is an important aspect of doing business in this, or any other, country. You need to know what orders actually require a response, and those which have no legal power behind them. Big telecommunication companies in the United States have enough legal resources to rightfully determine what they must do regarding orders from the government. That this slipped by all of them does not indicate that they deserve extra special protection with some retroactive immunity. If we want to do that for anyone, let's extend it to everyone for everything. Let's go back 3 or 4 years and give everyone immunity for anything they may have done.

Srikumar Rao speaking at Google

Dr. Srikumar Rao, author of _Are You Ready to Succeed? Unconventional Strategies to Achieving Personal Mastery in Business and Life_, spoke at Google's Mountain View, CA, campus as part of their Leading@Google series.

I had been encouraged to watch this video from a blog post I actually archived well over a month ago. I finally took the time to watch it and have found that he might be onto something. I will see if I can get his book from the library first...

Ron Paul understands what is at stake with the FISA "compromise"

I found this in the Congressional Record:

Madam Speaker, I regret that due to the unexpected last-minute appearance of this measure on the legislative calendar this week, a prior commitment has prevented me from voting on the FISA amendments. I have strongly opposed every previous FISA overhaul attempt, and I certainly would have voted against this one as well.

The main reason I oppose this latest version is that it still clearly violates the Fourth Amendment by allowing the Federal Government to engage in the bulk collection of American citizens' communications without a search warrant. That U.S. citizens can have their private communication intercepted by the government without a search warrant is anti-American, deeply disturbing, and completely unacceptable.

In addition to gutting the Fourth Amendment, this measure will deprive Americans who have had their rights violated by telecommunication companies involved in the Administration's illegal wiretapping program the right to seek redress in the courts for the wrongs committed against them. Worse, this measure provides for retroactive immunity, whereby individuals or organizations that broke the law as it existed are granted immunity for prior illegal actions once the law has been changed. Ex post facto laws have long been considered anathema in free societies under rule of law. Our Founding Fathers recognized this, including in Article I section 9 of the Constitution that ``No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.'' How is this FISA bill not a variation of ex post facto? That alone should give pause to supporters of this measure.

Madam Speaker, we should understand that decimating the protections that our Constitution provides us against the government is far more dangerous to the future of this country than whatever external threats may exist. We can protect this country without violating the Constitution and I urge my colleagues to reconsider their support for this measure.

Saxby Chambliss favors big business and big government over liberty...

It is true. This man supports the granting of immunity to telecommunications companies that engaged in illegal activity with the Bush Administration. That's right. Individuals who had their legal protections stepped on by these companies would have no legal redress if he has his way.

This is what can be found at his website :

The Senate legislation also provides retroactive immunity for U.S. telecommunication firms who are being sued for their alleged assistance to the government in the President’s Terrorist Surveillance Program after September, 11, 2001. I believe we should provide this relief to the companies to ensure that they continue providing assistance to the government and to protect classified information from exposure in a trial.

So, here is the story he is trying to tell... It is quite likely these companies did something illegal. They committed this illegal act at the urging of our very own government. If we don't give them protection for this illegal act, they might not be so willing to commit illegal acts for our government in the future.

Where does the rule of law come in? Where do the concerns about individual freedom and liberty come in? Never, apparently. At least not when it gets in the way of big government and big business.

Without a change in this position, which will be revealed soon since H.R. 6304 has passed the House with that protection intact, you can bet that not only will I not vote for Saxby Chambliss this November, but I will actively try to promote an alternative choice for the office. Saxby Chambliss, you are a disappointment to everyone who believes in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It is important to also note that John Linder, representing the 7th District (my district), voted in favor of H.R. 6304. I had the pleasure of voting Linder into office back in 1992. He has managed to stay there ever since, while I have not always resided within his district throughout that time. However, given his desire to sell out individuals in this nation in favor of the interests of big government and big business, he can count on never being supported by me again. As of right now, I think I would much rather have Doug Heckman in office, although it is not clear that he is any more in favor of individuals than John Linder is. Although it is important to note that the Democratic Party does not sell itself as the party of individual freedom and liberty.

Ants!

The excavation of an ant colony. It is rather amazing. You will need about 6 and a half minutes of time to enjoy this.

Is a software application a skill?

I cringe when I read a list of software applications accompanied with the question of whether I have any of those skills. It would be better to ask if I have skills with any of those, since software applications are not skills. Software applications are simply tools to be used.

Would you ever see something like this:

Do you have any of these skills?

Hammer, Wrench, Saw, Lawnmower?

I doubt it. More likely you would be asked if you have experience with, or knowledge of the use of, those tools. It is one of the more annoying things in the "Information Technology" world.

Although I am experienced with the driving of multiple kinds of cars, I would not list each model as a "skill." My "skill" would not be "Toyota Camry", "Toyota Corolla", or "VW Jetta." Just like my skill would not be "Active Directory", "Windows Server 2003", "SAP", or "Sun Solaris."

Channel 4 'Get set for digital'

Max Headroom returns to the channel he started at, but he looks a lot older...

REAL Wall-E in LA! (2008)

Another primarily YouTube entry, but it is Wall-E, which is very special to my son.

Sesame Street - The Alligator King

Sesame Street - The Ladybugs' Picnic

Alice

Unbelievably brilliant. Tapped into some magic with this one...

When copyright infringement becomes criminal...

§ 506. Criminal offenses⁴

(a) Criminal Infringement. —

(1) In general. — Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed —

(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;

(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or

(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.

(2) Evidence. — For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement of a copyright.

(3) Definition. — In this subsection, the term “work being prepared for commercial distribution” means —

(A) a computer program, a musical work, a motion picture or other audiovisual work, or a sound recording, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution —

(i) the copyright owner has a reasonable expectation of commercial distribution; and

(ii) the copies or phonorecords of the work have not been commercially distributed; or

(B) a motion picture, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution, the motion picture —

(i) has been made available for viewing in a motion picture exhibition facility; and

(ii) has not been made available in copies for sale to the general public in the United States in a format intended to permit viewing outside a motion picture exhibition facility.

Mobile Desktop

Starbucks turns into a computer lab...

Sven does not need to go...

So, he beats United twice, and finishes in the top 10, and he is going to be sacked? Makes me wonder if I should just forget about this club until they get out from under this tyrant of an owner.

TELL THE TRUTH - Mos Def - Immortal Technique - Eminem

Heard this on Adam Curry's Daily Source Code this week, and I enjoyed it quite a bit. I would have downloaded it, but it doesn't appear to be available in the iTunes store.

I am so disappointed with our judicial system today.

It simply blows my mind how these guys can walk after something like this. It is very hard for me to believe that this type of activity should simply be forgiven. Police must be held to a higher standard, because with great authority comes great responsibility. It is very hard, maybe even impossible, to properly respect police officials when they (1) engage in these kinds of acts and (2) get away with it.

Even more disappointing than the verdict is that one of the bastard cops decided to thank God for the acquittal. I can only assume that he thinks God wanted them to shoot this innocent man 50 times and get away with it. Maybe they should ask God why they had to be the ones to shoot a man down for doing nothing. Truth is that no God that is worth a damn would let this kind of thing happen. It is certainly easier to believe that there is no such thing as "God" than buy into this kind of bullshit. Christians really piss me off sometimes.

CNBC Ron Paul grills Bernanke, traders cheering 2008.02.27

CNBC: Ron Paul's question makes Ben Bernake's voice quiver

GOLD VS DOLLAR

See if this makes sense to you.

Top Secret Photos...

You won't believe what the government is up to now. Look at this!

http://i0006.photobucket.com/albums/album_02832/

Hmmm... Maybe fingerprints aren't the best way after all?

Check this out.

Turns out that the Chaos Computer Club managed to lift the print of Wolfgang Schäuble, the biometric anti-privacy Federal Minister of the Interior for Germany. Apparently the print can be used to validate as Schäuble himself at any biometric checkpoints.

I thought it was relatively well known that fingerprints were not reliable biometrics anymore. It's somewhere along the lines of using DES for encryption. It's a technology that has been broken by other advancements and no longer provides the security that we once thought it did.

Attorney General says piracy is linked to terrorism!

Right in this article, the US Attorney General tries to make the claim that piracy/copyright infringement is linked to terrorism. Give me a break. I would really want to see the evidence that any terrorist group is making money off of this before I entertain the idea. It really should be Al-Qaeda too, since they are the big threat out there.

The government cannot stop buddying up to their big business special interests, even if it means losing all credibility in their "War on Terror." They just cannot resist the temptation to use it as an excuse to further every little special cause they have in their donor lists.

I Love L.A. - Randy Newman

Go west!

The Onion: Diebold Accidentally Leaks Results Of 08 Election

Enjoy!

You're a smart guy. You won't be out of work long.

Yeah, right.

Jack's Big Music Show - Turtle Rap

Yeah.

The Guitar - They Might Be Giants

Greatness.

One last time, folks... Iraq had no WMDs or WMD program at the time of invasion.

No matter what nut-jobs like Huckabee try to claim, there was no current WMD program in Iraq at the time of invasion and we have found no evidence of one since being there either. Even President Bush has ceased any talk of such things. The only really bad part about this entire thing is how we are destined to be there far longer than we should be, because we are afraid of "losing" a war we never should have started.

Check out what our own government's Iraq Survey Group had to say at this website. Here are some great excerpts:

"Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program."

"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter."

"In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW [biological warfare] weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes."

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Georgia - Once Loved, Now Hated?

I can remember, as a child, what it was like to have Blue Cross Blue Shield of Georgia as our health insurance provider. We were the envy of many. Every Doctor seemed happy to see that card. My parents claim they never had to fight with them over medical bills and it was the best they ever had.

Fast forward to the 21st century. After a couple of years with Aetna, which was truly hated by every medical care provider we ever encountered, we switch to Blue Cross Blue Shield. Hoping they will be the wonderful provider I remember from my childhood, I am blindsided when they are regarded as only a slight improvement from Aetna by everybody we dealt with. I am further discouraged when they appear to arbitrarily deny claims, apparently with the hope that I will just pay out of pocket instead of calling them and reading the plan details back to them. For a few months they began to deny every claim with a form letter accusing me of having a second health care provider that wasn't picking up their fair share of the bills. This was outlandish behavior from a company that was supposed to be providing services to/for me. They should have been paying me an hourly wage for the time I had to spend undoing their mistakes. There is no such thing as "customer service" when you are dealing with one of these health insurance providers, though. They appear to have a business plan that involves pushing you right up to the point of a lawsuit and then retreating back to what they should have done right from the start.

At this point, I am convinced that for-profit health insurance is not working in this country. The medical profession hates dealing with these companies. The customers/clients of these companies either end up paying for things they don't have to, or they spend way too much time doing the company's work for them. These companies have a tremendous opportunity to prove that they can do better work as a for-profit enterprise than they did as a non-profit, but they simply don't seize that opportunity. They let it pass. They don't care in the slightest. Why anybody works for companies like this is truly beyond me. Do they get up each day and really feel like they are making a positive difference in the world? Do they enjoy telling somebody who cannot currently walk, and is in dire need of full-time rehabiliation, that they can do this as an outpatient? How in the world are they supposed to get to/from the sessions? That's not their problem, they say. They don't feel the slightest bit concerned about the impact of their decisions. If anything, those people sound happy to do it. I figured they had to have a gun pointed at their head to do these things to other human beings, but it doesn't seem that way.

Capitalism is doomed to failure if people continue to believe that responsibility does not come with every dollar. It should be about how everyone can get everything in a better way through capitalism, instead of how the few can skim off money through unethical and nefarious transactions. Blue Cross Blue Shield destroyed their reputation and became yet another bottom rung pain-in-the-ass health insurance provider when they made the decision to go for-profit in 1996. Or maybe it wasn't then, maybe they still did fairly well until hooking up with WellPoint Health Networks Inc. ("one of the nation’s largest publicly traded health care companies"). There is little doubt amongst the truly objective out there that a significant percentage of publicly traded companies have been taken over by greed in the past decade. I have more research to do in order to determine when their fall from grace truly happened, but there is little doubt in my mind that it will link directly to one, or both, of those events.

Leroy Jenkins

You Can Call Me Al

Fred Travalena - Decision 88 - 2 of 2

Part 2. Good stuff, even if old.

Fred Travalena - Decision 88 - 1 of 2

A classic I have been looking for, but could not remember enough about it to find it...

Manufacturing already owned by others, now the banks too?

It is being speculated that the Middle East may begin bailing out more banks after the Citigroup bailout by the Abu Dhabi Investment Group. So, it won't be enough that we cannot manufacture much in this country, but our financial companies that own mortgages and other financial instruments for nearly everyone in this nation will end up being propped up (owned) by a volatile region of the planet.

Notre Dame Fighting Irish Band performs...

Super Mario Bros!

Wilkinson's Family Restaurant Music Video

Liam Lynch's best work, IMO.

Spread The Word

Spread the message of the Dream for Darfur Campaign! Keep your friends, family, and everyone you know informed about what they can do to help end the violence in Darfur.

Business Meeting in an "Internet Commenter" style.

The Humans Are Dead

Business Time

What will the Fair Tax do to CPAs?

This is something I am hoping to find out very soon. If anyone sees this and has some thoughts, please share them. I am very curious what some expect will happen to CPAs out there that work for themselves (presumably doing a lot of tax work) when/if the Fair Tax Act passes and the income tax becomes a thing of the past.

Why do insurance/health care companies need to be "for profit" enterprises?

For a while, I have been thinking that capitalism is failing when it comes to health care and insurance needs. If anyone happens to see this and wishes to explain why it is better for these enterprises to be "for profit" (as opposed to non-profit, which does not mean they could not be profitable)? These are not the types of businesses that, in my mind, should be answering to Wall Street analysts.

The world is a horrible place.

Terrible things happen to people for no good reason. It happens day after day. Through no fault of their own, people are injured or killed. There is no good reason for any of it.

The Wilhelm Scream Compilation

A scream that has been used in many films over the years...

Jason Smith tribute

Jason Smith tribute by the Oilers upon his first return to the city with the Philadelphia Flyers.