This allows the president to conduct “Untargeted� surveillance of all communication entering and exiting the US. In other words, Bush can record each and every overseas phone call… Yes even to Canada and Mexico. They can do this without any direct judicial oversight. No judge has to know the names, or specific reasons.

And even if a judge says no, they can still tap your phone until they find an appeals judge that says yes.

And nobody can sue the telephone companies for information about if their phone was tapped, or about who the recordings or transcripts went to.

This is the kind of control and privacy invasion, our government was designed to protect us from. But given an infinite timeline, power always gets corrupted. So I guess it’s just the normal status quos… Right? For the people... Right?

My mother sent me a video of a politician ranting about forcing everyone to buy CFL instead of incandescent. His arguments primarily revolved around how bad CFLs are. While they do have short comings, the facts that they use one third the power and last at least twice as long, can’t be ignored.

I still have to say that he is right, however… for all the wrong reasons. The outlawing of incandescent lights is disturbing from a legal standpoint. They are not dangerous, harmful, or threatening outside of a societal sense. Their relative energy inefficacy isn’t very good. They are still no where near as dangerous to society as cigarettes and alcohol. So with this law the government would be outlawing something which in and of it’s self is completely benign, and that is clearly un-constitutional. The government could offer CFL subsidies, or something of the like, to promote their adoption. But banning an individually harmless product is well out of their jurisdiction.

Apparently it's Illegal to say something like Death the the President of the United States of America! I supose even free speech has it's limits.

Alright so Fox is probably one of my least favorite television networks on the planet. They are just a slightly more Orwellian than the rest. Just like the rest they fight tooth and nail to clamp down on any copying of their content for any reason. Suing for thousands of dollars per infringement. Well How much money do you think this lady will get for Fox’s alteration and use of a photo she took of her dog. I’m betting way less than Fox tries to get from people, but at the same time far more than they want to give.

My single hope is that she sues for not only a little pocket money, and legal fees, but also a 5 minuet story that airs on Fox news every hour during prime time for a week. That would be what I would want to settle out of court.

Yes it is now illegal for a store to sell or rent a game to someone outside it's rated age range. At least in New York anyway. This kind of shit pisses me off. I'm all for putting age suggestions on things. Punishing a sales person for the negligence of a parent, is just stupid.

I can't think of anything else to say. That last sentence sums up my view perfectly.