Daily Nonsense

Something I found on boingboing this morning.  Thoughtful discussion on how the convergence of TV and the computer didn’t really result in a new appliance.  The apparent winner of the war is the computer which has been refined to supplant traditional TV distribution.

Although the advent of some of the devices that stream NetFlix does lay the foundation for an argument for a newer convergent appliance, they are the exception and not required to take advantage of the rich online content.

The incentive to figure out the technologies is not limited to the youth.  I’m a 51 year old man who streams NetFlix through a PlayOn server into a PlayStation 3 80GB and from there into my HDTV.  The incentive to use the Watch Instantly content on a screen bigger than my laptop was all it took.

Funny how this discussion mirrors the whole MP3 & music industry brouhahas in so many ways, staid and uninventive massive corporations trying to force a product down the throats of a demographic that want more than the ‘Top 40′.  It should be clear to almost everyone at this point that the consumer really makes the rules, not the mindless and faceless corporations.

Why TV Lost: a merry jig on the gogglebox’s grave

Posted by Cory Doctorow, March 3, 2009 11:48 AM | permalink

Paul Graham’s "Why TV Lost" is a sweet little schadenfreude bomb lobbed at the telly people, half neener-neener and half keen analysis and every word of it is lovable:

About twenty years ago people noticed computers and TV were on a collision course and started to speculate about what they’d produce when they converged. We now know the answer: computers…

The somewhat more surprising force was one specific type of innovation: social applications. The average teenage kid has a pretty much infinite capacity for talking to their friends. But they can’t physically be with them all the time. When I was in high school the solution was the telephone. Now it’s social networks, multiplayer games, and various messaging applications. The way you reach them all is through a computer. [3] Which means every teenage kid (a) wants a computer with an Internet connection, (b) has an incentive to figure out how to use it, and (c) spends countless hours in front of it…

After decades of running an IV drip right into their audience, people in the entertainment business had understandably come to think of them as rather passive. They thought they’d be able to dictate the way shows reached audiences. But they underestimated the force of their desire to connect with one another.

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal described how TV networks were trying to add more live shows, partly as a way to make viewers watch TV synchronously instead of watching recorded shows when it suited them. Instead of delivering what viewers want, they’re trying to force them to change their habits to suit the networks’ obsolete business model. That never works unless you have a monopoly or cartel to enforce it, and even then it only works temporarily.

Why TV Lost (via Negatendo)

[Thanks, boingboing]

Amazon.com is headquartered in Seattle, Washington; that high tech, granola crunchy capitol of America.

Recently Amazon has proven to be a concerned environmental citizen as well as being a totally awesome on-line retailer.  Starting with 19 best-selling products from leading manufacturers including Fisher-Price, Mattel, Microsoft and electronics manufacturer Transcend, Amazon is introducing Frustration-Free Packaging.

The end of the clamshell is neigh!  With these first 19 items, Amazon has done away with the packaging and will send you just the product.  Pretty sweet, don’t you think?

But the environmental benefit doesn’t end there.  You’ll receive your item in a much smaller recyclable cardboard package which use less material.  So, the positive environmental impact is seen across the board with the elimination of clamshell and twist-tie packaging and the reduction in the size of the cardboard box you’ll receive in the mail.

Very Sweet!!!!!

Amazon.com Frustration Free Packaging

Amazon.com has launched “Frustration-Free Packaging,” a new initiative designed to make packaging both more user and environmentally friendly. 

The company’s initiative is unique in that it puts the interests of its customers first not packaging.  Due to the fact Amazon’s business is solely online based this new packaging concept is possible.

Amazon is focusing first on two kinds of items: those enclosed in hard plastic cases known as “clamshells” and those secured with plastic-coated wire ties, commonly used in toy packaging.

Frustration-Free Packaging is being launched in the U.S. with 19 bestselling products from leading manufacturers including Fisher-Price, Mattel, Microsoft and electronics manufacturer Transcend. The product is exactly the same – Amazon has just streamlined the packaging.

In addition to making packages easier to open, a major goal of the Frustration-Free Packaging initiative is to be more environmentally friendly by using less packaging material.

One of the first products to launch with Frustration-Free Packaging is the Fisher-Price Imaginext Adventures Pirate Ship, which is now delivered in an easy-to-open, recyclable cardboard box.

The new packaging eliminates 36 inches of plastic-coated wire ties, 1,576.5 square inches of printed corrugated package inserts and 36.1 square inches of printed folding carton materials.  Also eliminated are 175.25 square inches of PVC blisters, 3.5 square inches of ABS molded styrene and two molded plastic fasteners.

Small items, such as memory cards, are also good candidates for Frustration-Free Packaging. Typically encased in oversized plastic clamshells to deter shoplifting, memory cards are then placed inside larger cardboard boxes for shipment to customers.

Working with Transcend, Amazon has eliminated the hard-to-open clamshell and the need for an additional box. Instead, the cards will now ship inside recyclable cardboard envelopes which use less material.

Amazon’s new "Frustration-Free Packaging" plan comes as a Sustainable is Good reader in the UK sent us images of excessive packaging from Amazon UK from an order she placed for an Apple Macbook adapter.  Excessive packaging is an issue we’ve covered extensively including a number of examples from Amazon.com. 

Amazon’s new packaging plan is excellent news for both consumers and those concerned about excessive packaging.  Hopefully the company will expand the plan to more of their products in the near future. 

You can order select items from Fisher-Price, Mattel, Microsoft and Transcend in the new Frustration-Free Packaging for immediate delivery on Amazon.com.

[Thanks, Sustainable is Good]

In overnight trading European and Japanese stocks fell so sharply that futures of US stocks quickly lost value as to reach their maximum permissible free-fall loss of 6%.  Apparently we are not the only nation to be facing economic recession.

But we are the nation who is at the root of the global issue and the blame can be squarely placed on the shoulders of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.  How’s that for a legacy Georgie?  You not only bring down the American economy simply to further line your pockets and those of your corporate buddies, but now your bringing down Europe and Asia as well.

Well done you piece of filth.  God has a special place in mind for you, it’s called hell.

Global Shares Plummet on Gloomy Data
By ALAN COWELL and JULIA WERDIGIER

Published: October 24, 2008

PARIS — Stocks plummeted worldwide on Friday, and United States futures fell so steeply that they reached their daily permissible limits, indicating a sharp decline in share prices when official trading opens in New York.

Futures on the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell by 550 points and both it and the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index were locked, although the New York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq said trading in the official market would open as normal at 9:30 a.m., Eastern time.

The global rout was propelled by dismal corporate earnings and economic data around the world pointing to a profound global slowdown.

In Europe, major exchanges opened with falls of around 5 percent that then turned even lower.

In Japan, the Nikkei 225 index plunged 9.6 percent, hitting its lowest level since April 2003.

[Thanks, NY Times]

Just some articles that caught my eye today:

• Obama takes on Palin, using her robocalls comment
• John McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin for VP may have cost him the presidency
• Palin pick dogs McCain as financial crisis stings
• RIAA now wants to avoid trial in innocent infringement case
• The Colin Powell endorsement of Barack Obama

In all of the time that RIAA has been intimidating and extorting music down-loaders they have come out ahead in the courtroom twice (by my admittedly imperfect count).  The first time, in Capitol vs. Thomas, the ruling has recently been overturned because the judge, in his ignorance of copyright law, had instructed the jury that making available constituted infringement. Judge Davis has since ordered a new trial.

In the second instance, Maverick v. Harper, the RIAA has been seeking a jury trial upon which they intended to build a case based upon the previously mentioned Capitol vs. Thomas judgement.  But, with the reversal in that case, the RIAA has reversed it’s stance and is seeking the $7,400 judgement.

It seems that Ms. Harper or her lawyers have been keeping up with current events, and the decision by Judge Davis in the Thomas case has prompted them to press for a trial.  The reversal in both parties is understandable by an outside observer.  In the case of Harper, she doesn’t want her judgement to have been based upon flawed legal precedent while the RIAA simply wants to chalk up a win.

Fearing reversal, RIAA opts for the money in Harper case

Posted by Richard Koman @ October 19, 2008 @ 7:36 PM

Ars Technica reports that the RIAA has changed course in the copyright infringement case of a teenage girl who downloaded 37 songs over Kazaa.

The judge in Maverick v. Harper had held that Whitney Harper, 16 at the time of her offenses, was an “innocent infringer” and awarded a mere $200 per song, far less than the statutory minimum of $750 per song.

The RIAA had been fighting this, pressing for a jury trial on the damages issue, but now the RIAA wants judgment for $7,400 while Harper is pressing for a trial. It seems the fortunes of the parties have really shifted.

Here’s why: The judge’s finding for the RIAA was based on the “making available” theory – the idea that having files in Kazaa’s shared folder (which the software does by default but teenagers presumably do not realize this) is sufficient grounds to find that someone distributed copyright material.

This theory has been thoroughly trashed in subsequent court decisions, most notably in Capitol v. Thomas, where Judge Michael Davis dismissed a jury verdict in favor of the RIAA because it was “manifest error” to instruct the jury that making available constituted infringement. Judge Davis ordered a new trial.

Now the RIAA is jumping mad over Harper’s attempts to have the judge reconsider the “making available” issue, calling her efforts “vexatious.” Ars cites Harper’s motion for the trial:

[I]in this case we have this single case, one of tens of thousands of lawsuits filed as a part of a massive campaign to preserve a business model currently dominant in the music. This Court is aware that this case is not about the actions of Whitney Harper, a young lady who was 14 to 16 years old at the time of alleged infringement. It is instead about an 18 billion dollar industry that was once on a rising trend, now facing its comeuppance by rapidly evolving technology and eroding morals.

If there is a trial, it will be in mid-November.

[Thanks, ZDNet]

Here are two articles which describe the fear that I have regarding an Alaskan family that has a rather lengthy history of excessive abuse of power and ethics violations (hey, Todd’s in on this too!).  They both illustrate how Palin could very well be an un-worthy but capable successor to the evil that is Cheney.

These kinds of commentary should bring pause to any rational American.  Obviously McCain and the majority of the Republican election/political machine could care less.

But I care – We must resist, not as a last act of defiant desperation, but as the first act of change and creation.  Incite Hope!

Editorial: Palin’s Troopergate actions disturbing

04:12 PM CDT on Monday, October 13, 2008

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin claims the Troopergate investigation clears her of wrongdoing in the firing of her public safety commissioner, which it does not.

The state ethics panel investigation – a bipartisan effort started by a Legislature controlled by her own Republican party – found that though she was technically within her rights to fire the man, she violated state ethics law and abused her power in doing so.

Specifically, the report found, the governor allowed her husband, Todd, to strong-arm government employees in an effort to get someone to fire a state trooper, Michael Wooten, who was going through an ugly divorce with the governor’s sister. The state investigator rejected the Palin family’s claims that Trooper Wooten was a personal threat, concluding that the governor misused her authority "to advance a personal agenda."

Ms. Palin would be wise to quit trying to spin her way out of this mess. It would be far more plausible if she admitted error but said she and her husband acted out of fear – perhaps misplaced – for the family’s safety. But to claim vindication when the report is actually fairly damning should give even McCain-Palin supporters pause.

The temptation to use public power to settle private accounts bedevils all politicians. This Troopergate imbroglio is eerily reminiscent of the 1993 Travelgate scandal involving first lady Hillary Clinton. Her behind-the-scenes machinations against the White House Travel Office – engineering the dismissal of career employees, apparently for the benefit of the Clintons’ Arkansas cronies – were legal but unethical.

Just because something is legal on paper, of course, doesn’t make it right.

This story would be confined to local newspapers in the moose belt if the Alaska governor weren’t running to become vice president. Since she is, Americans have a right to expect that politicians asking for their votes will be good stewards of their trust.

Ms. Palin’s best move would be to assure voters that she and her husband take to heart a line from the Alaska report: "Compliance with the code of ethics is not optional."

[Thanks, Dallas Morning News]

And:

Palin Too Close for Comfort

It’s time to start taking Sarah Palin seriously.

Though the latest polls show the Obama-Biden ticket ahead, the Alaska governor is still uncomfortably close to becoming vice president of the United States. The thought should concentrate the mind of every American who remembers the abuse of executive power by the administration of Richard Nixon. Just look at what Palin has done, in a short time, with the authority delegated to her by Alaskans.

The "Troopergate" report, conducted by an independent investigator and released Friday by a bipartisan legislative committee, tells the tale. It documents the campaign that Palin and her husband Todd waged to get her former brother-in-law fired from the Alaska state troopers.

Palin did, indeed, have the authority to dismiss the state’s public safety commissioner, the report says. But she violated a state law, the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act, which prohibits state officials from taking actions that benefit personal interest. According to the report: Palin abused her power as governor when she "knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda, to wit: to get Trooper Michael Wooten fired."

I shudder to think of the Internal Revenue Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Central Intelligence Agency and the Pentagon at her beck and call.

The role played by Todd in carrying out his wife’s vendetta was highly unusual. He had no official duties in government. He acknowledged, however, that he made numerous calls to state officials to press his case against the governor’s ex-brother-in-law.

It’s been well reported that Todd Palin’s involvement in his wife’s official business unsettled some Alaskans. He has been known to sit in on the governor’s meetings, use her office for his own meetings and intervene in state business using his status as "First Gentleman." Clearly, he’s a man with a lot of time on his hands.

What if he assumed the same role in Washington? Imagine Todd in a town that has no use for snow machines (which he loves to ride) or work for commercial fishermen (of which he is one, during the summer months). What would he do? Would he follow the vice president to her White House office? Join her meetings in the Situation Room? Sit in on her daily national security briefings?

Where does Todd Palin stand on America anyway? Neither he nor Sarah Palin ever explained his seven-year membership in the Alaska Independence Party, a group that seeks a vote on secession from America. "I’m an Alaskan, not an American" was the slogan of the party’s founder, Joe Vogler, who also said "I’ve got no use for America or her damned institutions" and "I won’t be buried under their damned flag." What made Todd Palin hitch his wagon to that anti-American train when Alaska offered the Democratic and Republican parties?

Troopergate shows the Palins to be small-bore people unable to distinguish selfish personal interests from official responsibilities. Imagine the power of the U.S. government at their disposal.

The prospect of Vice President Sarah Palin is no laughing matter.

By Colbert King |  October 13, 2008; 12:58 PM ET

[Thanks, Washington Post]

Or at least there will be an attempt at bringing the criminal mastermind behind ‘Troopergate’ to justice.  The Alaska Supreme Court has heard the evidence and decided that the ethics investigation against the Republican Vice Presidential candidate can continue.

Palin is being investigated by an independent investigator, hired by a unanimous vote of a bipartisan committee of the Legislature, to investigate the circumstances surrounding Walt Monegan’s termination as the Public Safety Commissioner for the State of Alaska. Also under investigation, potential abuses of power and/or improper actions by members of the executive branch. The results of a probe conducted by independent investigator Steve Branchwater will be presented to a legislative hearing later today.

It’s interesting reading about all of the allegations.  You can get a pretty good summary over at Wikipedia.

Court allows Sarah Palin Troopergate inquiry

October 11, 2008

ANCHORAGE: The Alaska Supreme Court has refused to halt an ethics investigation into US vice-presidential contender Sarah Palin.

The ruling clears the way for legislators to release a report on their probe into whether Ms Palin abused her power as Alaska Governor by firing her public safety commissioner.

Legislators are investigating whether the Republican candidate used her position to settle a family dispute. The former commissioner says he was sacked after resisting pressure to fire a state trooper who had gone through a divorce from Ms Palin’s sister.

Republicans had sued to block the report. Ms Palin refused to join that lawsuit. Her husband, Todd, and some of her top aides are co-operating in the inquiry.

In affidavits submitted on Wednesday, Mr Palin and two top aides for his wife’s administration portrayed the firing as the result of wrangling between the Governor and her public safety commissioner over control of the agency.

The affidavits portray Ms Palin as uninvolved while her husband repeatedly tried to spread the word that their former brother-in-law was unfit to be a state trooper.

In yesterday’s ruling, the Supreme Court refused to block the legislative investigation.

For years – before his wife became governor – Mr Palin told state officials and the couple’s advisers stories about Mike Wooten, their former brother-in-law, allegedly threatening and emotionally abusing his family.

Walter Monegan says he was fired as commissioner for not dismissing Mr Wooten, a claim that led to the probe just before Republican presidential candidate John McCain chose Ms Palin as his running mate in late August.

Ms Palin said she fired Mr Monegan over a budget dispute.

Mr Palin said he had not pressured anyone. He says that after repeatedly talking with her about the matter, she finally told him to "drop it".

"Anyone who knows Sarah knows she is the Governor and she calls the shots," Mr Palin wrote. "I make no apologies for wanting to protect my family andwanting to publicise the injustice of a violent trooper keeping his badge."

[Thanks, The Australian]

Very interesting discussion at AlterNet about the drivel that Sarah Palin was spewing during a speech in Colorado after her ‘debate’ with Joe Biden.  The big question to me is just how much of the ‘information’ that is being force fed to her does she understand?

The arrogance of America on the world stage is ignored by many countries yet feared by many as well.  For America to get away with the violent overthrow of foreign governments without censure has been amazing to me.  A short list of US insurrections include Iraq, Panama, and Grenada.  And these are just the ones YOU know about.

But when Sarah, a community college graduate, starts dropping phrases like "We see an America of exceptionalism." in speeches and you should be asking yourself if she understands the ramifications of that idea?  She doesn’t seem like much of a critical thinker to me. 

Sarah Palin spends a lot of time attacking the Democratic campaign and using smoke and mirrors to conceal the role that her party has had in bringing Americans to their economic knees.  She would be better served to start thinking about what her tutors are cramming into her head.

How Low Will Palin Go in Her Mudslinging?

By Robert Parry, Consortium News. Posted October 8, 2008.

Palin may not even understand the significance of her baseless attacks on Obama that are straight out of the neocon playbook.

Sarah Palin’s charge that Barack Obama is "palling around with terrorists" may mark the descent of Campaign 2008 into the sewer that has marked so many other recent U.S. elections. But her comments operate on another level, too, continuing to brand anyone who criticizes George W. Bush’s neoconservative foreign policy as un-American.

The Alaska governor’s larger point — made in her Oct. 2 debate and on the campaign stump since then — is that Obama is a person who dares to find fault with U.S. policies overseas and thus deserves to have his patriotism questioned.

"Our opponent," Palin told Republican supporters during a post-debate speech in Colorado, "is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough, that he’s palling around with terrorists who would target their own country."

Palin added about Obama, "This is not a man who sees America like you and I see America. We see America as a force of good in this world. We see an America of exceptionalism."

It’s unclear if Palin understood the full significance of her reference to American "exceptionalism," the theory preached by the neoconservatives who led her debate prep. They argue that the United States has the exceptional right to operate outside international law. But Palin does grasp the political usefulness of smearing an opponent in the style of Jeane Kirkpatrick, who in 1984 famously defined critics of Ronald Reagan’s aggressive foreign policy as people who would "blame America first."

Palin is, in effect, labeling Obama a blame-America-firster. In the vice presidential debate, Palin twisted Obama’s 2007 analysis of U.S. military strategy in Afghanistan — which called for more troops on the ground to reduce reliance on air strikes that had killed civilians — into him condemning everything the U.S. military has done in Afghanistan.

[Thanks, AlterNet.com]

The businesses of America have long been fans of a republican government.  Startling tax breaks, deregulation, and lack of oversight are the basis for many a republican administration.

All of that typically leads America into either the poor house or the shit house.  This most recent administration has managed to do both.  As a nation and as a people we’re economically bankrupt with the sub-prime mortgage fiasco, while the war in Iraq has managed to make the nation and the people morally bankrupt.

Thanks George.

But I digress.

Apparently John McCain’s revamped health care plans have American big business on edge.  In the end, McCain’s plan would do little to stem the tide of the uninsured and would add in excess of 1.3 TRILLION dollars in government spending over the next year. 

That doesn’t sound much like a solution to me….  Just more lies from the Republicans who are not satisfied with the $850 billion they stole from me in just the last week.

Business Cool Toward McCain’s Health Coverage Plan

By KEVIN SACK

Published: October 6, 2008

 

American business, typically a reliable Republican cheerleader, is decidedly lukewarm about Senator John McCain’s proposal to overhaul the health care system by revamping the tax treatment of health benefits, officials with leading trade groups say.

The officials, with organizations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable and the National Federation of Independent Business, predicted in recent interviews that the McCain plan, which eliminates the exclusion of health benefits from income taxes, would accelerate the erosion of employer-sponsored health insurance and do little to reduce the number of uninsured from 45 million.

That is largely the argument made in recent days by Mr. McCain’s opponent, Senator Barack Obama, who has revived a dormant campaign debate over health care with an intensified attack on the McCain plan. Conscious that the issue plays well with swing voters, Mr. Obama devoted a speech on Saturday to characterizing Mr. McCain’s plan as “radical” and a “Washington bait and switch,” and he has reinforced the message in four television advertisements.

That has set off a furious back-and-forth between the campaigns, with the McCain campaign countering that Mr. Obama’s plan also would undermine employer coverage by mandating that medium and large companies either provide insurance for their workers or pay a tax. The payments would help subsidize a new government health plan for low-income people, and some economists believe it would entice workers away from their employer-sponsored coverage.

Mr. Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, opened his assault two weeks ago by telling crowds that Mr. McCain “wants to tax your health benefits.” He did not explain that Mr. McCain, the Republican nominee, would offer tax credits in exchange to cover the increased liability for many Americans.

Over the weekend, Mr. Obama more accurately characterized the McCain plan as a swap but one that would work to the detriment of millions. Middle-class families, he said, would “watch the system they rely on begin to unravel before their eyes.”

The business leaders said that was also their fear. Despite steady declines this decade, employers still provide coverage to 62 percent of Americans younger than 65. Surveys show that they want to continue doing so to attract and maintain a productive workforce.

The business leaders forecast that Mr. McCain’s free-market approach would impose particular burdens on small businesses and old-line manufacturers that are already struggling.

“To some in the business community, this is very discomforting,” said R. Bruce Josten, executive vice president for government affairs at the Chamber of Commerce. “The private marketplace, in my opinion, is ill prepared today with an infrastructure for an individual-based health insurance system.”

Health economists are ideologically divided over Mr. McCain’s plan. Analysts who support it project that it might provide coverage to 25 million people, while critics predict that the number of newly insured would peak at five million and then decline.

Though Mr. McCain says his plan would not add to federal spending, the Tax Policy Center has estimated that it will cost at least $1.3 trillion over 10 years. And while right-leaning economists emphasize that the plan would provide a tax cut for the average American, opponents respond that certain high-earners will face an increase and that some in the middle class may break even only by reducing their coverage.

The centerpiece of Mr. McCain’s plan is the elimination of the provision that has, since 1954, excluded the value of employer-sponsored health benefits from a worker’s taxable income. The exclusion can be worth thousands of dollars for some workers.

In its place, Mr. McCain would offer all Americans income tax credits of $2,500 per person or $5,000 per family for heath coverage, regardless of how they bought it.

Mr. McCain would not change the ability of companies to deduct health benefits as a business expense on their corporate income taxes. And advisers have said he would continue to exclude the value of health benefits from the payroll taxes that finance Social Security and Medicare.

The income-tax exclusion benefits 162.5 million Americans but costs the federal government $145.3 billion in foregone revenue, second only to the tax break for retirement account contributions, according to the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation.

[Thanks, NY Times]

Lacking any real substance in her recent speeches, Sarah Palin spent some quality time with Republicans attacking Barack Obama and some of his acquaintances.  Referring to rumors regarding a relationship between Barack and Bill Ayers, Sarah launches ’swift-boat’ style attacks on Obama as a tactic to divert attention away from the failing economy.

Unable to speak coherently on any subject other then hockey, Ms. Palin is being used as an attack dog to worry away at the commanding lead that Obama is showing in the polls.  And any attempt to get coherent statements out of Palin on any of the real important issues is useless.  Just look to the Couric interviews and the debate to see the lack of substance in what Palin has to say.

"Sen. McCain and his operatives are gambling that they can distract you with smears rather than talk to you about substance," Obama said. "They’d rather try to tear our campaign down than lift this country up. That’s what you do when you’re out of touch, out of ideas and running out of time."

As McCain and company start to lose battleground states like Michigan we begin to see that maybe the country is a little more involved and focused that the McCain campaign thought.  That will be a good thing come November 4.

Palin says voters don’t know ‘the real Barack Obama
By Mary Anne Ostrom
Mercury News
Article Launched: 10/05/2008 04:18:19 PM PDT

The road to the White House is heading for a nasty turn.

Sarah Palin, in her first trip to the Bay Area as the Republican’s vice presidential nominee, charged Sunday that Americans don’t know "the real Barack Obama," a signal that John McCain’s campaign will sharpen its attacks on the Democratic nominee’s character and judgment in the final month of the race.

Attending a fundraiser at the Burlingame Hyatt Regenc, the Alaska governor stuck by her claim that Obama is someone who "would pal around with, and work with, a former domestic terrorist." She was referring to Bill Ayers, founder of the Vietnam-era Weather Underground, blamed for bombings and the death of a San Francisco policeman when Obama was still a child. She initially made the charge on Saturday at a fundraiser and public Southern California rally.

Obama, who says he knows but does not have a close relationship with Ayers, on Sunday called the McCain campaign’s "launching of swift-boat-style attacks on me" a tactic to divert attention from the failing economy. Since the nation’s financial crisis took the election-year center stage two weeks ago, Obama has overtaken McCain in nationwide polls and, more crucially, in several key swing states.

Most of the sparring between the two camps has been on issues, but now it appears each is ready to ratchet up the character attacks. Obama on Sunday released a new television ad, deriding McCain for being "erratic" and "out of touch" on the economy, as backers sought to remind voters of McCain’s links to Charles Keating.

The Arizona savings and loan operator, a McCain friend and campaign contributor, was convicted of securities fraud and became the face of the S&L crisis in the late 1980s. McCain met with banking regulators on behalf of Keating twice and was cited by a Senate ethics committee for "poor judgment."

[Thanks, Mercury News]

In typical Republican fashion, John McCain has placed the blame for the bailout failure squarely on Barack Obama’s head.  I’m afraid that the dementia has set in earlier than I thought it would.  First, there is no BLAME in that, only CREDIT.  And if McCain want’s to give Barack all of the Credit for the failure of the bailout I’m all for it.

I’m sure that Barack is pleased as well..

To get the credit for NOT writing Henry Paulson a blank check is a good thing.  To refuse to cower yet again in the face of the worst presidency ever is also a good thing.  To stand up for main Street and ask Wall Street to heal itself, now that’s a great thing.

McCain, I think you are an idiot. And your choice of VP proves it.  Hell, after having lived in Europe for 13 years I have more foreign policy experience than Palin.

McCain attacks Obama over bailout failure
Mon Sep 29, 2008 7:46pm EDT

By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Republican John McCain accused presidential rival Barack Obama on Monday of helping sink a $700 billion rescue plan for Wall Street, but Democrats said McCain was deflecting attention from his own failures.

Obama said he believed a final agreement could still be reached after the surprise congressional rejection of the mammoth financial industry bailout, which sent the New York stock market reeling.

McCain and Obama said Congress should return to work on a new package immediately, but McCain took a shot at Democrats for its collapse.

"Our leaders are expected to leave partisanship at the door and come to the table to solve our problems. Senator Obama and his allies in Congress infused unnecessary partisanship into the process," McCain said during a campaign stop in Iowa.

I read this disturbing post on BoingBoing this morning about an Oregon man who was harassed by a Portland police officer for filming the officer on a public street.  The officer in question seized the camera and proceeded to give a ticket to the guy.

In the end, the District Attorney’s Office declined to prosecute.  Isn’t that special.  Their inability to determine if a law has been broken has essentially empowered the police department to abuse anyone that films them in a public space.

If I give up my reasonable expectation of privacy by walking out my front door, why is a public servant given a different set of rules?  Why, for instance, is it against the law for me to drive and talk on the phone here in Seattle but not for a police officer?

Anyway, I saw the picture accompanying this article and thought a post would be apropos.

p.s. go to boingboing and watch the video in question.  To Serve and Protect – not from that jackhole!

Oregon man threatens suit for the right to video-record cops on the job

Posted by Cory Doctorow, September 17, 2008 2:06 PM | permalink

Ben sez, "After a Portland, OR man videotaped two Portland cops hassling a couple of men on a downtown sidewalk, one cop seized his camera and gave him a ticket, saying he’d broken the law by recording the officers without their permission. The District Attorney’s Office declined to prosecute, and now the man is trying to force the Portland Police Bureau to take a formal position on whether it’s OK for civilians to videotape cops — with sound — in public places."

Portland police spokesman Sgt. Brian Schmautz said he believes the public doesn’t have a right to record officers’ conversations – on or off the job – without their consent.

"Just because somebody is a police officer doesn’t mean they give up their rights," Schmautz said.

Man threatens suit over seizure of videocamera after he tapes Portland police rousting two men (Thanks, Ben!)

[Thanks, BoingBoing]

Almost across the board retailers have bemoaned lackluster sales during the all important ‘Back to School’ season.  Viewed as one of the three major sales events in many stores, a poor showing this year could be a harbinger of tough times leading up to the holiday season.

The next major milestone is in just a little more than two months.  Black Friday, the traditionally heavy shopping day after Thanksgiving, is rapidly approaching.  And many retailers have to be worrying. 

As Bush and his evil minions drive our economy deeper and deeper into the toilet, it becomes harder and harder for some families to pay their commute to and from work.  Let’s not even think of gifts to put under the Festivus Pole.

As far as I’m concerned, this year looks like the year I’ll be doing all of my shopping on-line.  Ever since Amazon started participating in the Black Friday sales, it only makes sense to save both the gas of driving around to stores and the hours of sleep usually lost getting up early.

Holidays ‘uncertain’ after poor back-to-school sales
Posted by Erica Ogg

The roughly two-month shopping period before school starts is typically fruitful for consumer electronics retailers. Not this year.

All categories combined showed minimal growth. Although notebook sales increased 10 percent over the same period the year before, desktops were down 3 percent. And products that have been guaranteed big sellers in past years continue to lose momentum: digital-camera sales were down 1 percent, printer sales were even, and MP3 player sales were up 7 percent.

This is especially concerning to electronics retailers, since the all-important holiday shopping season is approaching, a time when they typically can expect to play catch-up in yearly sales and revenue.

"The holiday (period) is likely to look a lot like back-to-school, I think," said Steve Baker, vice president of industry analysis for NPD Group, which tracks electronics retailing. There’s likely to be "a little bit better demand" because there are a broader array of categories that people shop for during the holiday. For back-to-school, retailers push mostly computers and peripherals.

The problem with notebooks: they’ve been selling so well for so long that the category just can’t sustain that kind of growth forever. Growth percentages in years past for laptops during the back-to-school shopping period have been in the high teens and low 20s, which is why 10 percent growth this year is disappointing for retailers.

And when a market matures, steep price declines are harder for retailers to offer. Notebooks from brand names have been routinely available for less than $600 for a while, and retailers are finding it harder to cut prices and maintain acceptable profit margins. The same could be true for Black Friday and beyond, when retailers usually unveil their best deals of the year.

Of course, back-to-school shopping isn’t a perfect indicator for holiday shopping, especially when it comes to an important category like notebooks. Portable PCs will become even harder to predict this year because of the so-called wild card that Netbooks present. Every major PC maker has one now, but they haven’t been available in large volumes. This will change in the next few weeks, and it will be interesting to see if mainstream consumers find a use for them.

New product categories, combined with disturbing financial news, makes it harder for electronics retailers to feel comfortable heading into the holiday season.

"The word everyone (in electronics retail) uses when I talk to them is ‘uncertainty,’" Baker said. "People can handle, ‘We’re sure it’s going to be bad,’ or, ‘We’re sure it’s going to be good.’ But ‘We’re not sure what it’s going to be’ is tough to plan against."

[Thanks, CNet News]

I  live in Seattle.  In a relatively quiet neighborhood, although my particular street is a cut through from Highway 99 to Greenwood Avenue.  One of the things that makes my neighborhood quiet are the traffic circles on many of the intersections.

I tend to like traffic circles.  They are much more friendly than stop signs in controlling the flow of traffic through an intersection that gets sporadic traffic flow.  In my neighborhood in particular, the traffic can be heavy in the mornings and afternoons during rush hours, but be sparse during other times of the day.  Commuters tend to think that barreling down my street to get from the 99 to Greenwood is somehow going to save them time somewhere.

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer had a post in their Police Blog that asked "Do you have to drive all the way around traffic circles?"  The reply would shock about 90 percent of the drivers in my neighborhood, unless they are just lazy bastards.  But that’s a different story, isn’t it?

Here is the verbatim text:

Q: When you approach a traffic circle and want to turn left, can you go around the left side of the circle or do you have to stay right and drive all the way around?

A: In most situations, you’ve got to drive all the way around the right side of the circle, Seattle Police spokesman Mark Jamieson said.

Drivers who don’t risk a $124 ticket.

According to Seattle Municipal Code 11.54.040, a code regarding illegal turns, "no person shall make a left turn or a semicircular or U turn except through an opening provided for that purpose in the physical barrier, median barrier, or no-passing zone line on any limited access facility."

Jamieson pointed to code 11.53.080, which states that when there is a physical barrier, planted area or median island "every vehicle shall be driven only upon the right-hand roadway unless directed or permitted to use another roadway by official traffic-control devices or peace officers."

Jamieson didn’t know how often people are ticketed for breaking the traffic circle law.

Here’s the complete text form 11.53.08011.53.080 about medians and barriers in divided streets:

Whenever any street has been divided into two (2) or more roadways by a physical barrier or by a planted area or by a median island not less than eighteen inches (18") wide formed either by solid yellow pavement markings or by a yellow cross-hatching between two (2) solid yellow lines so installed as to control vehicular traffic, every vehicle shall be driven only upon the right-hand roadway unless directed or permitted to use another roadway by official traffic-control devices or peace officers.

No vehicle shall be driven over, across or within any such physical barrier or planted area or median island, except through an opening in such physical barrier or planted area or median island, or at a crossover or intersection established by public authority. (RCW 46.61.150)

I asked this Jamieson question after a friend complained I was breaking the law by driving around the left side of traffic circles. I told her my driver’s ed teacher had no problem with it, and was sure I was fine.

We made a bet. Now I have to vacuum and wash her car.

[Thanks, Seattle PI]

The Obama campaign will start to put more emphasis on the things which concern the real, average voter.  Citing the common impression that John McCain is severely out of touch with what you and I lose sleep over, David Plouffe has stated that one of the themes you will hear a lot of this week will be the fundamental instability of the economy.

What can we expect of a man that thinks $5M is the low-end cut-off for rich and who has no idea how many homes he owns.  Is $4.25 a gallon too expensive for him?  He probably hasn’t filled the tank on a car in years.  Does he still even have a drivers license?

The economy isn’t the only important thing in this election, but it sure does rank among the top two tying for importance with the ill advised, illegal war in Iraq.  Do we really want another four years of Blackwater, Exxon Mobile, Halliburton, and other special interest groups not being held responsible while making Trillions of dollars ain Iraq while we lose our homes to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

The Obama campaign to sing more loudly about the economy

DENVER — What was suggested by the new Barack Obama ad featuring a Sam Cooke soundtrack , Obama’s campaign manager made official today — the economy, and the fears so many folks have about where it’s headed, is about to become a louder theme song for the almost-official Democratic presidential nominee.

David Plouffe, who oversaw Obama’s path to the nomination, told reporters today just a few hours before the Democratic National Convention began that based on his reading of poll data, "There’s a real sense of [John McCain] being out of touch" with the economic problems plaguing the nation.

Plouffe kept stressing that McCain keeps stressing that America’s economic fundamentals are sound.

The Obama campaign begs to differ and sees an opening. Said Plouffe: "We are going to drive a truck through that this week and during the rest of the campaign."

That will be music to the ears of Democrats who have complained that Obama has not spotlighted the economy consistently or passionately enough.

Still, Plouffe was asked why, if the issue is headed for an even brighter spotlight, Bill Clinton reportedly is complaining that he’s being assigned a different topic when he takes to the convention podium Wednesday night. The ex-president, after all, is the past master of pressing the Democratic economic.

Plouffe, demonstrating that maybe he should consider running for office himself, skirted the question.

Obama, on the campaign trail today in the Midwest, didn’t. He said that when he chatted with Clinton by phone on Thursday. “I said, ‘Mr. President, you can say whatever you like.’ "

Obama added: “Bill Clinton is a unique figure in our politics … It wouldn’t make sense to me to try and edit his remarks.”

– Don Frederick

The Justice Department, currently mismanaged by Attorney General Michael Mukasey, is finalizing plans that would allow the F.B.I. to open an investigation on any American, conduct covert surveillance, pry into private records and take other types of  investigative steps “without any basis for suspicion.”

Essentially, Still President Bush is hoping that his tool, Mukasey, will turn into law all of the overly aggressive and illegal steps that it has already allowed since 9/11.  The Justice Department plans would only codify the enhanced powers that the FBI has already been given by this corrupt administration.

New Guidelines Would Give F.B.I. Broader Powers

By ERIC LICHTBLAU
Published: August 20, 2008

WASHINGTON — A Justice Department plan would loosen restrictions on the Federal Bureau of Investigation to allow agents to open a national security or criminal investigation against someone without any clear basis for suspicion, Democratic lawmakers briefed on the details said Wednesday.

The plan, which could be made public next month, has already generated intense interest and speculation. Little is known about its precise language, but civil liberties advocates say they fear it could give the government even broader license to open terrorism investigations.

Congressional staff members got a glimpse of some of the details in closed briefings this month, and four Democratic senators told Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey in a letter on Wednesday that they were troubled by what they heard.

The senators said the new guidelines would allow the F.B.I. to open an investigation of an American, conduct surveillance, pry into private records and take other investigative steps “without any basis for suspicion.” The plan “might permit an innocent American to be subjected to such intrusive surveillance based in part on race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, or on protected First Amendment activities,” the letter said. It was signed by Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island.

As the end of the Bush administration nears, the White House has been seeking to formalize in law and regulation some of the aggressive counterterrorism steps it has already taken in practice since the Sept. 11 attacks.

Congress overhauled the federal wiretapping law in July, for instance, and President Bush issued an executive order this month ratifying new roles for intelligence agencies. Other pending changes would also authorize greater sharing of intelligence information with the local police, a major push in the last seven years.

The Justice Department is already expecting criticism over the F.B.I. guidelines. In an effort to pre-empt critics, Mr. Mukasey gave a speech last week in Portland, Ore., describing the unfinished plan as an effort to “integrate more completely and harmonize the standards that apply to the F.B.I.’s activities.” Differing standards, he said, have caused confusion for field agents.

Mr. Mukasey emphasized that the F.B.I. would still need a “valid purpose” for an investigation, and that it could not be “simply based on somebody’s race, religion, or exercise of First Amendment rights.”

Rather than expanding government power, he said, “this document clarifies the rules by which the F.B.I. conducts its intelligence mission.”

In 2002, John Ashcroft, then the attorney general, allowed F.B.I. agents to visit public sites like mosques or monitor Web sites in the course of national security investigations. The next year, Mr. Bush issued guidelines allowing officials to use ethnicity or race in “narrow” circumstances to detect a terrorist threat.

The Democratic senators said the draft plan appeared to allow the F.B.I. to go even further in collecting information on Americans connected to “foreign intelligence” without any factual predicate. They also said there appeared to be few constraints on how the information would be shared with other agencies.

Michael German, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union and a former F.B.I. agent, said the plan appeared to open the door still further to the use of data-mining profiles in tracking terrorism.

“This seems to be based on the idea that the government can take a bunch of data and create a profile that can be used to identify future bad guys,” he said. “But that has not been demonstrated to be true anywhere else.”

The Justice Department said Wednesday that in light of requests from members of Congress for more information, Mr. Mukasey would agree not to sign the new guidelines before a Sept. 17 Congressional hearing.

[Thanks, NY Times]

Well, it looks like if you whine enough someone will eventually get tire of hearing it and do something to placate you.  That is certainly the case with the Clinton’s and their supporters.  Citing a need to honor the 18 million people who voted for the losing candidate, they have convinced the powers that be to allow delegates the choice.

Will care be taken to ensure that those who voted for Richardson, Edwards, etc. don’t feel left out?  Will someone be around to sooth their tier and bruised egos?  Nope, never for them, not for ALL the losers, just the Clinton’s.

Hillary Clinton’s name to be placed in nomination at convention

In a bid to foster Democratic Party unity, delegates will have the option during the roll-call vote of choosing Clinton rather than Obama as the party’s presidential nominee.

By Peter Nicholas, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
August 15, 2008

WASHINGTON — A Democratic National Convention that is supposed to showcase Barack Obama will devote a considerable amount of time to Hillary Rodham Clinton and her family, with the two campaigns announcing an agreement Thursday to formally enter her name into nomination.

The development means that during the state-by-state vote on a nominee for president, delegates will have the option of choosing Clinton rather than Obama — giving supporters a chance to cheer her candidacy one last time.

Barring an unforeseen collapse on Obama’s part, Clinton won’t win; Obama wound up with 136 more delegates than needed to clinch the nomination, and there are no signs of any defections.

But the purpose of the exercise is to resolve a nagging political problem for the Obama campaign and the Democratic Party. Since Obama locked down the nomination in June, some Clinton loyalists have been slow to embrace his candidacy. The two campaigns believe that by setting aside time to acknowledge Clinton, the party stands a better chance of avoiding a fractious scene on the convention floor and of emerging from the convention united.
Aides to Clinton and Obama said the two sides had been working cooperatively and were both satisfied with the arrangement.

"With every voice heard and the party strongly united, we will elect Sen. Obama president of the United States," Clinton said in a statement released by the two campaigns.

Clinton had pointed to the restiveness of her supporters in an appearance at a private home last month, saying they needed "a catharsis" before falling in line behind Obama. A video of Clinton’s remarks was posted on YouTube.
Now that the four-day convention schedule is taking shape, it is clear that the Clinton family will have a prominent role.

If past practice holds, Clinton will be the focus of nominating and seconding speeches by people she designates before the roll-call vote.

Clinton herself will address the delegates in prime time on the second night of the convention, Tuesday, Aug. 26. Her husband, former President Clinton, will speak the following night. Discussions are also taking place about whether daughter Chelsea Clinton will get a speaking slot.

Bill Whalen, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, a public policy research center at Stanford University, said: "Obama’s people know that they have not closed the deal with Hillary voters the way they would like, and they just can’t afford to do anything — real or perceived — that upsets Mrs. Clinton and her followers. So they have more than bent over to accommodate her."

The Clinton family’s role at the convention has been the subject of prolonged negotiations with the Obama campaign. Two prominent lawyers have been representing the Clintons’ interests — Robert B. Barnett and Cheryl Mills, a White House counsel in Bill Clinton’s administration.

Some aides to Hillary Clinton said she had been unsure about the wisdom of putting her name into nomination. While the convention can offer a coveted place in the national spotlight, Clinton risks appearing politically weak if many of the delegates she won during the primaries and caucuses split off and vote instead for Obama, either in the name of party unity or because they want to side with the winner.

Asked how Clinton herself would vote, campaign aides noted that she had endorsed Obama and campaigned for him, and they strongly indicated that she would vote for him.

At the same time, Clinton has voiced worries about a poor showing in private conversations with staff, as have some of her advisors, one former aide said.
"You do worry, and I think that was something that concerned her as well," said the former aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity in order to be candid. "What is the turnout going to be? Is anyone coming to my party?"
But Clinton loyalists said they were pleased to know that she would be recognized in such fashion.

Larry Scanlon, political director of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, said: "She sought to be the first woman nominated for president. She came up a little short, but she made it easier for the next female candidate to get the brass ring. Many in the Democratic Party would like to celebrate that. I think that they should celebrate that."

Recent conventions have been scripted affairs, with all four days devoted to showcasing the nominee, among them John F. Kerry in 2004 and Al Gore in 2000. But there have been many instances in which unsuccessful primary challengers have had their names placed into nomination.

Former California Gov. Jerry Brown’s name was entered into nomination in 1992, after he lost in the primaries and caucuses to Bill Clinton.

And both the Rev. Jesse Jackson and Gary Hart had their names entered into nomination in 1984, after losing to Walter F. Mondale.

[Thanks, LA Times]

I imagine that Still President Bush and his shotgun totin’ sidekick Herr Cheney are all but gnashing their teeth at the miscarriage of justice that took place in Cuba earlier this week.

In case you live under a rock, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, the former driver of Osama Bin Laden, was sentenced to a paltry 5 1/2 years for his part in the terrorism leading up the the 9/11 tragedy.  His crimes?  Being a driver….

No, really, I’m not kidding.  This poorly educated citizen of Yemen was simply a driver for Bin Laden, not a gun totin’ man shooter (that particular distinction rests with the Veep) or a bomb makin’ radical.  Nope, Salim’s crime was he knew how to drive and got hired by the wrong guy.

And the prosecution was seeking the death penalty.  Thankfully cooler heads prevailed and Salim was sentenced to 66 months with full credit for time served.  (Time served being the quaint way that the judge referred to the 61 months Mr. Hamdan was held without the benefit of Habeas Corpus and probably tortured in Gitmo)

I wonder how it’s going to fare for Bin Laden’s greengrocer when it’s time for his trial and sentencing?

Bin Laden’s Former Driver Is Sentenced to 5 1/2 Years

By WILLIAM GLABERSON
Published: August 7, 2008

GUANTÁNAMO BAY, Cuba — Salim Ahmed Hamdan, the convicted former driver for Osama bin Laden, was sentenced Thursday to 66 months in prison by the military panel that convicted him of a war crime Wednesday.

The military judge, Capt. Keith J. Allred of the Navy, had already said that he planned to give Mr. Hamdan credit for the 61 months he had been held, meaning that Mr. Hamdan could complete his criminal sentence in five months. After that his fate is unclear, because the Bush administration says that it can hold detainees here until the end of the war on terror.

The unexpectedly short sentence was far less than military prosecutors had sought. Through more than five years of legal proceedings against Mr. Hamdan, prosecutors had pursued a life sentence, and earlier in the day, faced with Mr. Hamdan’s acquittal on the most serious charge against him, prosecutors recommended a sentence of at least 30 years and said life may be appropriate.

Mr. Hamdan’s lawyers had recommended 45 months, or less than four years, as a reasonable sentence.

After just over an hour of deliberations on the sentence, the panel of six senior military officers returned to the windowless tribunal room with their sentence on the single war crimes charge for which they convicted him Wednesday, providing material support to a terrorist organization.

After the president of the panel, the most senior officer, read the sentence, Mr. Hamdan rose at the defense table, collected himself for a moment and spoke. Referring to an apology he had made to victims of terrorism Thursday morning in the same room, he began: “I would like to apologize one more time to all the members. And I would like to thank you for what you have done for me.”

After Captain Allred explained the sentence to Mr. Hamdan, he said he was not certain of Mr. Hamdan’s fate after the end of the criminal sentence, in January. “After that, I don’t know what happens,” said Captain Allred, who had developed a warm relationship with Mr. Hamdan during months of pre-trial hearings.

In the courtroom after the military panel members filed out, Mr. Hamdan, who was captured in the middle of the Afghan war on Nov. 24, 2001, hugged the former American military lawyer, Charles Swift, who has represented him here for four years and helped take his case to the United States Supreme Court.

The sentence came after the first war crimes trial here in a system the administration says it plans to use to try about 80 other detainees here. Twenty other detainees are already facing charges.

[Thanks, NY Times]

There is a lot of attention focused this past week on the RIAA and their continued crusade against music piracy.  Most of this attention has been negative in nature and this most recent example is no different.

It seems that Central Michigan University has filed a a complaint with the Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Growth (DLEG), accusing MediaSentry (the RIAA’s investigators of record) of conducting investigations without a Private Investigator license.  And this comes in MediaSentry’s home state!

I can understand if they neglected to ensure that they complied with Oregon’s laws, or Massachusetts’ laws, or maybe one of the other numerous venues in which they are being sued, but to neglect to comply with the laws of their home state seems foolish.

University wants cease-and-desist order for MediaSentry

By Eric Bangeman | Published: August 05, 2008 – 09:30PM CT

Allegations of conducting unlicensed investigations continue to dog MediaSentry, the company hired by the RIAA to seek out and download music over P2P networks as part of the group’s legal campaign. Mary Roy, the Assistant General Counsel of Central Michigan University, has filed a complaint with the Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Growth (DLEG), accusing MediaSentry of conducting investigations without a Private Investigator license.

The complaint (PDF) was filed in mid-July and was just uncovered by attorney Ray Beckerman on his blog. In it, MediaSentry is accused of continuing its "unlicensed and illegal actions" in Michigan even after being informed by the DLEG in February 2008 that its activities could be in violation of state law.

Under Michigan state law, a private investigator is defined as an entity that investigates "the identity, habits, conduct, business, occupation,… activity,… transactions, acts,… or character of a person" or secures "evidence to be used before a court."

CMU points out in its complaint that the fruit of MediaSentry’s labor is exhibits attached to RIAA complaints, and CMU lists eight Doe cases involving 99 suspected P2P users filed in Michigan federal courts between May 3, 2007 and May 28, 2008. In each of the lawsuits, the RIAA referred to MediaSentry as a "third-party investigator" that gathers evidence of copyright infringement.

"All of the above-noted sworn statements regarding the activities of MediaSentry would clearly establish that its activities fall within the scope of the investigative activities regulated by the PDLA [Private Detective License Act]," reads the complaint. "Nevertheless, MediaSentry has ignored any suggestion by the DLEG that it secure a license to continue its investigative activities within the state of Michigan."

The RIAA has consistently held that MediaSentry is not an "investigator" according to state law. All the company does, according to the RIAA, is harvest data from publicly-available sources (e.g., P2P networks). Even so, MediaSentry’s corporate parent SafeNet decided to give the MediaSentry web site an "overdue" redesign this past February, removing all references to litigation and prosecution.

Since the issue of MediaSentry’s status as a private investigator was first raised, the company has been given a cease-and-desist order by the Massachusetts State Police, while a handful of P2P defendants have argued that the evidence collected by the company should be barred. To our knowledge, there has yet to be a ruling on the issue of the admissibility of evidence collected by MediaSentry, but with a North Carolina judge deciding to look at MediaSentry’s status as a private investigator in that state as part of a "fresh look" at the RIAA’s Doe lawsuits, that may be about to change.

[Thanks, Ars Technica]

Doing just what he specifically said he wouldn’t do (and who doesn’t want that quality in a president?!?) John McCain has used some pretty low-life negative tactics in the past few weeks to undermine the daunting lead held by his opponent, Barack Obama.

Ripping pages from the Karl Rove manifesto, ‘How I Stole a Presidency’, the McCain campaign has attacked Obama’s recent travels to Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama’s energy policy as well as portraying Obama as the political equivalent of Paris Hilton.

The poll results following these underhanded smear ads place McCain on an almost equal footing with Barack.  It’s a shame that McCain has nothing positive to campaign about.  McCain is old and obviously suffers from a Reaganesque view of things (tainted by Alzheimers, if you get my drift).  His inability to remember that there is no longer a Czechoslovakia, his delusion that women don’t deserve equal pay for equal work… The list is seemingly endless.

Can’t McCain and his campaign managers root around and find anything positive about himself that is worth publicizing?  I guess not….

McCain, Obama tied after negative ads run: poll

Updated Mon. Aug. 4 2008 3:27 PM ET
CTV.ca News Staff

Tougher TV ads attacking U.S. Democratic presumptive nominee Barack Obama appear to have paid dividends for Republican John McCain.

A new poll had the two leading candidates for the U.S. presidency tied on the weekend.

Obama had held a nine-point lead in the Gallup Poll tracking survey as of July 26, but that lead completely eroded by Saturday, when the two were tied at 44 per cent.

McCain had vowed to avoid the types of negative tactics that George W. Bush successfully used against him in the 2000 Republican primary.

However, he has picked up some new advisers who had worked on Bush’s re-election campaign in 2004 — a campaign seen as one of the most negative in recent memory.

The new ads targeted Obama’s trip to Iraq and Afghanistan last month.

McCain, a four-term senator from Arizona and a Vietnam War hero, presented himself during the Republican primaries as a national security candidate.

He charged that Obama’s promise to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq within 16 months of taking office was tantamount to choosing to lose the war in order to win the presidency.

McCain’s team then ran an ad that accused Obama of not visiting wounded U.S. troops in Germany because he couldn’t take television cameras along — a claim that appears to be false.

Another commercial blended images of Obama with pop figures Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, trying to paint the first-term senator from Illinois as a celebrity without the experience necessary to be commander-in-chief.

Kathy Hilton, Paris’s mother, blasted the ad. She called it "a complete waste of the money John McCain’s contributors have donated to his campaign." Hilton and her husband had donated $4,600 to McCain’s campaign earlier this year.

Obama stood accused of engaging in racial politics by claiming McCain and other Republicans would try to frighten Americans because he didn’t look like past U.S. presidents. Obama, if elected, would be the first black U.S. president.

An Internet ad calls Obama "The One" in a voiceover and features clips of Obama seemingly describing himself and his presidential fight in overblown language. The final image is Charlton Heston as Moses parting the Red Sea in the movie "The Ten Commandments."

Obama called McCain’s tactics cynical but not racist.

"In no way do I think John McCain’s campaign was racist. I think they are cynical," Obama said Saturday. "Their team is good at creating distractions and engaging in negative attacks."

[Thanks, CTV]