VIEWPOINT: A Mighty Wind blows through UPDATE #45 - CBC APOLOGY

Palin abdicates her seat with the state?

What about senators who step into office then go off running for a presidency?

-------------

Poor HUsband, can you imagine parking your tush at the dinner table when that shrew has a bad day? Either he was drunk, has low self-esteem or was knocked out when he proposed to her-betcha she kept her maiden name too!


If I was a woman I'd stop with the "talking Va-jay-jays" thoughts.

I know for a fact they don't talk.

But you can hear the ocean if you close your eyes and are reallllllllly quiet.:confused:

-----------

DID ANYONE SEE THE INTERVIEW WITH HER EX BIL?


THIS FN AH admitted to tasering his 10 year old because he asked for it. Literally! THere were also charges about alcohol abuse while on duty.

THe moron shows up with a union rep to an interview-no knock on the rep-but don't you show up with a lawyer?

HE was candid and did admit to tasering the kid and the alcohol stories.

Really, there is nothing wrong with tasering a kid or getting involved with alcohol whil you are on duty as a cop.

It's all part of life in Hillbilly Town, Alaska.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lady's Human

If you want to call all issues black and white, fine.

How do you defend your absolute apoplexy over the Patriot act, when now you support another law which would do worse (allowing completely warrantless searches over the internet) in the interests of the children?

Either you're for civil liberties, or you're against them.

---

BURRRRRRRRRRRRRRNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!

:D

Somehow I knew Liz would post that article when I saw it on Drudge. Although I am a bit shocked she could not see this retort coming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by momoffuzzyfaces

We aren't? Then why all the Sara Palin fuss?

---

Good one momo.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lady's Human

If you want to call all issues black and white, fine.

How do you defend your absolute apoplexy over the Patriot act, when now you support another law which would do worse (allowing completely warrantless searches over the internet) in the interests of the children?

Either you're for civil liberties, or you're against them.

---

You have mentioned "warrantless searches" several times but have yet
to show me where this exists in the language of that bill.

Read the bill.....

It mentions in several areas monitoring the internet activities of suspects, but nowhere does it define how one becomes a suspect.

It redefines parts of US Law to prohibit the transmission of "images of child abuse" but nowhere does it define what abuse is considered under the law.

Never would I give the federal government that authority.

However, given the nature of packet switching communications networks and the overly broad nature of the application of the interstate commerce clause, the law is really a moot point. All internet traffic by nature is interstate, and therefore regulated under federal, and not state, laws.

I can't stress the idea of 'when the zapato fits' enough.

If someone molests a child relative then posts photos of the crime on the 'net'.

If someone hacks your personal email account.

If someone steals your credit card account numbers or money.

If someone hacks your phone account and puts crazy charges on your number.

If someone hacks the computer at work and you have to lose money, work overtime or ????.

What is the first thing you do? You call on god and all the saints to fix the problem. Should that problem be traced to a person, you want that person to be held accountable for their actions/mischief.

So.........
You don't want the government to have any way to look at the internet or the transactions there of.

Bills, rules and laws are always written in a general sense to keep from having tons of pages of stupid rules everytime a different case comes up.

Just like the little jerkwad who argued every single point in my Poli-Sci classes.

I'll repeat this until I am blue in the face.

Should we get another terrorist attack on U.S. soil and it's coordinated thru cell phones, email or electronic messaging-People will scream about how the government did not do a good enough job monitoring the WWW for clues.

So how do we want it?

Other than the stupid things we use the internet for, why are we so scared about what we send out?

We laugh at Mohammed in Africa trying to scam a few bucks via email, we delete those messages without a thought.

I think I'll laugh when I get the generic letter from a company that says, "Hey your account and personal information may be one of thousands of files that were hacked out of our system! We'll keep our eyes peeled, just in case!"

So what do we want?

Molesters, terrorists, hackers and thugs operating without any fear of being foiled or apprehended?

If anything it makes me a little more aware of what I do on my computer.
Remember that we love the ability to use an ATM, pay our bills online and all the other funky stuff we get off on while we use the internet.

So, should things go badly, take a moment and think about who you will call on to make things right.;)

I don't know. I think it's awfully foolish for anyone to use the webs for anything you would consider private or of that nature. That's like waving a sign around on a busy street reading "HEY! I plan on doing blankity blank blank blank!". You can't be that smart if you're conducting business like that over the webs.

I think that what folks are worried about is the principle of privacy invasion. People, regardless if they have anything to worry about or not, don't want recording devices and such every where they go. What if it snowballed?

*was just trying to elaborate on what she thought others had said, not looking for a response, don't flame*

This is off topic but I have to post this...

Some hackers hacked a Shiite website run by followers of the Grand Ayatollah Ali al Sistani.

They posted a piece of video from Bill Maher, troll and comedian, making fun of the GAAS and an edict concerning personal behavior.

A spokesman for the GAAS said the edict was BS and never happened.

So, here's the rub.

Suppose some goofball sees this clip from Bull Maher and decides to exact some kind of revenge? BM is a idiot, who often speaks about the government and their interest in internet 'bad guys'. He definitely doesn't like any gov't. involvement in HIS internet dealings and especially is critical of the Patriot Act.


If BM gets some death threats because of this hack job, who is he going to call? The police? The feds?

THat is the phony, make believe attitiude of the people who do not want to Big Brother in their lives-They talk a tough game against the system, until THEY need some kind of assurance that they will be protected from any militant religious nuts that may want to kill him for making fun of their religion.

This should be interesting.:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lady's Human

Sen. Obama has vowed to let the Bush tax cut package lapse. This would effectively raise my Federal tax bill by about $2000. I'm not rich. His statements about no tax hikes on people who make under $250K /year are deceptive at best, as he has also pledged to let the current tax cut package lapse.

---

That's not how I understand it. When I heard him speak on TV to this subject my understanding was that the Bush tax cuts for those making under $150K would remain in place. Those in the 150K - 250K would be essentially paying the same as they are now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rachel

That's not how I understand it. When I heard him speak on TV to this subject my understanding was that the Bush tax cuts for those making under $150K would remain in place. Those in the 150K - 250K would be essentially paying the same as they are now.

---

I agree. :) LH has his own interpretation of almost everything, fact or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lady's Human

Read the bill.....

It mentions in several areas monitoring the internet activities of suspects, but nowhere does it define how one becomes a suspect.

Never would I give the federal government that authority.

---

Do the police have to come & prove their suspicions to you personally
before someone is considered a suspect? It just means the person hasn't been arrested yet.

and, the Federal Government already has these powers, thanks to the
current Republican administration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lizbud

and, the Federal Government already has these powers, thanks to the
current Republican administration.

---

Do you know exactly how the government/law agencies look thru emails to find out about kiddie porn, terrorism and other crap like that?

From what I understand about the 'system' is that there are a few ways to monitor criminal activity on you computer.

Filters, people get stupid and send the 'wrong' email to someone, you take your computer in to get serviced and the nerd tech looks for your porn on your machine, or the feds trap someone, they do the forensic search and find out that you were getting the KP on you email account-then you have the feds and how they catch the idiots.

There are also programmed 'filters' that tag emails that look suspicious.

There is no one person reading you emails, unless you are doing something stupid on the internet.

---------

If there is no specific wording in a law it becomes the job of the people who are 'arresting' or 'suspecting' you have to interpet the law and 'do it justice',
How many times has a criminal been released, only to commit another crime, because of the wording in the law?


With internet crimes, law agencies have different laws to refer to from state to state, country to country-they often have problems with charging someone because of all the different jurisdictions and how they look at the crime.

--------

A warrantless search?

If a cop sees a crime or called to the scene of a crime, they can search, without a warrant. Probable cause? Same thing.

"I/We had reason to suspect........" Are the golden words that will get a cop into your shorts if he thinks you have done something wrong.

That's the way the ball bounces.

Sen. Obama has repeatedly stated in debates that he would let the tax cuts lapse.

This is from the LA Times:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...hetaxrais.html

Maria Bartiromo on CNBC's "Closing Bell" asked, "Who should pay more and who should pay less?" Predictably, the politician chose to talk about who would benefit from his higher tax plan, not who would get socked the hardest. But from his answers it sounds like the "wealthy" in his mind are those making more than $75,000.

"I would not increase taxes for middle class Americans and in fact I want to....

provide a tax cut for people who are making $75,000 a year or less,'' he said. "For those folks, I want an offset on the payroll tax that would be worth as much as $1,000 for a family.


$75K/year isn't wealthy. On $75K/year, it's almost impossible to get a mortgage in Massachusetts, and is ABSOLUTELY impossible if you want something more than a tiny ranch on a postage stamp piece of property. When we moved from MA to NY, we sold our house for almost $200K, which was a 1200 sq ft house on a 3000 sq ft lot, in an undesirable neighborhood.

Poor Heather,

Greta Van Sustren called HM a pig for the article she wrote. And she is getting hate email from the people who took exception to that tripe.
HM is upset that she was called a pig.

Mallick is also complaining about death threats she received on her web site and she says that those threats reinforce her thoughts about American hillbillys.

Funny how she can shoot off her mouth and can't take the heat when the kitchen door closes.

She's a hoax, inside a joke, wrapped in a numbskull.

----

She's probably called the internet company to have someone trace those threats against her.


Have fun Heather.

Angry feminist versus Hillbilly hockey mom?

GIRL FIGHT!!!!:D

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/...uickshank.html
Letter from the publisher
John Cruickshank
We erred in our judgment
Last Updated: Monday, September 29, 2008 | 4:02 PM ET

By John Cruickshank CBC News

More than 300 people have taken the trouble this month to complain to the CBC ombudsman about a column we ran on CBCNews.ca about Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin on Sept. 5.

The column, by award-winning freelance writer Heather Mallick, was also pilloried by The National Post in Canada and by Fox News in the U.S. Despite its age — it is three weeks old, several lifetimes in web years — this posting remains a subject of fascination in the blogosphere.

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/ph...k-John-cp-.jpg
CBC Publisher John Cruickshank. (Rich Hein/Associated Press)

Vince Carlin, the CBC ombudsman, has now issued his assessment of the Mallick column. He doesn't fault her for riling readers by either the caustic nature of her tone or the polarizing nature of her opinion.

But he objects that many of her most savage assertions lack a basis in fact. And he is certainly correct.

Mallick's column is a classic piece of political invective. It is viciously personal, grossly hyperbolic and intensely partisan.

And because it is all those things, this column should not have appeared on the CBCNews.ca site.

Healthy restraint

On the whole, the CBC News policy handbook takes a very anxious view of any mixing of opinion in with the news business. It sees the two as nitro and glycerin, innocuous on their own but explosive together. This is a very healthy restraint for a public broadcaster.

But every news organization needs to have an opinion dimension. Access to different viewpoints helps readers, listeners and viewers make reasoned choices, especially during an election campaign.

As a public broadcaster we have an added responsibility to provide an array of opinions and voices to complement our journalism. But we must do so carefully. And you should be able to trust us to provide you with work that's based on solid reporting and free from the passionate excesses of partisanship.

We failed you in this case. And as a result we have put new editing procedures in place to insure that in the future, work that is not appropriate for our platforms, will not appear. We are open to contentious reasoned argument but not to partisan attack. It's a fine line.

Ombudsman Carlin makes another significant observation in his response to complainants: when it does choose to print opinion, CBCNews.ca displays a very narrow range on its pages.

In this, Carlin is also correct.

This, too, is being immediately addressed. CBCNews.ca will soon expand the diversity of voices and opinions and be home to a diverse group of writers with many perspectives. In this, we will better reflect the depth and texture of this country.

We erred in our editorial judgment. You told us in no uncertain terms. And we have learned from it.



http://www.nationalpost.com/most_pop...html?id=845234

CBC News apologizes for web column attacking Palin

Melissa Leong, National Post Published:
Sunday, September 28, 2008

CBC News apologized Sunday for publishing a column about Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin, conceding that it was "viciously personal."

More than 300 people complained to the CBC ombudsman about a column that ran on Sept. 5 on CBCNews.ca by award-winning freelance writer Heather Mallick.

The article, "A mighty wind blows through Republican convention," reportedly said Ms. Palin was chosen to appease the party's "rural," "unlettered" "white trash" base and said that the vice-presidential nominee looked like a "porn actress."

CBC News publisher John Cruickshank said in a letter that the public broadcaster erred in judgment.

Vince Carlin, the CBC Ombudsman, did not fault Ms. Mallick for "the caustic nature of her tone or the polarizing nature of her opinion."

"But he objects that many of her most savage assertions lack a basis in fact," Mr. Cruickshank wrote.

"Mallick's column is a classic piece of political invective. It is viciously personal, grossly hyperbolic and intensely partisan. And because it is all those things, this column should not have appeared on the CBCNews.ca site."

The column was attacked by the National Post as well as Fox News.

Ms. Mallick wrote: "[17-year-old] Bristol has what is known in Britain as the look of the teen mum, the ‘pramface.' Husband Todd looks like a roughneck; Track, heading off to Iraq, appears terrified. They claim to be family-obsessed while being studiously terrible at parenting. What normal father would want Levi ‘I'm a f--kin' redneck' Johnson prodding his daughter?"

As a result of the complaints, new editing procedures have been put in place "to insure that in the future, work that is not appropriate for our platforms, will not appear," Mr. Cruickshank wrote.

In his assessment of the complaints, Mr. Carlin also noted that cbcnews.ca displays a "very narrow range" on its web pages and the broadcaster is addressing that by expanding the diversity of its writers and opinions, Mr. Cruickshank added.

National Post