Well, folks... I'm back in business; my old computer is "new" again - upgraded from Windows XP to Windows 7 Professional.
Thanks be to "John!"
(*WINK*)
Unfortunately the patient did not escape unscathed... I lost some data... will have to recreate my bookmarks and address book from scratch... need to re-download some pictures (that luckily exist on disc). That said... "Thanks STILL be to John!"
What can I tell you, folks - I'm a PC guy! (Though I'll probably switch to Apple when it's time to get a new machine.) I not only like, but need, a full-size keyboard - and my beloved mouse!
Anyway... off to newsbiting!
2 comments:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-once-called-iraq-one-obamas-great-achievments_794909.html
As Iraq falls apart, it's worth remembering Vice President Joe Biden hailing that country as one of President Obama's "great achievements" in a 2010 interview with then CNN host Larry King:
"I am very optimistic about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government," said Biden.
"I've been there 17 times now. I go about every two months, three months. I know every one of the major players in all of the segments of that society. It's impressed me. I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences."
* I KNOW... I KNOW... IRAQ WAS BUSH'S WAR...
* ONLY IT WASN'T. IT WAS ALSO HILLARY'S WAR. IT WAS ALSO BILL CLINTON'S WAR. BOTH CLINTONS ATTESTED TO SADDAM HAVING "WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION" AND BOTH SUPPORTED THE IRAQ WAR. FEEL FREE TO GO DOWN THE LIST OF DEM CONGRESS MEMBERS AND SENATORS WHO SUPPORTED TOPPLING SADDAM HUSSEIN.
* IN ANY CASE... WHAT AN ABSOLUTE DOUCHE BIDEN IS - HUH?
http://news.yahoo.com/us-pushing-local-cops-stay-174613067.html;_ylt=AwrBJR4e65lTwmEAb7zQtDMD
Federal involvement in local open records proceedings is unusual. It comes at a time when President Barack Obama has said he welcomes a debate on government surveillance and called for more transparency about spying in the wake of disclosures about classified federal surveillance programs.
* UH-HUH...
* THAT'S WHAT THEY SAY...
* BUT WHAT DO THEY DO - IN THE REAL WORLD?
The Obama administration has been quietly advising local police not to disclose details about surveillance technology they are using to sweep up basic cellphone data from entire neighborhoods, The Associated Press has learned.
* OOPS... GOTCHYA AGAIN...
(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)
Citing security reasons, the U.S. has intervened in routine state public records cases and criminal trials regarding use of the technology. This has resulted in police departments withholding materials or heavily censoring documents in rare instances when they disclose any about the purchase and use of such powerful surveillance equipment.
But without more details about how the technology works and under what circumstances it's used, it's unclear whether the technology might violate a person's constitutional rights or whether it's a good investment of taxpayer dollars.
* YEP... SOUND LIKE STANDARD OBAMA ADMINISTRATION OPERATING PROCEDURE - BREAK THE LAW WHILE PISSING AWAY LOADS OF MONEY DOING SO!
Interviews, court records and public-records requests show the Obama administration is asking agencies to withhold common information about the equipment, such as how the technology is used and how to turn it on. That pushback has come in the form of FBI affidavits and consultation in local criminal cases.
"These extreme secrecy efforts are in relation to very controversial, local government surveillance practices using highly invasive technology," said Nathan Freed Wessler, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, which has fought for the release of these types of records. "If public participation means anything, people should have the facts about what the government is doing to them."
* WELCOME TO OBAMA'S AMERIKA, NAT!
Local police agencies have been denying access to records about this surveillance equipment under state public records laws. Agencies in San Diego, Chicago and Oakland County, Michigan, for instance, declined to tell the AP what devices they purchased, how much they cost and with whom they shared information. San Diego police released a heavily censored purchasing document. Oakland officials said police-secrecy exemptions and attorney-client privilege keep their hands tied.
(It was unclear whether the Obama administration interfered in the AP requests.)
* REALLY...? "UNCLEAR...???" (*PURSED LIPS*)
"It's troubling to think the FBI can just trump the state's open records law," said Ginger McCall, director of the open government project at the Electronic Privacy Information Center. McCall suspects the surveillance would not pass constitutional muster. "The vast amount of information it sweeps in is totally irrelevant to the investigation," she said.
* AMERIKA, AMERIKA, GOD (NO LONGER) SHEDS HIS GRACE ON THEE.
The FBI did not answer questions about its role in states' open records proceedings.
Post a Comment