Fuck its silent in here.......

[Brownie]

Onto other 2008 fringe campaign controversies.

Obama's literary agent is a birther, I guess.

Wat?

That link doesn't seem to work anymore, if that's what you're asking about. If you're just asking about the stupidity of it, I understand that too.

Anyway, just in case: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/17/The-Vetting-Barack-Obama-Literary-Agent-1991-Born-in-Kenya-Raised-Indonesia-Hawaii

It is a stickpoke to be sure, but was Obama doing nothing to dispel the myth of his Kenya birth when it benefited him? It's as stupid a story as the Ricketts story.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

Onto other 2008 fringe campaign controversies.

Obama's literary agent is a birther, I guess.

Wat?

That link doesn't seem to work anymore, if that's what you're asking about. If you're just asking about the stupidity of it, I understand that too.

Anyway, just in case: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/17/The-Vetting-Barack-Obama-Literary-Agent-1991-Born-in-Kenya-Raised-Indonesia-Hawaii

The errant Obama biography in the Acton & Dystel booklet does not contradict the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate. Moreover, several contemporaneous accounts of Obama’s background describe Obama as having been born in Hawaii.

The biography does, however, fit a pattern in which Obama--or the people representing and supporting him--manipulate his public persona.

...

Regardless of the reason for Obama's odd biography, the Acton & Dystel booklet raises new questions as part of ongoing efforts to understand Barack Obama--who, despite four years in office remains a mystery to many Americans, thanks to the mainstream media.

'Now, we're not saying an error in a corporate promotional brochure from 1991 proves Obama isn't a natural-born US citizen. We're just saying that it raises... questions. [twists moustache] Questions about things.'

[PANK!]

For much-needed PR diffusion, I'll take Lesbian Daughter in the upper-right hand corner, Peter, hmmm?

"“All of my family members and I love this country and are passionate about doing what is right for the country.  That love of country was instilled in us by my father.  We have different political views on how to achieve what is best for the future of America, but we agree that each of us is entitled to our own views and our right to voice those views.

Though we may have diverse political views, above all we love and respect each other,” Laura Ricketts said in a statement. "My own personal view is that President Obama has been a great leader in very difficult times. He has been leading us to an economic recovery; served with great honor as commander-in-chief during a time of war; been a strong proponent on issues important to women and just last week he exhibited great courage in endorsing the freedom to marry for gay and lesbian Americans.”

[Gilgamesh]

It's time to start talking RACE WAR, people: http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/in-conservative-media-a-race-war-rages

[Eli]

It's time to start talking RACE WAR, people: http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/in-conservative-media-a-race-war-rages

Their message: Black-on-white violence is spiking — and the mainstream media is trying to cover it up.

Well, that's because the majority of media members are white and it would look ... wait, what?

[Canadouche]

It's time to start talking RACE WAR, people: http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/in-conservative-media-a-race-war-rages

What, like Dale Jr.'s fans vs. Tony Stewart's fans?

[morpheus]

This seamed like the right place to post this.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

CISPSTINK is terrible.

http://gizmodo.com/5905360/what-is-cispa

...

http://www.privacyisawesome.com/

http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/senate-cybersecurity-bills-under-fire-from-cispa-opponents.php

One of the bills, the Cybersecurity Act of 2012, co-sponsored by Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Susan Collins (R-ME), has the tentative support of the Obama Administration and could be put to a full Senate vote sometime in early June.

The other Senate bill Fight For the Future opposes, the SECURE IT Act, sponsored by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), is currently stuck in a Senate committee, which it has to clear before being able to get a full Senate floor vote, so it’s not as pertinent.

Fight For the Future’s major problem with CISPA, SECURE IT and the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 are that all three bills contain language that would allow the government and private companies to share the personal information they’ve collected about Web users with each other, “notwithstanding any other provision of law,” essentially exempting them from current laws restricting how much Web data they can collect in share, and in what instances.

“These provisions would basically waive all existing privacy laws and give corporations legal immunity for sharing information with the government,” Shaw said.

Indeed, a close reading of the bills by TPM reveals that, much like in the case of CISPA, the bills do not contain language specifying what information could be collected and shared and what avenue users or others would have for finding out about government use of their data, nor is there clear legal recourse for users who believe their information was shared improperly.

That said, the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 does contain language stating that “nothing in this title may be construed to limit liability for a failure to comply,” with requirements in the bill that all those government agencies and companies that share information “make reasonable efforts…to safeguard information that can be used to identify specific persons…”

Ron Wyden:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120522/10550819026/senator-ron-wyden-slams-cybersecurity-legislation-proposals-eroding-trust-privacy.shtml

Congress’ effort to develop a comprehensive approach to cyber security must not erode that trust. When Americans go online to consume digital services and goods, they must believe and know with some certainty that their privacy is adequately protected. The content Americans consume must be at least as private as their library records, video rentals, and book purchases in the brick and mortar world. Our law enforcement and Intelligence agencies should not be free to monitor and catalog the speech of Americans just because it’s online.

But the bill passed by the other body, known as CISPA, would erode that trust. As an attempt to protect our networks from real cyber-threats CISPA is an example of what not to do. CISPA repeals important provisions of existing electronic surveillance law that have been on the books for years without instituting corresponding privacy, confidentiality, and civil liberties safeguards. It creates uncertainty in place of trust, it erodes statutory and constitutional civil rights protections, and it creates a surveillance regime in place of the targeted, nimble, cyber-security program that is needed to truly protect this nation.

Unfortunately, S. 2105, the bill before the Senate shares some of these defects. Currently Internet services and service providers have agreements with their customers that allow them to police and protect their networks and users. Rather than simply allowing these internet companies to share information on users who violate their contracts and pose a security threat, the House and Senate proposals authorize a broad based information sharing regime that can operate with impunity. This would allow the personal data of individual Americans to be shared across a multitude of bureaucratic, military, and law enforcement agencies. This takes place regardless of the privacy agreements individual Americans have with their service providers.

In fact, both the House and Senate bills subordinate all existing privacy rules and constitutional principles to the poorly defined interest of “cyber-security.”

[J. Walter Weatherman]

Meanwhile, over at the Wall Street Journal, even the meager privacy safeguards included in the Senate bill are just LIBERTY-DESTROYING GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS that would have the effect of preventing the government from spying on any American it chooses TERRORISTS SEEKING TO DROP COMPUTER TORPEDOES ON OUR INTERNET WEB SITE PEARL HARBORS.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304746604577382410583108118.html

The Senate version would introduce new regulations on minimum security standards for the technology infrastructure of private companies—a mandate, in other words. Companies would have to scrub any personal identifying markers from anything they share with the government, at their own cost. Which is a good way to dissuade them from doing anything at all. The feds would also be barred from using any information provided under the law for national security.

In short, the Senate bill slaps on a raft of new regulations and limits the ability of federal agencies to protect the U.S. from attack. Some of these issues could be worked out in conference, assuming the Senate ever acts on the bill. Mr. Lieberman says the chamber could take it up by June at the latest, but that's not his call.

In any event a new regulatory scheme would be an immediate red flag for the House, which passed the more limited CISPA with bipartisan support. As Speaker John Boehner points out, "You want to get the American people a little exercised, put the government in charge of the Internet."

Everyone seems to agree that America can and should better protect its electricity grids, financial system and private networks from cyber attacks. CISPA is a first, small and worthy step. If Congress ignores the ill-informed noise on Twitter and passes this or a similar bill, the U.S. will be better positioned to guard against a "digital Pearl Harbor."

REGULATIONS! MANDATES! OMG!

It's like a funhouse mirror version of libertarianism.

The online activists, who don't let facts get in the way of a good campaign, needed no invitation to sound the call to battle. The ACLU, privacy evangelists and tea party libertarian-types are in. Search #CISPA on Twitter to behold the Orwellian future of the National Security Agency prying into your Web affairs. But just because you're paranoid doesn't mean someone's out to get you.

One complaint is that the government could use the data provided by Internet service providers and companies to spy on people. But if this bill set out to create a surveillance program, voluntary information-sharing limited to "cyber threats" sounds like a pretty shoddy way to go about it. The bill's definition of "cyber threat" is vague, which is another netroot complaint, precisely to take account of the fast-changing nature of technology.

Marge: What exactly is it this legislation does again?
Homer: This industry moves so fast it's really hard to tell.

Let's just give the government all the powers now. Precisely to take account of the fact that we don't know now what powers they'll need later.

[Chuck to Chuck]

Before Mark Kirk was elected to the senate, he paid his ex-wife hush money so she wouldn't get mad over his new beard. She's a democrat now and is trying to embarrass him while he recuperates from a stroke.



I'm still glad Alexi lost.

[Slaky]

Before Mark Kirk was elected to the senate, he paid his ex-wife hush money so she wouldn't get mad over his new beard. She's a democrat now and is trying to embarrass him while he recuperates from a stroke.



I'm still glad Alexi lost.

I thought beards were for gay dudes.

[Gilgamesh]

Before Mark Kirk was elected to the senate, he paid his ex-wife hush money so she wouldn't get mad over his new beard. She's a democrat now and is trying to embarrass him while he recuperates from a stroke.



I'm still glad Alexi lost.

I thought beards were for gay dudes.

That's how I always knew the term.

[Bort]

Before Mark Kirk was elected to the senate, he paid his ex-wife hush money so she wouldn't get mad over his new beard. She's a democrat now and is trying to embarrass him while he recuperates from a stroke.



I'm still glad Alexi lost.

I thought beards were for gay dudes.

That's how I always knew the term.

That's always what I called my "wife."

[Brownie]

Before Mark Kirk was elected to the senate, he paid his ex-wife hush money so she wouldn't get mad over his new beard. She's a democrat now and is trying to embarrass him while he recuperates from a stroke.



I'm still glad Alexi lost.

I thought beards were for gay dudes.

That's how I always knew the term.

Chuck must be reading Andy Martin's newsletter.

[Chuck to Chuck]

First, Mark Kirk was simply a lightweight.

Then he got sick.

Now, he's down to being a hack.

This guy would have quit already if there was a GOOP Governor in this state.