in lieu of radio ...

a somewhat random collection of pages and thoughts started sept 16 2001. now that i'm not on the radio 6 hours every day, blogger allows all of us to harangue...

Wednesday, October 22, 2003

Every Song Title a Spam Subject Line!Brad Sucks - One Man bandWith No Fans

What a fuckin' waste! NPR : Singer Elliott Smith Dead in Apparent Suicide

Saturday, October 18, 2003

DOOOOHHHHHH!!!! The Smoking Gun: Archive New York Post Editorial Page October 17 2003 (can we fire Rupert Murdoch for this?)

Friday, October 17, 2003

Engineer talking about electronic voting machines:

"It's hard to track down a problem when you go out to your car and the first time it starts, the next time the headlights don't work, the next time you start it the brakes are out, and the next time you start it the door falls off," Behler said. "That's really the way they were." We need a paper trail!! Wired News: Did E-Vote Firm Patch Election?

Monday, October 06, 2003

OMIGOD! how perfect is THAT!??

Friday, October 03, 2003

A court finally defends the Fouth Amendment and this is all the Times has to say about it???

"CALIFORNIA: COURT RULES AGAINST DNA DATABASE The federal government cannot insist that parolees provide a sample of their blood for a national DNA database maintained by the F.B.I., the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, ruled. The court said the requirement, in a 2000 law, is a violation of the Fourth Amendment prohibition against illegal searches. A dissenting judge said parolees had diminished privacy rights.    Adam Liptak (NYT)"

A court finally defends the Fouth Amendment and this is all the Times has to say about it???

"CALIFORNIA: COURT RULES AGAINST DNA DATABASE The federal government cannot insist that parolees provide a sample of their blood for a national DNA database maintained by the F.B.I., the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, ruled. The court said the requirement, in a 2000 law, is a violation of the Fourth Amendment prohibition against illegal searches. A dissenting judge said parolees had diminished privacy rights.    Adam Liptak (NYT)"