« January 2007 | Main | March 2007 »
First, Lois W. Kolkhorst's HB 1881. It repeals the legal authority for the Trans-Texas Corridor, something that's worth a thumb's up.
Second, Joe Straus's HB 735, which abolishes the Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund and the tax that goes with it.
Via Texas Insider.
Read it here. I left the following comment:
...not a single penny that the RIAA has received from their series of lawsuits has actually made it back to the artists that had their "copyrights infringed" in the first place.
This is something what would benefit greatly if there were hard data and personal accounts from musicians to cite.
You should be able to do what you want with an album once you've paid for it; like a CD or a record, you now own it for life.
While I sympathize with the ideas behind this (my damn Emotive CD from A Perfect Circle won't rip to MP3!!), you're making a very broad moral statement here about what people ought to do with their property. If an artist wishes to have their material locked down so they have some control over who can experience it and they do so through by clearly telling the potential consumer, "this media is restricted in such and such way," then I don't see an argument that overturns that artist's wishes. It is no different in principle from, say, asking visitors to your home to refrain from smoking while inside. It may not make (economic, cultural, etc.) sense for an artist to limit his or her audience, but that isn't for us to decide for them.There are many things the RIAA does that amount to petty (and downright seriously invasive) bullying and they should be condemned for it. However, just as there are few excuses for someone to believe smoking has no negative impact on your health, musicians have little reason to believe that signing on to a RIAA-supporting label is going to result in both substantial creative and business freedom.
The "push" Gizmodo is seeking cannot happen without the strength of the musicians on our side. They also need to demonstrate their power. I think, therefore, that it's long overdue for the musicians themselves to come clean and tell us directly what they wish to be done with the music they produce. If they care about their fan base, they should make it clear if they support DRM and aggressive intellectual property rights protections. If they don't and they are unable to petition their labels to change their ways, then they need to bail out. Start a label of their own. Find one that is willing to be more flexible on what the customer can and cannot do with what they buy.
Because it is not the case that the act of giving money to someone in exchange for a physical object automatically and universally results in the complete transfer of property rights to the buyer. The seller, if they so choose, can attach conditions on the sale. Breaking those conditions is, quite literally, a breech of contract. I think if a musician really wants to attach DRM restrictions to their music, his or her wish should be tolerated. If that choice bothers you, feel free to persuade the musician otherwise. But hating it doesn't give anyone license to acquire what isn't theirs without the permission of the owner.
@crash:
You can put all sorts of crap in a contract, but it won't legally hold up.
I'm aware of that. I am, however, of the opinion that what's right and what's legal don't necessarily intersect. In fact, they seem to intersect with increasing rarity these days.
Do you see any limits on the restrictions an artist/record label can implement? For instance, what if they only wanted to grant you, the sole purchaser, the rights to listen to the music? If they wrote on the cover that you had to turn off the music whenever a second person came within hearing distance, you'd follow it, right?
Other than requiring the buyer to commit a crime as a condition of purchase, in principle, "no" to the first question and "yes" to the second...assuming I was foolish enough to buy it. If I heard a band play live and fell in love with their music but found out later they asked the buyers of their CDs to never play them at less than 120dB or risk having their limited rights to the music revoked, I sure as hell wouldn't buy it.
I personally think telling someone what devices they can listen to your music on should be illegal.
I disagree. Requesting that the buyers of a CD adhere to certain conditions is absolutely no different in principle than, for example, agreeing to not violate the conditions of a discussion forum. In both cases, someone is offering the use of their property in exchange for the user following the owner's rules. The fact that we are not really buying the entire panoply of rights associated with a CD, unfortunately, isn't made clear enough on the CDs we buy. As the RIAA's actions crudely make clear, we are buying a limited right to enjoy the music.Rather than fining and throwing people in jail, I'd be for record companies asking for extra money in exchange for a more expansive right to use the music...no different in principle, really, than the current situation where you are clearly asked to request permission from the copyright holder to have a public broadcast or when you use the music in conjunction with a money-making activity.
For example, Sony can't say you can only listen to their CD's on sony cd players
They could if they wished and I don't think it would be morally wrong if they tried.
...yet iTunes can force you to only listen to their songs on ipods.
I don't use iTunes for a number of reasons and its DRM is one of them.
Similiarly, I disagree with anyone telling me I can listen to it on my home pc, but not my work pc.
As would I. And if Warp Records sent out notice that from now on the only physical device their music could be played upon is a car stereo, I'd refuse to buy anything from them until they dropped that policy.
If they chose to do stupid things like this, wide-spread boycotts are in the consumers best interest.
I'm not suggesting a boycott is wrong. Feel free to express your preferences. My beef is with the "all music ought to be free from all restrictions" mentality.
David Mizner's Dailykos diary: Edwards Rejects Clintonomics; will Obama?
Now, labels like "populist" and "progressive" don't do justice to the complexity of the issues and individuals involved. Few pols fit neatly into an ideological niche. But there's a fundamental choice that must be made, a fork in the political road. Do you stand with People or with Power? Edwards has made his choice.
Who'd dare side with Power in Its grinding conflict with People? How could you pick an impersonal thing over the huddled hopeful hearts of millions? Obviously, those choosing Power have no sympathy and shelter no concern for humanity! The clear choice is with People! Down with Power!
Claims that Mr. Mizner is just being rhetorical will be ignored. The whole point of his post is to showcase what he believes is Edwards' populism, his radical departure from DC establishment thinking, and his willingness to "[promote] fair trade and an activist government that helps the middle class, the working class, and the poor." Any normal observer of American politics will recognize the regular identification made between The People = Good and Titanic Faceless Power = Bad. There are times it even makes sense in context.
This isn't one of those times.
Contrary to Mr. Mizner's formulation, Edwards hasn't made his binary choice between people and power. He hasn't ditched one for the other. He certainly has not given up on power. In fact, he is whole-heartedly in favor of it.
He wants to use the power of the state for a vast overhaul of welfare programs, seeking more state spending and more subsidies. He wants to force businesses to cover more health care costs and he wants to force all Americans to get health care. He wants to use the state to throw up more barriers to trade so domestic jobs are protected. He has no problem with growing the deficit in the short or long term provided the middle-to-lower classes get their government funding.
He's fundamentally no different at all to anyone currently seeking or thinking of seeking the presidency. He's just a little more honest about his goals and his means: more power for the feds and more will to use it.
Hugh Hewitt: Retired General William Odom argues for immediate withdrawal in Iraq, regardless of what happens next:
Hugh Hewitt: And so the [Iraqi] purple finger elections of 2005, of no counterargument to you?William Odom: Oh, look. Elections are easy to hold. I grew up in Tennessee, where Boss Ed Crump rigged the elections every year. We knew that. Mayor Daley, the Pendergast machine, boss Tweed? Come on, don't tell me about elections in the U.S. being honest.
HH: I didn't make that...I was saying what did that mean, the people, the millions that turned out?
WO: It meant that we held an election out there, and people came and voted.
HH: And what did that, do they aspire to order, General?
WO: Sure, they want order, but voting doesn't produce order.
He said some other things that are worth reading for their straight honesty if for no other reason.
Reuters via the Washington Post: U.S. not ready for Japan free trade talks: USTR
"We're not ready for an FTA (free trade agreement) with Japan right now," Assistant U.S. Trade Representative Wendy Cutler said during a discussion at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington. "I'm not saying it's impossible. I just don't see it happening in the short term."
In one sense, "we" are not ready for free trade. Not actual free trade. Eliminating the state in economic transactions and taking a clear moral stand against interventionism is, in terms of things people fear most, right up there with encountering Satan and getting stabbed in the gut with a rusty spoon. Quite clearly, given the demonstrated preferences of the vast majority of both Americans and Japanese, they do want neither to freely exchange goods and services with one another nor do they want to witness the free exchanges of goods and services amongst third parties. Being free means you don't have to deal with government-imposed regulations and don't have to pay taxes to subsidize government-favored individuals and their organizations. If honest free trade were to occur, I have absolutely no doubt in my mind a movement would spring up within hours to shut it down and control it.
However, in another sense, "we" are ready for free trade at any time. It is not necessary for two government committees to meet and establish the whens and the wheres and the hows and the whos. Humans are ready, in principle, to take back control over their lives when they wish. We have the capacity to do so and we damn sure have the need.
Unfortunately, the desire for it seems to constantly run afoul of muddled thinking and incompatible philosophies.
For a libertarian system, free trade agreements occur naturally and as needed. No need to design or create anything.
For a system of statism that simply will not unclench its bedrock grip on humanity, it would consist of a law passed by each government that thoroughly, categorically, and radically abolishes every government law standing in the way of anyone trying to buy or sell with a foreigner. A real free trade agreement would take seconds to design. It would only take a sentence to accomplish this, preferably located in the Constitution or its equivalent.
Of course, the fact that it can be changed is an argument that it cannot be trusted to remain true to the principles that animate it.
This is what happens when the government is in control. These days, being convicted of anything worse than a basic traffic offense means the average person is fucked. The freedom to earn a living is seriously threatened with a criminal record, whether the crime was actual or not. Want to know one reason why so few people seem to rise to the level of experienced, educated professionals? Take a look at all the roadblocks thrown up in our way by the government (often at the request of established or politically favored competition). It's even worse for more everyday jobs (the "at least 80 Texas professions" tabulated by the Austin-American Statesman) under the regulatory thumb.
And who is the Statesman kidding? Did Eric Dexheimer and his editors really allow "Texas' libertarian image" to be published? I can understand some artistic license when in the process of describing something, but I don't think this qualifies.
I'm aware that there are actual, specific, legitimate benefits that gay couples are actively prohibited by law from enjoying. I'm aware that there is at least a little value (even if purely symbolic) in having the prevailing legal authority in your community recognize (and not persecute) your relationship. Gay people have my sympathies and I wish they'd be left alone...just as I wish blacks, Muslims, bosses, and other disregarded classes should be free from being bothered for no reason other than by virtue of which class to which they belong.
That said, I cannot help but be a bit dismayed when I hear of homosexuals almost begging for the state to approve of them even though I think their civil disobedience is admirable.
News8Austin: Smoke, carbon monoxide detectors bill proposed
Lawmakers are pushing a bill to require smoke and carbon monoxide detectors in new and resale homes.The bill was written in honor of San Antonio Senator Frank Madla who died recently in a house fire.
Madla's home didn't have working smoke detectors.
So the Madla household either forgot to keep their detectors in working order or simply didn't care enough to make it a priority. By my standards, they screwed up.
(excuse me, for a moment, while I check my detectors)
So, they screwed up by not taking a few simple steps to provide their home with adequate warning of fire. Hopefully their story inspired homeowners to check their systems and fix or replace nonfunctional equipment. Unfortunately, it seems to have inspired Leticia Van de Putte (Senate Bill 338) and Rob Eissler (House Bill 861) to propose another increase the state's control over private property.
Those whose lives have been saved by working detectors say they now understand their importance.Copyright �2007TWEAN News Channel of Austin, L.P. d.b.a. News 8 Austin
Then again, who would want to go on record as being pro-fire or anti-smoke-detector???
New York Times: Chávez Threatens to Jail Price Control Violators
Public spending grew last year by more than 50 percent and has more than doubled since the start of 2004, as Mr. Chávez has channeled oil revenues into social programs and projects like bridges, highways, trains, subways, museums and, in a departure for a country where baseball reigns supreme, soccer stadiums.In an indicator of concern with Mr. Chávez's economic policies, which included nationalizing companies in the telephone and electricity industries, foreign direct investment was negative in the first nine months of 2006. The last year Venezuela had a net investment outflow was in 1986.
Shortages of basic foods have been sporadic since the government strengthened price controls in 2003 after a debilitating strike by oil workers. But in recent weeks, the scarcity of items like meat and chicken have led to a panicked reaction by federal authorities as they try to understand how such shortages could develop in a seemingly flourishing economy.
Entering a supermarket here is a bizarre experience. Shelves are fully stocked with Scotch whiskey, Argentine wines and imported cheeses like brie and Camembert, but basic staples like black beans and desirable cuts of beef like sirloin are often absent. Customers, even those in the government's own Mercal chain of subsidized grocery stores, are left with choices like pork neck bones, rabbit and unusual cuts of lamb.With shoppers limited to just two large packages of sugar, a black market in sugar has developed among street vendors in parts of Caracas. “This country is going to turn into Cuba, or Chávez will have to give in,” said Cándida de Gómez, 54, a shopper at a private supermarket in Los Palos Grandes, a district in the capital.
Fears that more private companies could be nationalized have put further pressure on the currency as rich Venezuelans try to take money out of the country. Concern over capital flight has made the government jittery, with vague threats issued to newspapers that publish unofficial currency rates (officially the bolívar is quoted at about 2,150 to the dollar).Regardless of efforts to stop illicit currency trading, the weaker bolívar has made imported food, fertilizers and agricultural equipment more expensive. Venezuela, despite boasting some of South America's most fertile farmland, still imports more than half its food, largely from Argentina, Brazil, Colombia and the United States.
Supermarket owners expressed relief when the government this week cut value-added taxes on retail food sales and raised the prices on more than 100 staples in an effort to alleviate the shortages. The announcement included an average 32 percent increase in beef prices and a 45 percent increase in chicken prices.
Following Mr. Chávez's nationalization threat, supermarket owners were cautious in their public statements. "As long as we are complying with the regulations, I don't believe there will be any type of reprisal," said Luis Rodríguez, executive director of the National Supermarket Association.
But many were clearly torn, afraid that their stores could be seized if they complained, but at a loss as to how to continue operating. "If I don't sell at the regulated price they'll fine me, and if I don't sell meat I'll be out of business," said a butcher shop owner here.
Venezuela is lost as long as people like these are allowed to exercise their illegitimate authority. Get rid of them.
They might as well be, now.
Austin-American Statesman: Many license plate frames illegal
Texans who unintentionally cover even a small portion of their car's license plate can be stopped by police, ticketed and perhaps arrested for the offense, the state's highest criminal court ruled Wednesday.The 8-1 decision left three Court of Criminal Appeals judges holding their noses - proclaiming the statute "uncommonly bad," but acknowledging that the letter of the law prohibits drivers from encasing their license plate in a frame that obscures the state name, state nickname or even portions of the artwork.
Here's the relevant text:
� 502.409. WRONG, FICTITIOUS, ALTERED, OR OBSCURED LICENSE PLATE
- (a) A person commits an offense if the person
attaches to or displays on a motor vehicle a number plate or
registration insignia that:
- (7) has a coating, covering, or protective material that:
- (A) distorts angular visibility or
detectability; or
- (B) alters or obscures the letters or numbers on the plate, the color of the plate, or another original design feature of the plate.
The language is clear. You are breaking the law if you have a license plate that has material that obscures any original design feature of the plate.
Back to the Statesman:
Unfortunately, the law as written unintentionally endangers civil liberties, Judge Cathy Cochran wrote in an opinion that, while siding with the majority, raises concerns about the ruling's impact."It is a 'gotcha' law because it allows the police to arbitrarily stop, ticket, arrest and search any person who is driving a car whose license plate frame covers up any portion of that plate's design," Cochran wrote in an opinion joined by Judges Tom Price and Cheryl Johnson. "Look around you - the vast majority of drivers on Texas roads and highways can be stopped and arrested at any given moment."
Still, Cochran wrote, under a law revised in 2003, "it is a crime . . . if that frame obscures even the tiniest bit of the doo-dad design details of the standard-issue Texas license plate."Violating the standard a Class C misdemeanor with a maximum fine of $200. But, Cochran noted, the offense can also result in arrest, a trip to jail and a search by police.
The case began with a November 2003 traffic stop by a Fredericksburg police officer. Craig Hill Johnson was pulled over because his dealer-installed license plate frame partially obscured the word "Texas," hid the words "Lone Star State" and obscured a depiction of a space shuttle in a nighttime sky.
The ruling alarmed Jim Harrington, director of the Texas Civil Rights Project in Austin."It's terrible. Basically, the Court of Criminal Appeals is giving enormous power to the police to stop people on their will and whim," Harrington said. "Nobody is ever going to drive a car that is perfectly, perfectly in compliance with all the laws and regulations imposed by Legislature."
Copyright 2001-2007 Cox Texas Newspapers, L.P. All rights reserved.
Via Andrew Sullivan, I bring a sober Valentine's Day note.
This is one of the saddest photo galleries I've seen in some time. Number nine is particularly hard to swallow.
No matter how nice you look, how many people you intend to help, or how emotional your campaign speech.
The AP via ABC News: Texas Could Punish 'Truant' Parents
Parents beware: Miss a meeting with your child's teacher and it could cost you a $500 fine and a criminal record.A Republican state lawmaker from Baytown has filed a bill that would charge parents of public school students with a misdemeanor and fine them for playing hooky from a scheduled parent-teacher conference.
Rep. Wayne Smith said Wednesday he wants to get parents involved in their child's education.
"I think it helps the kids for the parents and teachers to communicate. That's all the intent was," Smith said.
Copyright � 2007 ABCNews Internet Ventures
Thanks for the pointer, Lisa.
Hugh Thompson has an article in The Crimson White worth reading: The left is hemorrhaging: an informational defense of capitalism.
National Review's The Corner: Moving Sharply Left
Hillary, Obama, and Edwards are all running as lefties - anti-growth, anti-business, anti-war, and anti-capitalism.This past Friday, Mrs. Clinton announced her profound aversion to oil company profits and cited ExxonMobil as enemy number one. (Thanks to a link from Matt Drudge, almost 200,000 YouTube visitors heard Hillary's anti-capitalist tirade. In case you missed it, it boils down to nothing more than confiscating private property.)
That ought to send a chilling message to investors everywhere.
The other day the oil companies reported the highest profits in the history of the world.I want to take those profits, and I want to put them into a strategic energy fund that will begin to fund alternative, smart energy; alternatives and technologies that will begin to actually move us towards the direction of [energy] independence.
It is not an exaggeration at all to say every single American politician in office is in favor of "confiscating private property" and justifying it at least partially under terms such as "the common good." Taxing people to pay for the military, environmental concerns, welfare, industry regulation, and everything else the state does occurs daily and is endorsed by even the most ardent limited-government Republicans and Libertarians running for office.
Mr. Kudlow is either ignorant of what he's saying or he doesn't honestly mean it.
UPDATED 7/19/2007 2:23pm
More on Mr. Kudlow: Fuck Taxes, Flat or Progressive and Larry Kudlow, What Unbridled Free Market Capitalism?
FreeRepublic: Preambles, 50 States - No 'God' in Government??
To those who doubt that G-d has blessed the United States of America I offer this thought.In the late 1700s two nations embraced instituted a Republic. One founded its laws on its faith in G-d. The other founded its laws in its faith in human enlightenment.
300 years later one has had a consitent history of progress. The other is a mess.
Shalom.
17 posted on 08/21/2006 8:18:47 AM PDT by ArGee (The Ring must not be allowed to fall into Hillary's hands!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]
The belief that the Republic of France was grounded in markedly secular and non-religious ideas could be true. I haven't studied that period of history and know far less than what I know of American history. However, this image is a popular representation of the original Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. There are several religious aspects to the painting: the Ten Commandments-style of presentation and the angelic figure pointing to an all-seeing eye are the first that come to mind. Then, if theocons are going to claim "Divine Guidance" (Hawaii), "Great Legislator of the Universe" (Massachusetts), and "Author of Existence" (Vermont) as evidence of religious inspiration for the 50 states' legal documents, then they also ought to accept this sentence from the French Declaration: Therefore the National Assembly recognizes and proclaims, in the presence and under the auspices of the Supreme Being, the following rights of man and of the citizen...
I'd argue the US has grown less religious with time, if not in absolute or relative population than in intensity. Though the recent surge in Christian political activity might seem as a counterpoint to this, I view it as just that: a temporary surge.
ArGee presents us with an either-or. One nation (America) founded its laws on its religious faith and one nation (France) founded its laws on human enlightenment. Therefore, the US borrowed little from the Age of Reason during its formative processes. Anyone who argues the people and ideas of the Enlightenment played little or no role in the creation of the United States is astoundingly wrong. Thomas Paine, John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, David Hume, Adam Smith, and the others who were both instrumental to the Enlightenment and incorporated its ideas into their own didn't positively influence the creation and early foundational years of the United States? ArGee later whips out the "revisionist history" label when responding to someone who questioned his post; I think the pot is calling the kettle black here.
Finally, I've got little to say to someone who relies on divine blessing in order to have a comfortable, safe, healthy society. If that person honestly believes that, then there would be no reason to produce anything. People could just sit together and pray for all they need. They wouldn't need to build churches, homes, and factories. They could forgo earning an income, growing crops, and passing on knowledge to younger generations. If the kiss of the almighty is the crucial characteristic that determines societal success, then why direct your energies away from securing that heavenly grace?
Hell, if human reason and religious faith are antithetical, then how does one justify their belief in not only gawd but for their stance on the necessity of that gawd's sanction in order to secure peace and just social structure?
I say all this in light of the Sam Harris / Andrew Sullivan discussion on religion, where I think Harris has Sullivan by the balls more often than not.
The AP via News8Austin: Governor orders anti-cancer vaccine for schoolgirls
Gov. Rick Perry signed an executive order Friday that will require all schoolgirls to be vaccinated against the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer.
Girls will have to get Merck's new vaccine Gardasil, which protects against strains of HPV that are responsible for most cases of cervical cancer.
Can't afford the shots?
Gardasil costs $360 for the three doses needed, $120 per dose, but many large insurance companies cover most of the cost. Additionally, some federal health programs like Vaccine for Children cover the cost for some females younger than 19 years of age.
Given that "Merck is paying for efforts to pass laws in 18 other states that would require the vaccine for girls as young as 11 or 12," I think it is safe to say this company - whatever legitimate public health concerns it has - is deliberately seeking to have state-granted monopoly privilege bestowed upon it. Keep that in mind whenever they start making noises about government interference in their affairs.
If Perry has honestly ordered the Health and Human Services Commission to allow for exemptions, how does this justify the title I've chosen? First, I have no doubt he'd revoke or narrow those exemptions if overwhelming majorities of parents opt out. Second, he thinks he has the legitimate authority to declare every 11 year old and 12 year old Texas girl to do what he wants. If he didn't, he wouldn't have issued his order. You can dress it up under the guise of preventing disease and protecting the vulnerable, but the reasons don't mitigate the nature of the action taken.
Opponents, unsurprisingly, are rather muddled in their opposition.
Some parents are hesitant to have their daughter get the shots, thinking it might encourage sexual promiscuity.Copyright 2007 Associated Press, All rights reserved.
I'll grant that in principle, if you neutralize or reduce the costs of an activity the chances of more people engaging in it increase. All the more reason for parents to teach and inform their kids about this stuff honestly and early.
Greater weight goes to the arguments of someone like State Senator Glenn Hegar.
Senator Hegar said that Perry's executive order sets a dangerous precedent and forces parents who object to their young daughters receiving the vaccine to utilize a so-called "opt out" clause. "This vaccine should be made available for those parents who want it for their daughter, but it should not be forced upon those who don't," said Hegar. "Parents should be allowed to opt-in on behalf of their children. No parent should be forced to opt-out," he added.
"Forcing all Texas 11 and 12 year old girls to receive the Gardisil vaccine is completely out of line with the longstanding history of why children in the United States are required to receive nine vaccines for thirteen different diseases,' Senator Hegar said. "Unlike, all of the other mandated vaccines in Texas, Gardisil will not eliminate a preventable disease in our State. Instead, parents will be given a false hope that their daughters will never contract cervical cancer, which is a grave injustice to these young girls and their families," Senator Hegar added.
Hegar said that in addition to his concerns about the mandate's challenge to parental authority, he also has grave concerns over the lasting effects of the vaccine. Hegar said that the Gardisil vaccine was only approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration in June of 2006 and that the clinical trials for the vaccine were still ongoing. Hegar noted that Merck is still uncertain as to whether the vaccine will have a lasting effect or if the vaccine will lose its effect over time which he noted may cause an uniformed pubic to engage in risky behavior because they think they are no longer in danger of contracting the HPV virus.Copyright 2007 Texas Insider. All rights reserved.
Parents concerned about the health of their children ought to bear the responsibility of these decisions. The government does not belong in that equation.
Is it possible to be so frail in one's faith, so worried about the perceptions of others that you'd spend part of your time as a legislator trying to insert religious crap into public life? It is both a trivial thing for me to be upset over, but it is due to that very triviality that I have to question just how thin-skinned these kinds of people are.
I could mention how odd it is for someone claiming to be a Republican - the party of limited, small government - feels it is necessary to use the power of the state to mold the minds of the people living within it...but anyone with a set of sensory organs knows the Republican Party is not at all worried about pushing cultural collectivism.
...if all it takes to send Authorities into pants-shitting terror and subsequent embarrassed fury are some signs of these guys:
Clearly, they didn't intend to fool anyone into thinking these were IEDs, so I fail to see how a "hoax device" angle works. As for disturbing the peace, I think the government did a far better job of that than anyone working for Turner Broadcasting or Interference, Inc.
And I also hope the terrorists who do want to attack us aren't paying attention because they are simultaneously laughing their asses off and calculating the tremendous chaos they could cause with half the effort Adult Swim put into this marketing campaign.
UPDATED 3:28pm
I wonder if this is a record at Gizmodo: making a reader's second comment ever the Comment of the Day.
