StrangeSox

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 4, 2011 -> 07:46 AM) Interesting that so many luxury cars have such short paypack periods, I wasn't expecting that. Also, there ARE still tax credits for alt vehicles, because the Volt and Leaf are eligible. I am not sure if traditional hybrids are still eligible, they used to work on a concept of number of vehicles manufactured per model. For non plug-in cars, the tax credits expired on December 31st. Most had run out by then due to numbers sold, anyway.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 3, 2011 -> 05:57 PM) I guess then his problem is that hes an attorney with a bias. And I stand by my argument. Greenwald, for being an attorney, leaves out every single important piece of information. 1) Why is Manning being held under solitary confinement? 2) What is the normal procedure for dealing with a person accused of espionage? Greenwald's article is all over the place. Part of it he compares Manning to Ellsberg, pointing to the difference in treatment. He does not even mention that Ellsberg was not in the military and therefore could not be tried under the UCMJ. So to clarify, he may be an attorney, but he wrote a brutal article that absolutely makes no sense and my only conclusion is that he is trying to apply his Civil background to UCMJ. What does he want the Obama administration to do? Go easy on espionage? At minimum it would behoove the US to at least try and make an example of Manning so that they dont have more documents leaked. First, it's pointed out explicitly in the article that Manning is under different circumstances because he's subject to the UCMJ. The Ellsberg comparison is made to show the cognitive dissonance in people that laud Ellsberg but lambaste Manning. As for the bolded, that's a damn good question. It's one that there isn't a good answer to, aside from "punishment" or "to try to get him to plea-bargin against Assange/Wikileaks" From a December article: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_gr...0/12/14/manning

Greenwald is a lawyer and has a background of litigation constitutional law and civil rights. I don't think your comment really addresses anything Greenwald was saying (or has said) about this case, to be quite honest. And your dismissals of him as a non-attorney smack of logical fallacy, even if it was true. He isn't making an argument that Manning didn't (allegedly) violate the UCMJ; he's making an argument against what these charges imply based at least partially on an article, linked by Greenwald, written by a law professor. IF Manning was the leaker, he very clearly violated the UCMJ and should face charges. I wouldn't argue that and neither would Greenwald. What is being argued against is Manning's treatment (23/7 solitary confinement for 10 months), the aggression with which he's being prosecuted (both legally and in the media) and what their methods of prosecution really mean.

Ok, the Obama DoJ has aggressively gone after whistle blowers and people who leak documents. And they've been pretty terrible about it. Is that better? eg: Article 104 -- which, like all provisions of the UCMJ, applies only to members of the military -- is incredibly broad. Under 104(B) -- almost certainly the provision to be applied -- a person is guilty if he "gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly" (emphasis added), and, if convicted, "shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct." The charge sheet filed by the Army is quite vague and neither indicates what specifically Manning did to violate this provision nor the identity of the "enemy" to whom he is alleged to have given intelligence. There are, as international law professor Kevin Jon Heller notes, only two possibilities, and both are disturbing in their own way. In light of the implicit allegation that Manning transmitted this material to WikiLeaks, it is quite possible that WikiLeaks is the "enemy" referenced by Article 104, i.e., that the U.S. military now openly decrees (as opposed to secretly declaring) that the whistle-blowing group is an "enemy" of the U.S. More likely, the Army will contend that by transmitting classified documents to WikiLeaks for intended publication, Manning "indirectly" furnished those documents to Al Qaeda and the Taliban by enabling those groups to learn their contents. That would mean that it is a capital offense not only to furnish intelligence specifically and intentionally to actual enemies -- the way that, say, Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen were convicted of passing intelligence to the Soviet Union -- but also to act as a whistle-blower by leaking classified information to a newspaper with the intent that it be published to the world. Logically, if one can "aid the enemy" even by leaking to WikiLeaks, then one can also be guilty of this crime by leaking to The New York Times. http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/index.html And more generally: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_gr.../whistleblowers

QUOTE (lostfan @ Mar 3, 2011 -> 05:15 PM) What whistle did Manning blow of any consequence? I mean really? What big secrets did he expose and what's going to change as a result of anything he did (for the better)? Some misguided hero-worshipping here. He just grabbed as much classified s*** as he could find, put it on a disc, and gave it away. f*** that. Manning's not a hero, and he very clearly broke some laws. Still, the government's treatment of him has been s***. They've gone after other whistle blowers, even re-opening cases that the Bush DoJ dropped years ago. And how they're treating Wikileaks, as if it's some sort of terrorist organization, is ridiculous. I know you've seen Greenwald's stuff on this before, and I don't think there's any excuse for the government's actions.

Apparently the NFL TV contracts were voided yesterday. http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patr...hts_on_imp.html

Edmunds has a "Top 10" break-even hybrids and diesels list. http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/top-10/...s-for-2011.html

^^Maybe that's why. Having a AAA affiliate right near by at 1/4 of the cost of the MLB club might really drag down your ticket sales. It's not like the Sox are selling out every game anyway.

FYI as of December 31st, 2010, there are no more federal tax credits for buying any hybrid vehicle. Just doing a quick comparison of a Ford Fusion SEL vs Hybrid (seemed similar in features), it'd be about 66k miles with gas at $4.10/gallon to break even. Of course, immediate financial impacts aren't the only concern for most people shopping for a Hybrid eg I don't see any financial gain from buying cage-free eggs.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Mar 3, 2011 -> 10:08 AM) Bradley Manning could get the death penalty for being a whistle blower. Obama's DoJ has been incredibly terrible on whistle blowers.

Fetus called to testify

Texas Immigration Bill has Big Exception Texans need their cheap domestic servants!

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 2, 2011 -> 04:26 PM) What's wrong with the analogy? Why would a company that owns such a valuable product be so willing to throw it away and put themselves out of business? The value is at least partially based on ignoring a lot of externalities and government subsidies. I think this also highlights that's what in the best interest of multi-billion dollar multinational corporations may not be in the best interest of the citizens of any given country.

Limited resources/economic motivation. As long as we keep subsidizing oil, alternatives are less attractive.

So instead we should continue using oil and eschew alternative energy research because it's a "utopic ideal?" But production will never peak out? It'll always grow as fast or faster than demand? There's some short-sited thinking for you, even leaving environmental concerns aside.

Apple usually has pretty good deals for educational purchases as well.

QUOTE (cws0591 @ Mar 1, 2011 -> 12:47 PM) I did not know where else to put this as it is not a current show, but arrested development is a must see for anyone with netflix. I watched all three seasons within the last month and found myself keeled over laughing on several occasions. i really do not understand why it was ended as i think it is funnier than the office. Cannot wait for the movie!!!!! QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Mar 1, 2011 -> 12:49 PM) Best sitcom of all time IMO. QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Mar 1, 2011 -> 12:51 PM) Ive watched AD about 5 times through, and each time Ill catch another little joke or detail that just makes it even funnier. QUOTE (Brian @ Mar 1, 2011 -> 01:19 PM) I'm in the middle of Season 2 now. Absolutely one of the best shows ever on television.

Forbes making an awesome argument for "Drill Baby Drill!" (not really) http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/50417.html

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 2, 2011 -> 10:23 AM) Might have been some of those in there also. Take a look at the background features. LOL, palm trees. Don't worry, the commenters on YT have plenty of excuses! Fox never claimed that it was video from Madison! Watching it again, the guy I thought was mounty was just someone wearing a red jacket and a wide-brim tan hat.

After saying some nice things about Obama recently, Huckabee's gone down the birther road: http://mediamatters.org/blog/201103010018 About the bolded, well....

Already paid $3.99 for premium this week. Hey, maybe 10+ years ago was a good time to start transitioning away from a energy source whose supply is so volatile and dependent on Arab dictatorships?

LOL were those mounties?

LOL that got an age rating of 12+.

So, apparently Portman is pretty damn smart: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/science/...amp;ref=science

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 1, 2011 -> 11:41 AM) Can't wait for the Dems out there who will flip flop from backing Clinton ("who cares what he does so long as he's effective") to going after Newt ("values? what values can he possibly stand for?"). Well, if Gingrich tries to claim moral authority or go on about the "sanctity of marriage," it's a legitimate argument to point out that he's on his third marriage and treated his previous wives pretty poorly. It's not flip-flopping because Clinton and Clinton backers aren't typically making "sanctity of marriage" or socially conservative arguments. It's not that Gingrich's personal marriage life really has any impact on his ability to govern, it's that it runs in direct contradiction to arguments for social policies he supports.