Saturday Links

Saturday, January 28th, 2012

Digg it |  reddit | |  Fark

53 Responses to “Saturday Links”

  1. #1 |  C. S. O. Schofield | 

    Somebody needs to take Ms. Pine (Hypersensitive Republican, Hawaii) aside and tell her “If you can’t take people slanging your ethics, morals, ancestors, appearance, sexual preference, principles, and taste, then you have no goddamned business being in politics.”

  2. #2 |  dave smith | 

    The people who are boycotting Twitter must be among those who think that corporations have more power than governments.

  3. #3 |  Fred | 

    I was told that I could not adopt a dog because I have a dog door
    (that leads into a fenced yard) because the dog would be unsupervised.
    They also questioned that I had enough dog experience; my parents had a dog before
    They had me and I’m 50 years old, just how much experience is required?
    I now have a 9mo. Golden. (Who is just great) which I got from a great breeder here in Colorado.
    P.S. he is fricken huge

  4. #4 |  McHandler | 

    re-tweets: Somehow I don’t believe Twitter. For example, something tells me that UK Twitter users won’t be allowed to see tweets that were targeted by DMCA takedown actions (a US law).

  5. #5 |  Mannie | 

    Want to adopt a dog or cat? Prepare for an inquisition at the animal rescue.

    I had a run in like those described. We wanted to get a cat. The people at the Humane Society ( a nut group If I ever saw one) wouldn’t let us “adopt” a cat because we had a dog. [SHRUG] we got a cat from a newspaper ad. The cat was actually intended as a companion for the dog.

    A bunch of years ago, I owned a dog discussion board on the net. I wouldn’t allow a section for animal rescue. IMX, they tend to be filled with nutcases. There’s just too much drama dealing with “Rescue Mills.”

    None of these get a nickel of my money.

  6. #6 |  Peter Ramins | 

    I have mixed feelings on the ‘right to be forgotten’ law.

    Before it was being called that I said the proposed law as it is now (or as it was then) would be akin to facebook inviting you over for tea at their corporate headquarters, and then demanding you forget the address the next day, and even what they served you.

    What I *don’t* have a problem with is user-created content falling within the purview of a law like this, but regardless, facebook’s terms of service make it clear that if you accidentally update your facebook with pictures of that Tijuana working girl earning her rent (or whatever disastrous, subpoena-able material you want to substitute there), you can delete it from your page, but you can’t delete it from their servers.

    So my mixed feelings boil down to me basically wanting a service that will agree to actually delete what I delete. Which is maybe why I haven’t used facebook much in the past year+. I still have my account, and it’s still active, I just don’t use it much. Too much data mining. It’s their right to do it, of course, but I will just quietly not participate.

  7. #7 |  dave smith | 

    We were going to adopt a kitten from the Humane Society that was still with its mother and sylblings. We were told that the person who decides adoptions was not there and the cats were going to be put down before that person was back at work. We offered to take the hole litter, but were denied.


  8. #8 |  Dave Krueger | 

    We have rules.

    In that area, it would be more newsworthy if they actually did something rational.

  9. #9 |  FridayNext | 

    Note on the long haired kid at the charter school: I agree that this is ridiculous. On the other hand this looks like a charter school that is fairly strict with ALL of its rules and that is selling point to parents. As the mom says, “”I’m fine with all of their rules,” Gaskins said. “I just think that with this, they could try to make a compromise.”

    Again, I think this is stupid. I also think most of the rules enforced through neighborhood covenants are stupid. What I don’t have patience for is people who sign on to those rules hoping to reap the benefits and then turn around and whine when those rules are applied to them.

    Being a proponent of school choice in general and charter schools in particular, I am all about parents power to choose their kids learning environment. But I am also a proponent of people living with the consequences of their decisions.

  10. #10 |  Mike | 

    It’s a long story, not worth going into…

    After surviving the inquisition when adopting a pet, and circumstances change, try giving one back. I finally told them if they didn’t take it back, I was just going to leave it in the parking lot.

    One of the clauses in their adoption agreement at the Humane Society shelter in Dallas gives them the right to inspect your home at any time they like.

    I love dogs.

    Those animal rescue people are crazy. No sense of perspective.

  11. #11 |  Nick | 

    I took the other route with our current dog. Me and my wife got a dog from the city animal pound. Sweetest dog you’d ever meet, cuddly and well behaved. In and out in less than a half hour, 20$ fee, cuddly dog. Probably a rare case that it worked out that well, but it was very simple. We thought about getting one from a rescue group, but it just looks like a pain in the ass.

  12. #12 |  Miko | 

    Who cares if the Twitter boycott is good for Twitter or not? The people boycotting Twitter aren’t going to be Twitter employees, so they should be free to exercise their rights to freedom of association with absolutely no regard for what’s beneficial to the Twitter corporation.

    If you’re asking what’s good for the users, then having the entire country blocked is by far better since it doesn’t create the precedent of creating an infrastructure for censorship, it makes it incredibly obvious to the citizens of the country that they have a lousy government, and it doesn’t inconvenience the people in those blocked countries anyway since anyone who wants to circumvent nation-based censorship can find out how to do that with five minutes of googling.

  13. #13 |  Ima Wurdibitsch | 

    Off topic, but one of your worst DAs has been suspended: Tracey Cline.

    News articles:

  14. #14 |  Onlooker | 

    The rescue groups who display this behavior are people who have TOTALLY LOST THEIR MINDS, or maybe better stated is that they’ve LOST THEIR COMMON SENSE.

    A border collie can’t live on a sheep farm? No, that would just the best life that dog could ever live. We wouldn’t want that, would we? Good gawd.

    I hope they’ve got the ability to keep those pets for life, as they surely don’t adopt many out.

  15. #15 |  Jim | 

    New Orleans City Council banned “disseminating any social, political or religious message between the hours of sunset and sunrise” on Bourbon Street.

    I live here, and you’d be be surprised (not) how many liberal friends of mine are cheering this development.

  16. #16 |  George | 

    Nick, getting a dog from the county pound worked for me, too. I went thru rescues as well, and filled out one group’s lengthy questionnaire which did seem intrusive. But rescues are private groups and should have the freedom to set their own standards — just as Mannie did when he denied rescues to be represented on his forum (I’ll bet he sees no irony in that).

    The dog I got had been used previously to bait pitbulls, training them to attack better. Perhaps it never occurred to you that some people will get dogs so they can abuse them. Rescues are trying to make sure they aren’t fooled by people who will get a dog and then neglect or abuse it, or pass the dog along to someone who does. Do rescues go overboard? Sure, sometimes. But they are protecting (and housing and feeding and treating) dogs that would otherwise be killed.

    It’s understandable that Slate, which is a home for liberals who want only government to run society, would attack rescues. But why would libertarians join in?

  17. #17 |  Dan Danknick | 

    I’ve thought about the Twitter boycott and though I’m not one of their users, I am currently in the “So what?” category. Sure it’s a surprise and not what we expected. But they’re a for-profit company so why should we apply human moral codes to them? If we do then what level of scorn should we level at, say, TASER Corp? (Actually, is there enough scorn in the world?)

    One thing I did laugh at is how Apple introduced “deep Twitter integration” in its latest version of iOS. Bet they feel stupid now.

  18. #18 |  derfel cadarn | 

    Think of the entire premise of Twitter if the network shut down tomorrow would the world end? How fragile humanity has become that it is not possible to survive without 144 characters. How did the world ever get to this point when things were written on paper and across the Atlantic took no less than 1 month. Perhaps we have become just a little to wussified and should consider growing up.

  19. #19 |  Radley Balko | 

    It’s understandable that Slate, which is a home for liberals who want only government to run society, would attack rescues. But why would libertarians join in?

    I have no idea what this means. I’ve adopted all my dogs from rescues. That doesn’t mean all rescues are above criticism. I’ve also talked to more than a few people who have been turned down for ridiculous reasons.

    And I’m puzzled as to what political ideology has to do with any of this. Where in the Slate article did it say government should take over–or even regulate–animal adoption? Not everything is about politics. Thank goodness.

  20. #20 |  CyniCAl | 

    The pet adoption story is a very interesting example of the perfection of a market free from force.

    Private animal rescue groups are free to run their operations as they decide. If they make it undesirable for people to patronize their services, other outlets, such as pet stores and breeders, are available. Eventually, equilibrium will be reached. The private animal rescue groups will either adapt or die.

    It is unfortunate that certain individual animals will be victims of the process, but animals are not persons, they are property.

    If someone wants to cohabitate with a dog or cat or other animal, they will find a means to achieve their goal. It matters not if the animal comes from a rescue group, a store or a breeder, or off the street as I have done in the past. Aside from the personal joy of caring for an animal, the most important thing is the ability of the market to demonstrate the appropriate method through freedom, not force.

  21. #21 |  Onlooker | 


    You completely missed the point. Nobody here has stated that these rescue groups should be made to anything. No doubt they are private and can set whatever rules they want. (But they shouldn’t be surprised when their adoption rate is very low and they better be able to care for those pets for a very long time.) It has just been pointed out how ridiculously extreme many are about their criteria for adopters. To the point of being quite counterproductive; a big understatement. It’s one thing to go a little overboard, but these folks are way out there on the spectrum.

    And we all know why it’s desirable to do some screening, as you unnecessarily point out (dog fights, etc.).

    And frankly I don’t see the Slate article as being an “attack” piece. The author did a good job, and did so from the perspective of her own experience.

  22. #22 |  Jamie | 

    Animal welfare shops can be absurd. I had one experience where they really liked me and my (then) girlfriend. We got a pair of the cutest little kittens on the planet, in spite of the fact that our lease (which they wanted to see) clearly had a no-pets provision. They explicitly ignored it.

    Ok, fast forward 12 or so years, girlfriend long gone (and there have been a few more in the mean time), boy-kitty has heart problems, and dies after lots of vet visits. Girl-kitty seems very withdrawn, upset, won’t eat. Vet recommends getting another cat. Cat dispensary notes that I’m currently single, and considers that to mean I’m unreliable enough to have a cat, despite me wanting a cat to be a companion to my current cat.

    Look, feel free to judge me, but don’t be stupid.

    Re: Twitter- mixed feelings. I think it is marginally better to adhere to a strict anti-censorship rule. Then you get banned, then people know where they stand and can make their own tools. Selective blackouts muddles things and makes it hard to create a truly free competitor, which you only really need when it is too late. Of course, that helps Twitter maintain dominance, so the market friendly solution is to enable state censorship and make it harder for more popular uprisings against despots. And of course, Saudi investment in Twitter had nothing to do with this.

  23. #23 |  Mike T | 

    The pet adoption story is a very interesting example of the perfection of a market free from force.

    Not entirely. I best most of them are tax-deductible non-profits. As such, they have an advantage over the private vendors in that they can draw a source of funding from non-customers who are motivated by tax deductions. That is a distortion of the market mechanisms. I bet many of them would shrivel up and die if we had a flat income tax without deductions.

  24. #24 |  Stephen | 

    My cat adopted me. Huge tabby cat that had been dumped in my neighborhood. He was skinny and not very trusting at first but after I fed him a few times, he decided he was home. I took him to the vet to get shots once it seemed like he was going to stay.

    He goes in and out at will and will even follow/lead me when I go for a walk.

    I wasn’t even planning on having a cat. But this seems better than some busybodies picking him up and killing him rather than let me adopt him. (I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t pass their selection process) The cat seems happy here, he could leave anytime he wants, but he sticks around.

  25. #25 |  Marty | 

    I like that the kid is standing up to the school about his hair. I find it a little ironic that they’re fighting to get only his goal made into an exception vs eliminating a dumb rule. As if no one else could have a reasonable reason to grow out their hair…

  26. #26 |  Juice | 

    Beepers were sold before 1990. Where did he get that?

  27. #27 |  Mannie | 

    #16 | George | January 28th, 2012 at 2:20 pm

    rescues are private groups and should have the freedom to set their own standards — just as Mannie did when he denied rescues to be represented on his forum (I’ll bet he sees no irony in that).

    I have no argument with them setting any standards they want. I have my standards too, and I don’t care to associate with those nutcases. Way too much agro.

    I don’t recommend people get dogs from rescue people. I’ve heard too many cases of them lying about a dog’s vices, and sticking people with a bad animal. If you want anything but a generic dog, then I recommend researching the breed, finding a good breeder, and paying through the nose. Often “reject” puppies from a good bloodline make terrific pets. If you want a generic dog, try the pound. They’re more honest than the rescue people.

  28. #28 |  Mannie | 

    #24 | Stephen | January 28th, 2012 at 3:34 pm

    My cat adopted me.

    Does anyone ever buy cats? All our cats have been inflicted on us.

  29. #29 |  Stormy Dragon | 

    Is it better for Twitter to censor Tweets in countries that require it, but be open and transparent about the censorship, or to refuse to censor Tweets, and have those countries ban Twitter entirely?

    The later, because if people can get around the government’s block (as the invariably do), there will be an uncensored Twitter waiting there for them, rather than a Twitter who helped their oppressors put up a second wall to their ability to freely communicate.

  30. #30 |  Mike Laursen | 

    I’m usually above these stupid arguments, but the keep-your-cat-indoors people drive me nuts. For some cats, that’s cruel torture.

  31. #31 |  Bill Roberts | 

    Back in the 80’s Ragnar Benson, an author famous for his books on survival and cheap living, pointed out that adopting a dog or can from the pound was free, and that these critters were considered delicacies in certain parts of the world. He suggested that Vietnamese and Cambodian refugees, who were apparently trapping stray cats and dogs in Golden Gate Park in San Francisco, could just take their dinner from the pound.

    Naturally, this horrified the do-gooders from the Humane Society, who would rather kill the critters nobody wanted and let all the protein go to waste. They started instituting fees to “adopt” an animal. So, presumably, people’s pets began disappearing from Golden Gate Park again.

  32. #32 |  nigmalg | 

    Off topic news article I hope Radley caught:,0,5814428.story

  33. #33 |  nigmalg | 

    Whoops, Submitted to early. Some gems from that article I posted above:

    1.) Tank is labeled “The Peacemaker”
    2.) Among other menacing text written on the tank is “Whatcha gonna do when we come for you?”
    3.) This comes as the same time as Carlos Miller’s post:

    Hilarity. Commence.

  34. #34 |  CyniCAl | 

    @#24 | Stephen

    My male neuter snowshoe, who my wife rescued from outside her office, does the same thing, walks with me unleashed, sometimes leading, sometimes following. It’s cool being able to tell people that you walk your cat.

    My cats are like cool but freeloading roommates: they hang around, don’t pay any rent and eat my food, come and go as they please, don’t make a lot of noise unless they’re hungry. So easy.

    Dogs are like kids, in that they need constant attention and make a ton of noise and mess, and with the decided disadvantage in that you have no chance of being cared for by a dog in your old age, whereas there is at least a miniscule chance that your kids might. IMHO, better to have a kid than a dog for that reason.

  35. #35 |  FridayNext | 

    @#23 Not necessarily. Very few people make enough or large enough donations to make a sizable dent in their tax bill, though lots of people who itemize may look at it as building a large wall with lots of little bricks. I have helped fundraise as part of a number of non-profits and while we did note the tax deduction, studies showed most people are motivated by their belief in the good works of the non-profit. It’s only the really big donors, including corporations and those who supply in-kind donations that reap any notable benefit from this deduction and they have a host of strategies to squeeze the most out of their donations that make a true mockery of these regulations.

    The vast majority of these animal rescue charities get more money from sad, emaciated animals than the tax code. (again, not counting the huge building-naming donations or donations of services or materials) And while many of them are a pain in the ass as so many here note, many others are well run and work with adopters to get animals into their forever home. You just have to do your research on which is which. You know, like every other transaction and decision you make this year.

    The thing is, the people most likely to use this deduction the most are the ones who are most likely to be making the tax laws and/or have the ears of those who do. I agree with you that this law, and many other deductions, can go because they ultimately only benefit the wealthy. Good luck getting them to let go.

  36. #36 |  Sindawe | 

    @#34 | CyniCAL

    Dogs have the advantage over children in that a dog will never steal your brand new car, wreak it after a high speed chase with the cops then look you straight in the eye and scream YOU RUINED MY LIFE YOU M******F****! I HATE AND WISH YOU WERE DEAD!!!

    Cats also have this advantange over children, plus the added asset of not viewing the cat box as an ever full cookie jar.


    Three of the five cats (four still living) I’ve shared my adult life with have been rescues. For the latest the application was the most intrusive, most hassle (I had to pester THEM to get a response) and had some silly bit about doing “inspections” unannounced.

    Right… Questions about how the cat is doing and need verification? Talk to their Vet. Here’s his number, be sure ask him about my own “Burger & Fries” kitty as corroberation about the care I supply for the cats. Come to my door if you want, don’t mean I’m gonna let you in.

  37. #37 |  (B)oscoH | 

    OK, so on these rescue organizations… I occasionally volunteer with a breed specific (Boxer) rescue. I’ve actually adopted a dog from them too. And yes, there is a great deal of investigation of people who they adopt the dogs out to. And yes, some of the volunteers are just ridiculous in their assessments. “That couple is too young”, “she looks like she parties too much”, etc. They get a small but significant percentage of returns. There really are a lot of people out there that think because they are “rescuing”, they should get to try it out and take it back if it isn’t perfect. Although I think some of the people are too protective if the mission is to rehome as many dogs as possible, I also think that a process for adoption builds commitment in and weeds the obvious flakes out.

    I also adopted my first dog from a local city shelter. That was 2001. He was a 12 week old mix puppy, and there was real competition for him: over 20 applications. During his 1 week hold, I showed up to visit 6 times, with friends and family to testify that I was a good guy, and made sure the staff knew about every time I showed up and who I showed up with. I made a website for him with pictures of the visit. Hand coded, because that was before flickr and Facebook. I ended up being the “backup” home, because I didn’t have a yard, but had friends in the neighborhood to hang out with him and walk him during the day when I was at work. A couple days after I thought I missed out, I got a call that he was available. One of the kids at the winner’s house decided he didn’t like him. Yeah, seriously. This cute, cuddly, lick your face gently puppy didn’t give warm fuzzies to some little kid the first day, and they brought him back to the shelter.

  38. #38 |  (B)oscoH | 

    @Mannie 27: Ugh. That is just bad advice. The breed specific rescues tend to have a lot of really great dogs, both in looks and temperament. They tend to either pull the best, most adoptable, from the pounds, or accept turn-ins that will be highly adoptable. There are enough dogs in whatever breed that need homes that the rescues have to be selective. So a prospective adopter should use that basic economic fact to his advantage. Dealing with the process is another thing. Yes, they throw a lot of BS, like pre-adoption home visits, potential “surprise” visits down the road, contracts that include “no euthanize without consultation” terms for multiple years, etc. So here is what you do… Just be proactive. If you’re thankful after the adoption and send pictures for them to share on their website, or show up with your dog at their public adoption event, or whataver, they’re gonna know you’re a good doggy parent, and you’ll be off their radar. Tell them you appreciate their concern post adoption. And if you need help with an issue, ask for help! They’d love to help you because they don’t want to have to re-home the dog. Seriously. I often go on walks with new owners just to help them figure out how to bond with their dogs. It’s a “service” we offer that people sometimes take us up on. Some get more involved with the rescue after that. While some (even many) volunteers at rescues are totally over the top, they’re not really there and don’t really have the energy to break everyone’s balls. Be patient with the process and you’re bound to get a great dog. Oh, BTW, the neediest dogs tend to elicit the most scrutiny of new owners from the rescues. They really want to make sure the dog will be adopted and loved and not have to come back.

  39. #39 |  Michael S | 

    Let those countries try to ban Twitter entirely. They’ll fail.

  40. #40 |  CyniCAl | 

    @#36 | Sindawe

    I guess it could go either way. I don’t expect my daughter to wreck the car — my son however …

    As for a dog never wrecking your car, I found this video that is the exception that proves the rule:

    OK, Brian is only indirectly responsible, but still pretty negligent. For a dog.

  41. #41 |  kant | 

    I always wondered why returns are always bemoaned as some how a failure and to be avoided at all costs.

    I know the goal is to get every adoption to end happily ever after but that’s not always possible. If you consider the situation where for some reason the owner can’t keep the dog, considering the other options are giving up the dog to someone else (who may or may not be negligent/abusive), euthanizing the dog or out right abandoning the dog , a return is the most responsible outcome.

  42. #42 |  zywie | 

    Hmm. I’m surprised to hear about the Humane Society horror stories. I adopted my cat from the Humane Society in Indianapolis and did not have any trouble with the process at all. It seemed like a well run establishment from what I could tell. There were some cats and dogs that had certain issues, like cats that needed to be in a one cat household or that didn’t get along with children. That seemed reasonable to me, and there were many other animals to choose from that would fit into our household. Its unfortunate that other shelters are making it difficult for would be pet owners to adopt and giving shelters a bad name.

  43. #43 |  George | 

    I wrote: It’s understandable that Slate, which is a home for liberals who want only government to run society, would attack rescues. But why would libertarians join in?

    Radley wrote: I have no idea what this means.

    Radley, you don’t understand what writers are associated with Slate, or you don’t understand what liberals want, or you don’t understand why I find it improbable for a libertarian would pass along a slam on volunteer organizations that, overall, help dogs? Let me know and I’ll clarify.

    Onlooker thinks I have missed the point, but then writes “Nobody here has stated that these rescue groups should be made to [do] anything.” Including me; I never said anyone did. The Slate piece was a hit on rescues, focusing on the extremes. I acknowledged those extremes exist, but as other commenters observe, those issues get resolved. Onlooker may think it’s unnecessary to bring up abuse, but abuse is why the rescuers ask the questions. That, my friend, is the point.

    Do some rescuers go overboard? Yes, and I acknowledged that. As (B)ohcoH say passionately explains, there are ways to deal with that. Me — I was a bit more aggressive with the rescues and still got accepted (tho as I said I ended up getting the best dog we’ve ever had from the pound, via a rescue network).

    Radley, I really love the work you do and admire that you get your dogs from rescues. Altho we (read: my wife) have got half our dogs from breeders, there is no excuse (not that anyone needs to be excused by me!) for getting a dog from a breeder (unless you get one via a group like Ridgeless Ridgeback Rescue, which moves the dogs breeders are going to kill). There are too many wonderful dogs already bred that need good homes.

    I am willing to look past the extremes in rescuers’ interrogations just as I am in Ron Paul letting racist essays get published in his newsletter. Neither defines the body of work that they do.

    When that noted political philosopher Rodney King said, “Why can’t we all just get along,” he was not saying we should all be perfect; he was saying why can’t we accept one another without beating up each other.

  44. #44 |  (B)oscoH | 

    @kant #41: I think you slightly miss the point. Returns are not to be avoided at all costs. If a dog does not work out, they are most definitely going to be accepted back. No questions and absolutely no pressure. What is to be avoided are people who want to come in with no sense of commitment and a high chance of returning the dog as if it were a shirt that didn’t quite match. Most of the dogs that end up in a breed-specific rescue are good to great dogs. The rescues don’t have capacity for all comers and are quite selective.

    Many rescues, especially those without kennel facilities and those branching out geographically to areas far from their kennel facilities will use networks of foster homes. If you want to “try some rescue dogs out”, becoming a foster home for a rescue is the right way to play that game, and the rescues generally don’t mind losing a foster home because they ended up placing a dog permanently there! Really, I ask about this point all the time. They couldn’t be happier when a foster converts to a real home. Usually, the rescue will ask you to deliver the dog for showing to the public once a week (like on a Saturday). But doing the foster thing also means that if you get a dog you don’t really like, you keep it until they find it a permanent home. I’ve got another dog that started as a foster from a different Boxer rescue. That foster situation lasted about two weeks until the order came to bring her to show one Saturday. Then she was officially a keeper. Heh.

    Bottom line to all this… Like just about any transactional situation, the reason the rescues do what to outsider might seem like strange shit, is (get ready for it), because they can. You may think it’s too weird and self-select out of getting one of these great dogs. But there are enough people competing in their silly process that they don’t need you if you’re not willing to play the game a little. The premise of the Slate article is pretty lame. If the way this tends to work bothers you, by all means, start a rescue that caters to people who won’t make a little bit of commitment. See how that works for you and the animals. Who know? It might be the model for rescues in a few years! Or it might be completely untenable.

  45. #45 |  EBL | 

    It is absolutely true about shelters and adoption of dogs. The restrictions are so over the top, I am sure they drive away lots of great homes for these dogs. Most of those people who leave go buy a dog from a breeder. So you loose is an adoptive person for a pet who needs a home.

  46. #46 |  George | 

    zywie, I agree that Humane Societies are rather easy in approving adoptions. It’s the smaller and more selective rescue groups that are more selective.

  47. #47 |  glasnost | 

    Of course it’s better for the residents of the nations in question for twitter to refuse to censor, and for Twitter to be banned in those countries. That creates a real penalty that is entirely that government’s fault. This then becomes leverage to motivate people to change that government.

    When governments threaten to block twitter entirely, or actually do it, they actually pay a price for their censorship. Crude and massive censorship is a painful thing to do, even for the people doing it. Very selective censorship is a lot less painful for the society, government, and etc doing it.

    And the price they pay motivates other people to force them to stop.

    Hard to see how anyone could see this any other way.

  48. #48 |  Erik | 

    On the Twitter thing….uhhh….never mind. I see glasnost took the words right off my fingertips.

  49. #49 |  World’s Strangest | Fine Art in The Simpsons | 

    […] Link -via The Agitator […]

  50. #50 |  John C. Randolph | 

    If I owned Twitter outright, I’d tell any government who wanted me to censor the site according to their demands to go pound sand, but I’d happily delete any post I didn’t like. Fans of the Ruling Party probably wouldn’t like me very much.


  51. #51 |  ParatrooperJJ | 

    The hair collected is the US is not even used for wigs. It’s too chemically processed. It’s sold and the proceeds are used to buy hair from countries that don’t wash their hair as often.

  52. #52 |  Homeboy | 

    “refuse to censor Tweets, [even if] those countries ban Twitter entirely[.]” Absolutely!

  53. #53 |  Ken | 

    We have rules

    Yet another reason why education should not be run by a government monopoly and should be privatized. When private schools enact dumbass policies customers leave, finding other school more amenable to their way of thinking. The threat of losing a revenue stream keeps private schools in line, whereas government monopolies could not give a shit about their customers since their revenue streams are guaranteed regardless of performance or overbearing policies.