The unfortunate fact is that with the rise of more hacking groups and their attacks on corporations/governments/etc, the continued problems with home grown extremists using the net and the eventual realization by people in power that disruptions can cause serious economic issues, it's probably a matter of time before other countries start getting in line to do the same thing.

Wild lands are wild until someone figures out a reason why they should tame it, then order is enforced by whatever means are deemed necessary. A sad fact, to be sure, but something that could be frighteningly inevitable.

Don't think it was, since he had more then enough votes to get rid of it between the Democratic senators and Republicans who were being pushed towards libretarianism at the time.  Plus it's not like he's exactly shown restraint in areas that are fully in his purveiw.

Though really the alternative is worse don't you think?  Since that just means, he really does was FISA.

Seems more likely the case, what with him going above and beyond bush in civil liberties abuse.

He just lobbied for that strip search ruling for example... that almost nobody knows about, because it was a Democratic President who lobbied for it.

Fans of Civil Liberties are better off with Republicans are in power, because then when our civil liberties are intruded opon, at least one of the poltiical parties bitches about it.   Unlike with Obama where Democrats say nothing.   Well outside Dennis Kusinich, but he's gone soon. 

Just leaves Ron Paul.

One of the good things about the "Ron Paul Revolution" is that it's put quite a few Libertarian minded folks into state-level positions at the GOP, while the Libertarian movement won't have a replacement for Ron at the top of the system for quite some time, at least they now have a stronger footholding in the bottom of the political pyramid.

I do worry about the strength of the Libertarian message, though. I mean they keep going on about how they won the "youth voters" which means big things for the future... but didn't Obama get the youth vote last time? Seems to me that the youth vote might be less about policy, and more about who's better with social media. But, hopefully, I'm wrong.

Here's my problem with the British media: there is no non-establishment broadcast. While there may be no obvious left-right wing bias, it is very clear that the media in the UK pumps out a very mainstream message. This is probably due to the fact that most of our media (by which, I mean the BBC) is filled with ex-establishment employees, and probably vice versa.

I personally worry that the BBC is one of the main reasons behind this country's "sacred cows". The BBC seems to pump out so much pro-NHS propaganda, with semi-pro-EU, and other biases (ever noticed how the British media just works on the assumption that Al Gore was 100% right about global warming, and that if we don't switch our lights off, we'll be kayaking to work in a few years?), and it reaches everbody, subtley.

As an aside to the Americans who envy our BBC. They ignore Ron Paul in the American Election coverage just as much as your guys do. Perhaps the idea that the Government doesn't have to do everything is something that goes against our media's mantra.

I still believe BBC News is unbiased as much as it can be. I have seen some examples of bad coverage but I think they were genuine mistakes rather than conspiracy to project a certain worldview.

It's unbiased in the traditional sense of left/right wing. But, like I said, it is inherintly biased towards the establishment. I mean, look at healthcare: how many times have you ever seen somebody on the BBC talking about a no-Government approach to healthcare? I've personally never seen it. What I have seen, however, is several documentaries showing us how bad "private" care is in the USA.

It's not hard to understand why they're like this. Look at the incentives of the institution, they're financially based on a legally-mandated tv license. There's no way in hell a truly small Government party would ever support that. Most journalists (not just BBC) also go through the University system, where lectures are given, more often than not, by ex-establishment people. Many lecturers who teach politics and international relations, and to a lesser extent, economics and history, have come from jobs within Government organisations. So, while the line they give may not be biased towards a party, they are biased towards the establishment. And nobody notices because the media they've consumed all their lives has also been the same - separating "party issues" (unimportant window dressing), from the core of the establishment.

Well, of course it is. Young people are fucking stupid. The only part of the Ron Paul message they're into is legalized pot. There is zero chance of them picking freedom over Obama's promises of "free shit" and "moar free shit" in a general election.

But when that happens it's no longer news - the news has to be objective by definition (Ofcom knows this and enforces it)

If you want opinion, read a newspaper (or opinion-paper as they should be called in Britain), go on internet forums, or watch opinion programmes - like The Big Questions on BBC One.

Isn't that just the EU-Directive they are puting in motion? We here in Austria have the same since 1st April...

And it's not like they are saying in the first minutes of the vid... they don't get access to your E-Mail (at least to the EU-Directive) they just need to save from which IP you send your E-Mail to which E-Mail account. Same goes for internet traffic... they will just have to save which site you have visited and when... they are not allowed to store any communication you made on the site, just that you communicated... (I really don't know how far the UK-Law goes, but that is what has to be done according to the EU-Directive)

EDIT: Base difference here is: Earlier Service Providers(SP) only needed to save that data when a judge ordered the SP to do so, now the SP has to do it on itself for 6-24 months (EU-Directive again^^)

I agree completely. I have never understood some people's love affair with the BBC.

Obviously, compared to the Daily Mail and the Sun and such, it's a paragon of journalism, but no respectable service should be comparing itself to those two. It honestly tries so hard to avoid left-right wing bias that it pretty much, as you said, just goes along with whatever the majority appears to think (because it's impossible to have no bias at all).

The Telegraph used to be a great paper, and it's now a women's magazine. I can objectively appreciate the Guardian and Independent, but they're filled with idealist nonsense, and the Times is owned by Rupert Murdoch and I have trouble accepting what it says.

The Economist is really the only good "newspaper" left to us. Do you read it?