I would never trust a single human being on issues of this magnitude, so I'm more concerned about oversight than anything else. Here's one question you should consider: between McCain and Obama, who is more likely to nominate Supreme Court candidates who will rule unconstitutional overreaching laws passed by Congress? Based on the type of justices each candidate has said they would mold their decisions on (e.g., McCain basically said more Scalia's), I think the answer is Obama.

Here's another question: which party has a more vocal minority strongly against the FISA bill? The answer right now is the Democrats, lead by such members as Feingold and Dodd. Whose ear are Feingold and Dodd more likely to get next year? Obama's or McCain's?

I am a member of the ACLU, I support drug legalization, and I believe in full marriage equality, and yeah, Obama does not fall in line with me on these issues. But when I think about which environment will be more conducive to change in my preferred direction, my presidential choice is clear. I will vote for Obama, and then on day one of his presidency, I will fight against many of his policies. Welcome to the real world.

Saul Williams's Niggy Tardust isn't a mash-up, but the music and words are very high quality, and produced by Trent Reznor. They're offering it for download with a model that's even better than the recent Radiohead In Rainbows model:

http://niggytardust.com/saulwilliams/menu

Namely, you can grab the 160 kbps mp3s for free, or pay $5 and get 192, 320, or FLAC, your choice.

I'm not sure what this speaks more ill of: CNN or Boing Boing.

I'm pretty sure it's just the music that is Glass's - I doubt he's responsible for the actual animation.

Ha! That reminds me of a story about my mother, who was raised in Italy and never formally learned to write in English. A few years ago, I was home for the holidays and my mother was making a shopping list. One of the items she endearingly jotted down was: "I Can Believe in Butter" -- now *that's* a product I would buy!

Jack W:

Really classy that most of Taser Int.'s argument is made up of ad hominem attacks. They make no attempt to refute their aggressiveness in intimidating independent Taser research.

Jack W., read this:

http://crunchgear.com/2007/03/07/a-crunchgear-investigation-the-trouble-with-tasers-what-the-manufacturer-doesnt-want-you-to-know/

A nightstick is non-lethal, when used correctly.

"The issue is that whether it be pepper spray, or nightsticks, accidental deaths can still happen. But i'd prefer they use pepper spray over tazers."

But it's happened time and time again with Tasers -- this is why even Taser International doesn't consider it a non-lethal weapon (they call it a less lethal weapon). Unfortunately, police departments don't train their employees to treat it as such, and I would say that Taser International hasn't exactly pushed them to reexamine their policies.

RyanH: Tasers should not be used as a compliance tool. In this situation, using a taser was about equivalent as using a gun, and that's inappropriate. Unless the police were at physical risk of grave injury, they should've subdued him with other means.

Taser International needs to be investigated for the suppression of research that shows the lethality of Tasers as a tool of compliance. Police policies should treat Tasers nearly the same way as they treat guns. (I say "nearly" because Tasers should be used before guns in several situations.)