Re: maybe it's better if he goes back to simply parroting Ty?
 

both my kids are now in college. i don't know how to get to translating stuff so you can get it. someday i bet i have grandkids!

Re: maybe it's better if he goes back to simply parroting Ty?
 

There is no meaningful downside, particularly here, where the chances of acquittal are zero.

You seem to think that not prosecuting him means we will get more information from him. Why?

Re: maybe it's better if he goes back to simply parroting Ty?
 

neither of us are in possession of any actual info. I'm simply asking you if giving this guy the rights we provide criminal defendants does not hurt information gathering from the guy, what is the point of those rights in the first place.

Re: maybe it's better if he goes back to simply parroting Ty?
 

To protect the wrongly accused and prevent inappropriate use of coercive power.

You really aren't this dense, are you?

Re: maybe it's better if he goes back to simply parroting Ty?
 

I accept the point you are trying to make. That said, I'm not sure what your alternative is.

Marching as to war.
 

Serious question -- did you think about this when Timothy McVeigh or Eric Rudolph was arrested? How about those guys shooting doctors who perform abortions or who bomb Planned Parenthood clinicss? Presumably the concern about giving terrorists a Miranda warning is that it would make it harder sometimes for the good guys to find out about the conspiracy that led to the attack. Wouldn't we also want to know who helped McVeigh or Rudolph?

Broadcast TV on Cable
 

Now that Fox, and presumably the others will soon follow, are succeeding in charging cable cos. money to retransmit their broadcasts on cable, should the taxpayers, who have provided the broadcast airwaves for free to the networks, get a cut of the action?

Re: maybe it's better if he goes back to simply parroting Ty?
 

Gatti is, indeed, a tough act to follow.

Re: Broadcast TV on Cable
 

Socialist fuck.

Short answers to longer questions.
 

Yes.

eta: Or perhaps those airwaves should just be auctioned to the highest bidder every so often. Roughly the same effect, no?

Re: Short answers to longer questions.
 

Yes. I wasn't figuring how the cut was made. An auction would be better than a tax I imagine, from an efficiency perspective. Of course, it's a bit odd because it's not a single national license, it's a series of local licenses that each are contractually bound to a network, so it's a bit more complicated.

Anyway, the point remains, TV airwaves should be given away for free, when those airwaves are being paid for by 90% of viewers (at least) in the form of cable fees.

Re: Short answers to longer questions.
 

Is there anything being "given" away in the case of airwaves? That is, does anyone other than the station spend anything to create the airwaves? It's just an exclusive license to use a given frequency, right?

Which is not to say that I have a view on the topic, to which I have given next to no thought.

Re: Short answers to longer questions.
 

What is real estate, other than an exclusive license to use a piece of land?

Re: Short answers to longer questions.
 

What Ty said, and to elaborate, there's an opportunity cost to granting a license for free, when others (whether cell cos. or potential broadcasters) would either pay for it or perhaps put it to better use than, say, some of the dreck NBC puts out.

How do you say "whoops" in Slovak?
 

Making TSA look good.