Home » Posts tagged with » america (Page 233)
Lieberman suggests media outlets could be prosecuted over WikiLeaks stories

Click here to view this media Sen. Joe Lieberman has said that the federal government has the right to shut down the whistleblowing website that released thousands of secret US documents and now the Connecticut senator has indicated that media outlets like The New York Times may be in danger too. Following the release of thousands of documents by government watchdog WikiLeaks, Lieberman told the Times that he wanted to use “all legal means” against the website. On Tuesday, the independent senator told Fox News’ Jenna Lee that the First Amendment may not even protect mainstream media outlets that publish documents obtained by WikiLeaks. “Julian Assange has written an editorial that points out or characterizes his organization as an underdog in the media world,” Lee noted. “He’s saying he’s a journalist, and he’s just providing information out there for the world citizens to see. He mentions that organizations like The New York Times have published his information which you’re classifying as state secret. So, are other media outlets that have posted what WikiLeaks has put out there also culpable in this and could be charged with something?” “I have said that I believe the question you’re raising is a serious legal question that has to be answered,” Lieberman replied. “In other words, this is very sensitive stuff because it gets into the America’s First Amendment. But if you go from the initial crime, Private Manning charged with the crime of stealing these classified documents, he gives them to WikiLeaks, I certainly believe that that’s a — WikiLeaks has violated the espionage act,” he said. “But then what about the news organizations, including the Times , that accepted it and distributed it? I know they say they deleted some of it, but I’m not here to make a final judgment on that,” Lieberman continued. “But to me New York Times has committed at least an act of bad citizenship. And whether they’ve committed a crime, I think that bears very intensive inquiry by the Justice Department,” he added. Lieberman’s position seems to be a slight change from last week, when he said the Times should not be prosecuted. “I don’t know if you can prosecute the Times under existing Supreme Court decisions,” he told Fox Business News’ Don Imus . “But I’ll tell you this, I wish the Times, just as an act of citizenship had said, ‘No, we’re not going to publish this stuff because it’s going to do the country damage,’” he said “You know, The New York Times , afterall, is The New York Times with all its stature and I wish this stuff had appeared somewhere else. I wouldn’t be for prosecuting the Times, but I would say I wish they had shown better citizenship.”

Continue reading …
President Obama lashes out at his liberal critics: Choice is to ‘get things done’ or feel ‘sanctimonious’

Click here to view this media Well, President Obama’s press conference today, defending his deal on the Bush tax cuts, won’t exactly do much to mollify the people who, you know, actually voted for him in 2008. Especially this part: You know, so this notion that somehow we are willing to compromise too much reminds me of the debate that we had during health care. This is the public option debate all over again. So I pass a signature piece of legislation where we finally get health care for all Americans — something that Democrats have been fighting for for a hundred years — but because there was a provision in there that they didn’t get, that would’ve affected maybe a couple million people, even though we got health insurance for 30 million people, and the potential for lower premiums for a hundred million people, that somehow that was a sign of weakness and compromise. Now, if that’s the standard by which we are measuring success or core principles, then let’s face it, we will never get anything done. People will have the satisfaction of having a purist position and no victories for the American people. And we will be able to feel good about ourselves and sanctimonious about how pure our intentions are, and how tough we are — and in the meantime, the American people are still seeing themselves not able to get health insurance because of pre-existing conditions. Or not being able to pay their bills because their unemployment insurance ran out. That can’t be the measure of how we think about our public service. It’s clear that Obama is not speaking to his base here — rather, he’s only saying things that are certain to piss them off and demoralize them. He is, however, making his case to the larger media-consuming public, and particularly the Beltway Village, who buy rather easily into the notion that hippies need punching. It’s actually probably a smart short-term strategy, because it means there will be relatively little media blowback, since the pundit class will be on his side here. Long term? Well, we’ll see how willing the troops are to come out and re-elect somebody who’s been beating up on them publicly for the previous four years come 2012. Alex Pareene at Salon observes: While congressional Democrats are to blame for putting Obama in this position, and Obama’s hands were basically tied, he continues to imagine that his liberal critics are upset with the idea that compromises need to be made in order to accomplish progressive policy goals. Some of them are that stupid. But lots of them are actually critics of White House’s legislative strategy, and their apparent willingness to preemptively compromise before the negotiations have already begun. We’ll have the transcript up when it’s available.

Continue reading …
Visa clears DeviceFidelity’s In2Pay mobile payment microSD card for use in smartphones

No iPhone? No problem. If you’ll recall, we heard back in May that Visa was in cahoots with DeviceFidelity , with the two trumpeting a not-exactly-svelte In2Pay case that would add contactless payment support to Apple’s darling. Today, the rest of the world is finally being taken into consideration. The aforementioned firms have just cleared a new In2Pay microSD solution for use in the real world, with the BlackBerry Bold 9650 and the Samsung Vibrant in particular named as compatible. In theory, it seems that nearly any smartphone with a microSD slot could be ushered into the arena, and Visa itself expects to add additional phone models for use with this technology, “including phones based on the Symbian and Windows operating systems.” This unveiling is happening after a solid 18 months of testing around the globe, but there’s no definitive word on which banks will be offering this to customers. Between this and the sudden interest in NFC , America seems more poised than ever before to slip ever further into an endless pool of debt, and with way less friction than before! We kid, we kid… kind of. Continue reading Visa clears DeviceFidelity’s In2Pay mobile payment microSD card for use in smartphones Visa clears DeviceFidelity’s In2Pay mobile payment microSD card for use in smartphones originally appeared on Engadget on Tue, 07 Dec 2010 10:56:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds . Permalink

Continue reading …
Today in History for December 7th

On this date in 1941, Japanese forces attack the home base of the US Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii – prompting America under President Franklin D. Roosevelt to enter World War II. (Dec. 7)

Continue reading …

On Monday's edition of The View, Condi Rice appeared as a guest co-host, and Joy Behar began by asking: “I have a question for you. I'm invited to the White House Christmas party this Friday. I'm very excited. I've never been before. [Applause] And I was wondering if you could tell me what I'm supposed to like, know.” We've come quite a way from Behar sneered about Rice that “she's drunk the Kool-Aid.” Rice drew some notice for saying Team Obama needs to get the lead out on the WikiLeaks issue before America looks like a “paper tiger.” Whoopi Goldberg asked about the talk that Julian Assange has a “doomsday file” to release if anyone gets their hands on him: GOLDBERG: That to me sort of sounds like a terrorist. Cause that's what terrorists seem to do. Try to hold countries hostage in fear. Am I crazy or just being nutty? read more

Continue reading …
Today in History for December 6th

Jefferson Davis dies in New Orleans; Four people die at a free Rolling Stones concert at the Altamont Speedway in Livermore, California; America’s first attempt to put a satellite into orbit fails; Jazz pianist Dave Brubeck is born. (Dec. 6)

Continue reading …
Crowley: Political Leaders Should Listen to Deficit Commission Even if Voters Hate Their Recommendations

Click here to view this media While discussing America’s current economic situation and whether voters think it’s going to improve or not on CNN’s Your Money, panel member Candy Crowley made this bizarre statement as to how our political leadership should react to the recommendations from the Catfood commission’s co-chairs, Simpson and Bowles. CROWLEY: Well, they’re going to try next year. I mean, here’s the problem. Everybody talks about reducing the debt and reducing the deficit, which are two separate things. But nonetheless, we’ve had this debt commission come and say, well, here’s how you do it. And there’s just three big ticket items, right? Federally funded health care, the Pentagon and Social Security. Well, you know, what you need here are three politicians, the Speaker, the Majority Leader in the Senate, and the president who don’t care about re-election to kind of try to lead this. Because when you look at all the polling, the public is not for cutting any of those or changing the benefits. MARTIN: There you go. CROWLEY: And you can’t get to it any other way. First of all, since when do any politicians not care about being reelected? Sadly it seems to be all they care about too often and raising money to do it rather than looking after their constituents. Second, the “everybody” that’s obsessed with deficit reduction are not the American voters, but our beltway Villagers and the politicians who have decided to use this opportunity for some good old Shock Doctrine type changes to our social safety nets. Next we get Crowley saying we need to address “federally funded health care”, by which I assume she means Medicaid. Of course no mention there that the reason it is so expensive is the government is paying for the oldest and sickest patients while the insurance companies get to make a profit off of the rest of us and how opening that system up to everyone would make it viable and allow the rest of us to quit making the insurance company CEO’s rich. And I’d love to know what polls she’s looking at that say voters don’t want any cuts to the Pentagon and how they were worded. Since spending on the military and defense have more or less been used as a jobs program it would not surprise me to see polling that suggested voters did not want specific programs cut that benefited their areas of the country economically. Our military industrial complex has made sure that the benefits of keeping it in place are spread around to as many Congressional districts as possible intentionally so there’s never enough wide spread opposition to different programs to see the hatchet come down on that budget. And last of all, Crowley admits that making cuts to Social Security might be political suicide for anyone that does it, but thinks it’s some sign of leadership that any of them are willing to do it. And what is absent in her argument here? Increasing taxes to keep Social Security solvent past 2037 and the fact that Democrats are acting like scared sheep on tax increases to make that argument and lacking the leadership to be honest about what would fix it without inflicting the pain on the working class. She also more or less admits that Social Security is not a part of the problem with the deficit but conflates the issue so badly with her doublespeak on deficit and debt and what’s actually contributing to the problem with the federal budget that most of the viewers would not realize that after listening to her. Why Crowley is even a part of a discussion on economics on this show in the first place is beyond me, but I could say the same thing about the rest of them as well. Sadly this is the type of discussion which happens day after day on our cable “news” shows that do little or nothing to inform the public of what’s needed to get our economy growing again, which is to start making the rich pay their fair share in taxes, quit rewarding companies for outsourcing jobs, level the playing field for American workers with our trade laws and do something to reverse the trend where the the upper 1% control all of the wealth in America. I’m all for tax cuts for corporations that get rewarded for actually putting Americans back to work and not shipping our jobs overseas or just fleecing the public like our insurance industries. This ended up being just another really dishonest discussion about what’s causing our economic woes and what to do to fix them that we’re sadly seeing day after day by our chattering class in the media. Full transcript from CNN of the exchange above. MARTIN: The bottom line is – what I keep going back to, you can’t sit here and keep talking about deficit, deficit, deficit when the tax cuts speak to increasing the deficit. And then you say but keep the tax cuts will also cut the deficits. VELSHI: Unless – unless – interesting point that you both are making. Candy, unless there’s only one way to cut taxes and cut the deficit at the same time and that is with economic growth. If this – if this – MOORE: That’s right. VELSHI: — economy were to grow faster than it’s growing right now, you can have your cake and eat it, too, but it’s not. So this puts everybody in Washington into a difficult and precarious position. I mean, Roland makes the point, Candy, that it’s a percent or two percent of the population but it’s disproportionately a job creating one or two percent. So how do you square the circle? CROWLEY: Well, they’re going to try next year. I mean, here’s the problem. Everybody talks about reducing the debt and reducing the deficit, which are two separate things. But nonetheless, we’ve had this debt commission come and say, well, here’s how you do it. And there’s just three big ticket items, right? Federally funded health care, the Pentagon and Social Security. Well, you know, what you need here are three politicians, the Speaker, the Majority Leader in the Senate, and the president who don’t care about re-election to kind of try to lead this. Because when you look at all the polling, the public is not for cutting any of those or changing the benefits. MARTIN: There you go. CROWLEY: And you can’t get to it any other way. MARTIN: And, Ali – and, Ali, a critical point – MOORE: And, Ali, can I – VELSHI: Stephen, go ahead. MARTIN: – we also see when it comes to these politicians as well, and that is you now have all the politicians who keep saying Washington can’t create jobs. And so think about it. We keep saying what will Washington do, when we just saw an election where we have all of the people saying – VELSHI: All right. MARTIN: Washington can’t create jobs. OK. Then what is it? VELSHI: And, Stephen, last word on that. MOORE: The last word, this is a personal finance show, YOUR $$$$$. One of the things people have to realize, if we don’t get this tax issue resolved in the next week or so, that everyone’s taxes, not just rich people, Ali, on January 1st go up. And for a middle class family, you’re talking about $2,000 or $3,000 more per year. The IRS, by the way, says they’re not – they don’t have time now to change the tax forms. MARTIN: Two-fifty and less. That’s the answer, Steve. VELSHI: All right, guys. MOORE: You can’t shake it from there, Roland. VELSHI: Good discussion. Thank you, all of you. Thanks, Candy – MARTIN: That means your taxes and my taxes will go up, Steve. VELSHI: — and Roland and Stephen.

Continue reading …

While the “objective” network newscasts strenuously sought to hornswoggle the public into thinking everyone in Washington was sympathetic to unethical tax-evading liberal Rep. Charlie Rangel getting censured on the House floor for 45 seconds, CNN's Parker Spitzer asked about Rangel on Thursday night and received a dissenting blast from sports journalist Stephen A. Smith, who called him an “absolute disgrace” and said “I'm done with him.” Former Air America host Sam Seder, so enraged by the corruption of the Bushies, was just as partisan in insisting Rangel didn't commit a crime and shouldn't receive a censure and was “open with the committee.” Eliot Spitzer didn't want to dwell too long on the ethical-politician subject: SPITZER: All right, guys. Does he persuade you? Should Charlie be shown the exit or has Charlie persuaded you he deserves to continue on fighting for central Harlem? SMITH: Well, I'm not going to sit there and say he deserves to be shown the exit, but he certainly hasn't convinced me. I think it's an absolute disgrace that he, of all people, conducted himself in this fashion. read more

Continue reading …
Kathleen Parker and John Avlon Want You to Believe They’re ‘Centrists’

Click here to view this media You’ve just got to love the framing they used for this segment from CNN’s Parker/Spitzer earlier this week — Can a centrist movement in the U.S. succeed or is it too ‘mushy’ to hold up? This just smells of more Republican re-branding with some of the so-called Republican “moderates” wanting to distance themselves from the teabirchers that have taken over their party. They may have done well during the mid-term elections just catering to their base, but that’s not going to work so well in 2012. Former Rudy Giuliani staffer John Avlon’s been pushing this nonsense for some time now, but as Karoli pointed out last week , there’s a new group jumping on his bandwagon as well. Kathleen Parker never mentioned the “No Labels” group during the segment, but it may as well have been an infomercial for them by Parker and Avlon. It’s really a shame that Thomas Frank wasn’t allowed to speak more to counter Avlon’s talking points. Kathleen Parker and John Avlon can put all of the “mushy middle”, “we’re a center-right country”, bipartisan spin on this they want. It’s not going to change the fact that they’re both a couple of right wingers. There’s not a lick of difference between their economic policy positions and those of Dick Armey and the Koch brothers. CNN’s off air interview with Frank looked a lot more interesting than listening to Avlon’s claptrap about how voters just really want all the bickering to stop and for our politicians to all just get along, which is doublespeak demanding Democratic capitulation. Q: If we could arrange a private conversation between you and Rep. John Boehner, what would you say to him? FRANK: I was struck by his line about Democrats “snuffing out the America that I grew up in.” It’s a charge that I frequently apply to conservatives, who have so resolutely smashed the middle-class society where I grew up in favor of a nation that is heaven on earth for the very rich—and an endless, losing struggle for working people. It’s also something I often say about market forces generally, which are the most radical and disruptive cultural influences I know of. Conservatives always claim to love the market and to deplore what’s happening in “the culture,” but they never explain how they can hold these two views at the same time. Wouldn’t it be great to have John Boehner himself sort out these things out for us? I’m also always been impressed by his luminous neckties, and I would of course tell him so. Q: What credit do you give the Tea Party for changing American politics at this moment? FRANK: They demonstrated two important things: – That the supposed power of centrism is in fact just a comforting beltway fairytale. That the “median voter” doesn’t really determine things. That politics really is a battle of small, committed groups—and also of money. – That there’s a place in politics for class-based discontent. That conservatives can speak to that emotion just as readily as liberals can. And that if liberals don’t understand this—if they just blow it off on the grounds that working-class people will always vote for Democrats because duh—that they will keep losing, and they will deserve to lose. Q:As you get older, do you find yourself becoming more or less liberal? FRANK: Not speaking strictly for myself here, but what I find people outgrow isn’t liberalism per se, it’s the tendency to treat politics like a branch of aesthetics, where what matters are gestures and what you’re after—the object of politics—is a demonstration of your originality and your surpassing cleverness. When you get older you realize how impotent that approach is, and you also understand the disastrous consequences things like, say, banking deregulation have for people. Full transcript of the clip above below the fold. PARKER: Earlier this year, I used my syndicated column to declare myself a centrist, someone who is politically anti- ideological. And it seems I’m not alone. Political independents, those neither right or left that smack dab in the broad middle, today, constitutes 42 percent of the electorate. Of course, now I’m wondering — can a centrist movement succeed? SPITZER: Tonight’s “Constitution Avenue” guests have different answers to the viability of the political center, Thomas Frank satirically calls it the magic middle. Meanwhile, CNN contributor John Avlon literally wrote a book that what he calls the vital center. Welcome, gentlemen. Let me begin to this by asking, what is the middle? How do you define it? What does it really stand for? JOHN AVLON, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: I think the vast of the majority of Americans are non-ideological problem-solvers and they really distrust the absolutism our politics has started to come up with and the polarization of the two parties, the fact that the extremes have effectively hijacked our political debate and increasingly our government. And there’s a commonsense resentment of that approach to politics. SPITZER: All of which sounds wonderful and it’s almost impossible to disagree with that impure concept, but obviously, you think it doesn’t really translate into politics day to day. Why not? THOMAS FRANK, WALL STREET JOURNAL: I live in Washington, D.C., and when you — SPITZER: You can start your argument right there. (CROSSTALK) FRANK: To hell with that place. But, look, in Washington, D.C., centrism means, what John just said, that sounds so noble. You know, I don’t know anybody that wouldn’t sound of that. A practical problem solver, that’s me. PARKER: It is noble. It’s wonderful. (CROSSTALK) FRANK: But that’s not what they mean by that term in Washington, D.C. What they mean by that term in Washington, D.C., is this place — and there is only — by the way, the definition I’m going to give you is only something that is believed in two parts of American life. One is the sort of punditocracy in Washington, D.C., maybe here in New York as well. Present companies clearly — (CROSSTALK) FRANK: And then the others in political science departments of the nation. PARKER: I’m going say something here. Talking about centrism in Washington is irrelevant, OK? Washington, as you say, it’s an industry town. If you’re not one thing or another, centrists are just this mushy middle people who don’t have any thoughts or any ideas. No ideology. Exactly. We don’t have an ideology because we’re anti- ideology. SPITZER: Now, I want to pick up on something that Thomas said before, which I think is exactly right. In fact, the Democratic Party has been very much in that middle and it’s the Republican Party that’s moved to the right. And I want to use one example, which is — the example that’s on the table, is the problem with the mechanics. But I want to talk about the issue that’s on the table today — the tax cut. FRANK: Yes. SPITZER: The Democratic Party is saying give a tax cut to everybody below $250,000. Point to $500,000, nobody would be terribly upset. But 65 percent of the American public believes that. The Republican Party is holding us hostage in opposition. So, answer to Thomas’ point, isn’t the Democratic Party kind of where that center is on that one critical issue? PARKER: John, you absolutely have an answer for this and I want to you say it. AVLON: Good. Here’s the issue. The Republican Party is dominated by the far right. They think tax cuts is theology. It used to be that fiscal conservatism was synonymous to fiscal responsibility. That’s stop the case during the 1990s and 2000, when all of a sudden, it was supply side no matter what. The Democratic Party has an opportunity here if they own that. FRANK: The conservative movement has a motto. I’m not a conservative. You guys know that. I’m pretty liberal but I admire the conservatives in all sort of ways and one of them is they have this great — PARKER: Somehow, I think this is going to be an insult. FRANK: What is a conservative movement about? You remember Howard Phillips (ph), the conservative caucus? SPITZER: Oh, yes. FRANK: He’s saying way back when, in the late ’70s, early ’80s, we organize discontent, OK? There is — that is the attitude that got the mood of the country exactly right this year. AVLON: That is the attitude behind conservative populism and far left populism. And there are people who want politics to simply be a mirror of that. And I think a lot of folks here on the far right who say, you know, as you’ve written in the past, that bipartisanship is the most perfunctory kind of campaign rhetoric, there are people on the far right who believe that, too. To play to their base crowd, the Karl Roves that believe — (CROSSTALK) AVLON: Well, not in the current context. Base politics that helped create the problem as a country. The 2010 election happened because it is — as you know — it’s a low-turnout, high intensity election. And because we’re a center- right country, if Republicans play to the base and got conservative populist outrage, especially in the time of economic downturn, they wouldn’t be able to get across. SPITZER: But here’s where the Democrats got it wrong and I’m with you on this. The Democratic Party by so degrading its ideology, stood for nothing. It was mush. Mush does not win. You need to stand for something. (CROSSTALK) SPITZER: They stood for such a Malcolm of nothing that nobody could stand up and say, I’m supportive because of X. But the Tea Party crafted an ideology, crazy as it may be, people could carry their pitchfork and feel good about it. (CROSSTALK) PARKER: You know what? You talk about people being angry. They are also angry about the pitchforks. They are tired of the partisan bickering. They may not be able to articulate a position on every single issue, which is what you want everyone to do, they want to say all they say is — OK, that’s the left, I’m not that. They see the Sarah Palin brigade on the right, they say, I’m not that. So, that leaves this is broad center where people are looking for a place to land, right? SPITZER: You go first. You’re just inching to get in there. AVLON: Look, we’ve got to plant a flag from the center. We need to stand for something. We need to play offense. That’s been part of the problem, how we’ve allowed extremes to hijack our politics here. But the problem in the whole debate right now is that 93 percent of the American people in a poll by “The Wall Street Journal” and NBC said that they’re tired. I think there’s too much partisan infighting in Washington. And the problem is that the elites — UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That’s true. AVLON: But the elites in Washington seem to think that 93 percent of the Americans are stupid. They seem to think that they don’t really know what they want. And there’s an academic group on the far left that always seems to think that the American people would vote socialist if they only knew how. SPITZER: By the way, John, here’s the thing. I think the Democratic Party if you understood it is in the middle. They just haven’t managed to stand up and speak with enough fervor, excitement and energy to say, having — AVLON: Bill Clinton. SPITZER: Bill Clinton did, but I’m talking about the past couple of years. Having been in that game for a little while, and I did OK for some period of time, you do it with a passion and you say whether it’s Wall Street, whether it’s the environment, whether it’s the middle class, just do it with some energy and some passion. AVLON: I agree. SPITZER: And then people will forgive you having an argument with the other side because they know they’re with you. It’s when you don’t stand for anything other than Bush that they run to people who do. FRANK: Partisanship is one of the most disgusting things when you move to Washington, D.C., and you behold it first had and it’s like you have a Republican kick ball team in the Democrat. AVLON: Right. FRANK: It’s ridiculous and they have fistfights at keggers (ph). It’s idiotic. AVLON: Yes. FRANK: That doesn’t mean that the ideas are bad. And look, the problem is the conservative movement did a very, very good job this time around of expressing itself as a movement of the disenfranchised and reaching out to anger across the board, anti-Washington, anti- partisan anger, and the Democrats are like, but we’re the party of reason. AVLON: — will not do as well. Here’s the thing. We’re a center right country. (CROSSTALK) FRANK: No, no, no. PARKER: Ding, ding, ding, ding. I’m sorry, we do have to wrap up. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All right. PARKER: But before we go, let me just say this. Nobody can argue that a debate about centrism is boring. And I was going to ask you, I know you said you want to be aggressively centrist. And I thought for a while that might be an oxymoron. AVLON: No. PARKER: But you have proved that it is not. AVLON: There you go. SPITZER: All right. AVLON: Pulling off from the center. SPITZER: Thomas Frank, John Avlon, thank you for helping me effectively abolish the mushy center. It doesn’t exist anymore. PARKER: Wrong, wrong, Eliot. SPITZER: You can be mushy. I’m not going to be mushy. PARKER: Not going to be mushy. SPITZER: No.

Continue reading …
Street View Shocker! Google pays Boring couple $1 for trespassing

It’s hardly a surprise that there’s a cadre of individuals who aren’t too fond of Google’s seemingly omnipresent Street View fleet, but the ending of this dispute is downright absurd. Back in 2008, Aaron and Christine Boring were looking for a little excitement , and decided to find it in a courtroom; the duo sued Google for trespassing on their property while collecting photographs for Street View. According to them, Google’s Street View car ignored the “No Trespassing” sign planted out front, and while they noted that that would’ve accepted a simple apology letter , they had no qualms pushing for damages when that wish fell upon deaf ears. The payout? A single dollar. Let’s repeat that: 100 pennies. A buck. Barely enough to buy a Whopper Jr. in Portland, and definitely not enough to do so across the way in Vancouver. We suspect both parties are eager to put the whole mess behind ‘em, but if you’ve been looking for a story to prove that America actually isn’t as aimlessly litigious as the world thinks they are… well, this one ain’t it. Street View Shocker! Google pays Boring couple $1 for trespassing originally appeared on Engadget on Sat, 04 Dec 2010 20:43:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds . Permalink

Continue reading …