I just spend two hours of my life fighting Charter Communications, trying to accomplish the simple task of updating my credit card information.

About a month ago, someone acquired my credit card number and made several fraudulent charges. (That is "identity theft".) My bank (USAA) was on the ball. They called me within hours of the fraudulent charges to confirm that they were invalid. I confirmed that they were fraudulent, my card was canceled, and within a few days had a new card. Great.

Of course, at this exact same time, I started moving to a new house. So updating all of the places with recurring charges slipped my mind. I dealt with them as the individual companies had the number bounce. Each one sent me a polite email asking to promptly update their records, and I did.

Then Charter contacted me. They did by sending a letter asking me to update my records. Oh, and letting me know they would be charging me a "$25.00 processing fee for the returned payment."

Assholes.

Fine. Okay, strictly speaking that was the terms of the auto pay. (Oddly, if I had been paying by check and simply failed to pay, I believe the late payment penalty is much smaller. Way to encourage your long-standing customers to set up automatic payments, idiots.) I'll take my lumps. I'll just use the web site and...

Oops, I never created an account. No problem, I'll set one up now. So I plug in my account number and security code. Account found. It asks me to pick a username, password, and the like. Great. Submit and...

An account has already been created.

Well, I must have created an account and forgotten about it. I'm usually really good about keeping track of that sort of thing, but no problem. I'll just ask the system to find my login name. Let's see how do I do that? I have to contact customer service. Annoying. Well, I'll try the online service. It takes a few minutes to get a representative, but at least there is no hold music. I spend ten or so minutes chatting with the person, and they have no idea what's wrong. They tell me to call the number. Fine. Onto the phone I go.

The nice woman on the phone has some problems. My account is listed as disconnected. That's no good. Fortunately we quickly sort it out: instead of transferring my existing account to the new address, my old account was closed and a new account opened. She helpfully gives me my new account number and security code. I plug them into the web site and...

My account number is too short. She's given me a 12 digit number, and the web site wants a 16 digit number. She has no idea what is going on. She has me try adding four zeroes to the front, four to the end, two to each side. It doesn't work. She tries from her end. Nothing works. She checks some other things. She has me retry the zeroes again; it still doesn't work.

At this point I've been on the phone for 20 minutes. She decides she needs to transfer me to the next level of support. But first... she tries to convince me to upgrade to digital cable. I've been on the phone for 20 minutes, you haven't solved my problem, and you want to ask for more money? No, I don't think so. (Strictly speaking she was offering my digital cable at a cheaper price. For a year, then the price shoots up dramatically. I've had this conversation before. I even did it once a few years ago. Turned out the hassle of returning the digital box and canceling the service wasn't worth saving a few bucks over a year.)

It takes the women three minutes to transfer me, but eventually I make it. The new woman doesn't clearly explain what is going on, but apparently something needs to be set up. She confirms my security code for security reasons. I have this handy, since the woman I was just speaking to gave it to me! The second woman does some magic and gives me a 16 digit number. Victory! I plug it into the web site and...

It's still angry. It still wants a 16 digit number. It doesn't care that I've given it a 16 digit number. I have angered it and it refuses to be appeased.

After failing at this for a while, the second woman decides to create the account on my behalf. Fine. First, she asks for my security code again. You know, just in case someone else snuck in in the last few minutes. Well, I still have it. She essentially reads me the fields on the web page, I give her answers, and she fills in the site. It works. I end up with a username and password. I log in successfully. Victory! I thank her. She tries to upsell me again (I think not), and after 38 minutes, I hang up.

As expected, Charter's web site says I have an outstanding balance. I click to set up autopay, and get sent to an external site. Fine. I enter in my new credit card number, hit submit and...

Not enough digits! Is this demon of not enough digits following me around!? This is is easy. It's a credit card number. 16 digits. The site wants 16 digits, I entered 16. The stupid little form designed by chimpanzees only accepted 16 digits. I triple checked.

Fine. Let's just try and pay the outstanding bill. This time it inexplicable accepts the exact same credit card number. It asks me to confirm my bill for...

$0.00. Nothing? Moments before you wanted a big pile of money. What's up. I go back to Charter and check. Yup, they want a bunch of money. Try to pay and the balance jumps to $0.00. After a bit of investigation, I notice that while Charter's web site is using my new account number, the bill paying site is using my old account number. The old account is closed, so it has a zero balance. I can't pay my bill using the web site.

Well, at least I can update my address and phone number. Except nothing on the Charter web site appears to let me change my address or phone number. Fortunately, if I go to the billing section, which is the second company, there is a link suggesting I can update my address and phone number. I click it and... am back at Charter's Profile page which doesn't let me change my address and phone number.

Fine. I try paying by phone. I call in. It asks for my phone number. I enter my phone number. It tells me my balance and asks me to press 1 if I want to pay. Sure enough. 1. It asks for my phone number. That's... odd. I enter my phone number. It tells me my balance. Wait, what? Have I found a glitch in the Matrix? It asks if I'd like to enter a credit card number. Oh, please yes. I punch in a bunch more numbers and my bill is finally paid!

Of course, I still need to change my address and phone number, so once more back to a customer service representative. Third time is not the charm; this woman has a thick accent and I have problems understanding her. But we eventually work out setting up autopay and updating my information.

Total elapsed time: about two hours.

I should have known better. My last attempt at dealing with customer service was similarly incompetent. As we spoke, I kept thinking, "Hmmm, I hear setting up a satellite dish isn't that hard" and "I wonder how well the Tivo will work with a satellite tuner box?"

If you're on the fence between Charter and some other option, consider this a reasonably strong vote against Charter. Their support is incompetent.

(Oddly, the local techs I occasionally see are almost uniformly friend, skilled, and professional. I have no complaints for my last five or so years of in-person service men.)

I'm written before about how Copperfield is now an egomaniacal blowhard. He's just phoning it in. But I now know that he's a copyright bully. Check out this fine YouTube video...

Oops, it's gone, because Copperfield claims copyright on it. Okay, maybe they just copied his video. Maybe there is a copyright claim and these are just scum. Except, you can still find the video...

If that doesn't work go here.

Not a single frame of video from the original trick. Copperfield has no copyright claim. This scum abused copyright to keep the secret of his trick. Sorry David, suck it up. Tricks get revealed. It must be doubly embarrassing because these are magicians, nor did they get the information from a leak. No, they just studied the trick and deduced what must have happened. But Copperfield has lawyers. He's apparently scared the Trickbusters into removing all references to his tricks. (If you search online, you can find their analysis of several of his tricks.)

David Copperfield is scum.

Fortunately I don't recommend his shows anyway. Mac King is more fun and cheaper. And I'm optimistic about Spencers: Theatre of Illusion, who Eva and I will be seeing tomorrow.

I love The Princess Bride. I first saw the movie as a kid and loved it's simple, magical story. It's aged well and I still enjoy watching it every few years. As an adult I found the novel, a grimmer tale wrapped in a decidedly dark framing story. I loved it too. So I was excited to hear that a video game was coming out. The game is now out. And it's utter garbage.

Demos of three of the five minigames are available online. What do we get? The exciting adventure in the Fire Swap has been turned into a mediocre platformer. Having tiny versions of Buttercup and Westley jump around on platforms doesn't really seem to capture anything about the movie. Matching wits with Vizzini is a trivia game about the movie. Who knew that Vizzini's keen mind turned to asking questions about what metal a crown is made of. For bonus points, there are ambigious questions. "If two people are holding a clock, how many hands are on the clock." It's possible that the two people are each contributing one hand each, plus the two on the clock face, for a total of four. Or maybe two hands each plus a second hand for seven. Sorry, the right answer is 6. The visit to Miracle Max mixes a hidden image search with a potion mixing game. The image search is like all image searches: boring and pointless. The potion mixing shows promise, but after several levels of play and failing to be challenged in the slightest, I'm unimpressed.

The reviews page is borderline fraud. Many of the entries aren't reviews in any way shape or form. The Time "review" just mentions that it's coming. The same goes for the quote from Game|Life at Wired, the quote from Joystiq, and the quote from Gamespot. For the USA Today quote, they've taken the image caption! The remaining reviews? There is an anonymous web comment, short mentions, and a bunch of sites not known for video game reviews.

It's a damn shame. Someone took the brilliance of The Princess Bride and crapped out some of the worst license shovelware I've seen since Enter the Matrix. I hope the developers are ashamed of themselves.

I hate copyright abusers. For some reason the Jericho Historical Society (backup link) annoys the heck out of me. Their copyright claims are simply, absolutely, and completely wrong. These idiots claim:

Copyright/Public domain works

Wilson Bentley did not copyright his photographs and thus they are in the public domain and free to use for any purpose.
HOWEVER
No materials or images from this (or any other) website may be resold in any form (print or electronic). The Public Domain status does not give you the right to resell material unless you have access to the original source and permission from the owner to reproduce the material. Any published works of Public Domain material is only "Royalty free" if explicitly stated.

Bentley's works are in the public domain. Great. That means I can make all the copies I want, including for sale. Period. I can take their images off their web site and immediately resell them to anyone foolish enough to offer me some money. The JHS has no claim to stop me. "Unless you have access to the original source" is complete nonsense. There is no basis in law for this claim. Simply scanning the photographs and putting them online, even with a bit of cleanup, fails to meet the creative standards necessary to make a new claim of copyright. Public domain is the public domain; I can make and sell all the copies I want. By their insane claims only owner of the original folios can reprint Shakespeare's works.

Twits.

(To be clear, the logos, text, and any other original work they did is under copyright, and excepting fair use, copies are not allowed under copyright law.)

When I got an HDTV, I soon wanted a DVI to HDMI cable to connect my computer to my TV. I popped over to Best Buy to see if they could sell me one. Sure enough, they could. For $100. (I believe for 10 or 15 feet, but I don't remember.) I can understand and accept a little gouging, maybe making 200 or 300 percent profit. But there is no possible way the cable costs anywhere near even $30 to produce. Even online they charge $60 for a 6 foot cable.

So instead I got this nice 15 foot cable online for a measely $9. Even with shipping, it's only $15. In the process, I learned that RiteAV.com sells cables at very reasonable rates. They're in Wisconsin, so delivery times are really fast, even for the cheap shipping methods. Congrats Best Buy. Had you been "decent" enough to charge "merely" $30, I would have bought your overpriced cable. But apparently $20 profit on something that cost you less than $6.55 each wasn't enough. You demanded insultingly obscene amounts of money. So you got no money at all. Now I've learned about a local online business that offers better deals and delivered me a cable I'm perfectly happy with.

On that note, for general computer parts, I like CPU Solutions. They're out in Middleton. You can order stuff and put "will pick up in person" on in the notes. They'll waive the delivery fee and if it's during business hours you can pick it up that day. They're not the cheapest online store, but the prices are close enough for me. That I can get parts I need in one business day, and that I trust them more than justifies the minor increased cost.

(Update 2008-06-25) One of the two cables I got from riteav proved to be bad. When contacted, they apologized, told me that they had switched suppliers because the previous one had too many bad cables, told me that a new one was posted and gave me a tracking number, and told me to pitch the old cable. Obviously I would have rather had a working cable from the start, but they handled it promptly and to my satisfaction. Assuming my future purchases are generally functional, I view this as a positive experience.

I hate the Olympics.

I like the idea of the Olympics: athletes from across the world competing in a neutral event. It's an opportunity to see our fellow man in a positive light. It promotes peace and open mindedness. It inspires us by showing us some of the best athletes in the world.

However, the International Olympic Committee are petty, money grubby scum.

The IOC censors atheletes. They can blog, but they can't interview other competitors, they can't include photographs of the events, they can't even discuss their competition. All of this is done to protect their profits.

Meanwhile, the IOC clamps down on any possible use of the word Olympics. Writing a guidebook on the Olympic Pensinsula. Better not try to call it that in the title. A restaurant owner born in a town at the base of Mount Olympus is told to remove Olympics from it.

The IOC is scum. The evidence for the economic boom from hosting the Olympics is decidedly uncertain. This isn't about the sports and the international goodwill. This is just simple profiteering. I don't mind capitalism, but I object to using an undeserved reputation. US cities should stop bidding on these handouts to the IOC.

So Bill O'Reilly and friend's claim of a liberal "War on Christmas" is either knowingly telling lies to vilify people they don't like, or delusional paranoia. I'm not sure which is worse. Unfortunately through a terrible survey that borders on push polling Zogby has generated some nonsense that these nutjobs will latch on to. According to Zogby's very poorly thought out poll, one in three Americans is "offended" by "happy holidays." Offended? By someone wishing them a joyful season? The link above goes into good detail on the flaws in Zogby's survey.

Previous grousing about Bill O'Reilly's hypocrisy on the issue.

Looking through my archives, I guess I never mentioned it. During last year's War on the War on Christmas O'Reilly's ally and fellow paranoid, John Gibson, was interviewed by Wisconsin Public Radio. Like Bill, he proved himself to be a massive hypocrite, simultaneously claiming that non-Christians shouldn't be offended by any aspect of Christmas because it's become non-religious, then claiming that the imaginary War on Christmas is somehow a war on Christians.

Given the opportunity, it would probably be worse the jail time to punch Bill O'Reilly in the face.

Reason #438 to hate Ticketmaster: they sell your email address to spammers. I created a special email address just to use for Ticketmaster. I've never given that email address to anyone else. So when spam arrived from spammer "Live Nation" to the Ticketmaster special address, I knew who to blame. Ticketmaster is a stunning example of what goes wrong when a business holds a monopoly.

Lots of good thought and games has come out of The Forge. Simultaneously, it contains some of the most self-obsessed wankery about RPGs ever. This series of posts by Ron Edwards is a stunning example of how insane he and his creation can be. Argument by sloppy metaphor: did you know bad gaming is like sexually abusing a child, or wearing a bad prosthetic? Neither did any other sane human beings. Did you know your years of playing White Wolf games in high school damaged your ability to understand, enjoy, and create stories? Well, Ron says so, and he's got anecdotal evidence, so it must be true. Oh, and you might have been playing White Wolf, but the "play is not fun." I have no idea why you and I were playing it so much, since we apparently weren't having fun.

Thankfully Ron is here. He is better than us rabble and can shine the light of truth for us. Of course, to understand his truth, please read these three long articles, and all posts by some other guy scattered across dozens of threads.

Perhaps this is the nature of indie work in all media; the need to be elitist and exclusionary, to look down on the poor masses. It's just a shame that it's so hard to find the gems they're uncovering under all the layers of wankery.

Added bonus bitterness: Let's check out the definition of "Creative Agenda" at The Forge's Provisional Glossary. "Three distinct Creative Agendas are currently recognized: Step On Up (Gamist), The Right to Dream (Simulationist), and Story Now (Narrativist)." Fascinating. The three recognized creative agendas are the three that The Forge creater Ron Edwards decided he liked.

Now check out "Underbelly." "A Technique of preparation and play using a canonical setting and storyline, known to all participants, in which the events of play create a "hidden" storyline to enrich and reinforce the primary one, which is treated as a creative constraint. Term coined by Ron Edwards; also sometimes called 'inverse metaplot.'" Maybe it's called an "inverse metaplot" or "underbelly" by Forgites, but here in rational person world, it's simply "metaplot."

(Inspired by several posts at Shooting Dice.)

Update 2006-10-30: Deleted some junk accidentally left at the end of the post.

Update 2007-01-12: Fixed wrong word: haven't to having.

Since the horror of 9/11, we've learned a great deal about the enemy. We have learned that they are evil and kill without mercy -- but not without purpose.

Learning is fun!

Meanwhile, I was kinda hoping that "terrorists are evil" and "terrorists have goals" were things you already knew.

We have learned that they form a global network of extremists who are driven by a perverted vision of Islam -- a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance, and despises all dissent.

Yeah. They reject tolerance. They'd probably do intolerant things like enshrining intolerance of homosexuality in their constitutions. Just like Bush did. They despise all dissent. They'd probably have press secretaries describe speech they disagree with as "reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do. This is not a time for remarks like that; there never is." They might have their defense secretary smear those who disagree, claiming they believe "...vicious extremists could be appeased...". Their secretary of state might suggest that critics would have supported slavery. Their vice-president might even suggest that those who dissent are actively helping their enemies.

So, after all these great lessons, what's next?

The war against this enemy is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century, and the calling of our generation.

...

But the war is not over -- and it will not be over until either we or the extremists emerge victorious.

So we're in the middle of the major struggle of the 21st century, a war that will not be over until we defeat extremists. How hard could that be? Let's see, how's Israel's war with extremists going? Oh, really? So, war without end, huh?

On September the 11th, we resolved that we would go on the offense against our enemies, and we would not distinguish between the terrorists and those who harbor or support them.

Unless it's our dear friend Pakistan. Just look at that country, can you stay mad at it? Oh, and how's Darfur doing these days? Oh, isn't genocide terrorism? Well, go on with your killing of hundreds of thousands.

I'm often asked why we're in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks. The answer is that the regime of Saddam Hussein was a clear threat.

Only in bizzaro-world. To the extent he was a "clear threat," he was a heavily monitored threat kept in check by inspections. If we're interested in clear threats, how about North Korea, which already has nuclear weapons, and Iran, which is much less monitored and is pretty overtly trying to make nuclear weapons.

And now the challenge is to help the Iraqi people build a democracy that fulfills the dreams of the nearly 12 million Iraqis who came out to vote in free elections last December.

Just to check, you realize that many of the Iraqis killing each other voted in that election, right? Their dreams might include things like "Kill all Sunnis" or "Kill all the Shiites." And many of the Kurds in the north have dreams like, "Break away from Iraq to form Kurdistan." Not all democracies end happily. Hugo Chavez was democratically elected, and I get the impression you're no so keen on his dreams.

The world is safer because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power.

...

Osama bin Laden calls this fight "the Third World War" -- and he says that victory for the terrorists in Iraq will mean America's "defeat and disgrace forever." If we yield Iraq to men like bin Laden, our enemies will be emboldened; they will gain a new safe haven; they will use Iraq's resources to fuel their extremist movement.

Iraq was a petty dictatorship that was under control. Its dictator was a terrible man who committed many crimes, but he kept the violence under control and kept al-Queda from establishing bases in the country. Iraq's government wasn't wasn't bound by Islamic law as it is today.

We've replaced it with a country filled with violence and terrorists, a land that acts as a training ground for future terrorists, and as you say, could become a safe haven for terrorists. And we're safer as a result?

And we can be confident in victory because of the skill and resolve of America's Armed Forces. Every one of our troops is a volunteer...

Indeed. And they should have known what they were volunteering for. However, if you're sure of our troops resolve, let's try an experiment: allow any serviceman who has fulfilled their initial commitment to be honorably discharged immediately if they wish; terminate the stop-loss orders. Of course, that's not going to happen. Soldiers are suing to escape the stop loss orders. How's that for resolve?

While their FAQ page does have a lot of useful and correct information on copyright, there are two FAQs that are completely wrong. First:

The purchase of counterfeit designs and software is a violation of federal laws. Specifically, the U.S. Copyright Act. 17 USC 501

Flat out lie. (Or, if you're feeling generous, their legal advisor is grossly incompetant.) Check out the legal code itself. Not much to see there. Ultimately the crime is making the copy and selling or otherwise distributing it, not purchasing it, especially if you don't realize what you're purchasing was illegally copied. By that reasoning you could buy something from a flea market, only to get sued later because you didn't realize it was stolen property. There is a reason the RIAA only sues people for sharing music, not downloading it.

How about this gem?

What if I am innocent and did not know the designs or software were counterfeit when I purchased the designs?

It is your responsibility to investigate any designs or software that you purchased over the Internet or from online auctions. You must take steps to insure that they are legitimate original embroidery designs or software, not pirated copies.

They're seriusly claiming that whenever you purchase something protected by copyright, be it a movie on DVD, a video game, a book, a newpaper, software, or embroidery designs, the burden is on you to ensure that it's a legal copy. Wrong! The law is not designed to turn consumers into police. It's not even practical. How do check that something you bought online is legit? Look really close at the picture on the web site? I think not. Yeah, if something looks sketchy, you should probably avoid it, but demanding that people turn into police is bogus.

We cannot let these falsehoods stand. Corporations are all too eager to convince the public that copyright is nearly infinitely powerful. As they convince people that copyright is more and more powerful, they convince Congress to pass laws to match that perception. We've lost too many rights in the last 10 years. Copyright was extended to ensure Disney can make more money. You can legally use a short clip of a movie in a review, but you're forbidden from getting technology that will let you pull that clip from a DVD. The next generation TVs will have additional hardware that costs more money, but is designed to make your television harder to use. Now making a bad judgement in who to trust can cost you $300, or you face a powerful corporation suing you for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Complete bullshit. The copyright expansion needs to stop here.

2006-09-10: Newer article at the Language Log with longer listings of relevant posts. Scroll to the bottom.

2006-09-17: Even newer article with a longer listing. Scroll to the bottom.

He's been in rare form for the last week or so, lots of sites are linking to this or that outright lie or bit of insanity. Here's one I particularly enjoyed:

"But it is apparent that many have still not learned history's lessons," he said, adding that part of the problem is that the American news media have tended to emphasize the negative rather than the positive.

He said, for example, that more media attention was given to U.S. soldiers' abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib than to the fact that Sgt. 1st Class Paul Ray Smith received the Medal of Honor.

From "Rumsfeld: Bush foes lack courage on terror" on CNN.com.

Wow, the news prefers reporting on bad news over good news? Wow, gross violations of US and international law get more coverage than someone getting an award? Who would ever have guessed? I mean, besides anyone who has ever read or watched the news.

I have no idea how Rumsfeld lives with himself. I'm willing to attribute Bush's behavior to incompetance supported by yes-men. But Rumseld has to know better. He is clearly an evil man.

I previously ripped on Samuel Alito for suggesting that not publically announcing an opinion somehow makes a judge less biased. Apparently Justice Antonin Scalia didn't get the memo, otherwise he wouldn't have publically said about a case on detainee rights that is currently before the Supreme Court, "War is war, and it has never been the case that when you captured a combatant you have to give them a jury trial in your civil courts. Give me a break." With that simple statement, Scalia proves two points. 1. Just because you pretend in your nomination hearings that you don't have an opinion doesn't mean that you don't have them. 2. Scalia is a closed-minded embarassment to justice.

Tom DeLay, 1997: "When one of my closest and dearest friends, Jack Abramoff, your most able representative in Washington, D.C., invited me to the islands, I wanted to see firsthand the free-market success and the progress and reform you have made."

Tom DeLay, 2006: "The reality is, Jack Abramoff and I were not close personal friends."

(Source: Think Progress via Salon.)

Dennis Zhidkov: You're an asshole. You apparently hate freedom of speech. And StarForce remains anti-copying malware, no matter how much you wish it wasn't.

BellSouth Corp. confirmed Monday that it is pursuing discussions with Internet content companies to levy charges to reliably and speedily deliver their content and services.

Bill Smith, chief technology officer at BellSouth, justified content charging companies by saying they are using the telco's network without paying for it.

(From "BellSouth wants new Net fees" at MarketWatch.

Just to be clear, he's saying that you should pay BellSouth to get high speed internet service. Why might you do that? Perhaps because you want to visit Apple's iTunes and buy some music or visit Google Video to see some videos. Bill, having pocketed your money, claims that Apple and Google also owe him money. Nice scam.

Bill O'Reilly, on people who get all bent out of shape over two little words:

Bill O'Reilly: I don't believe that most people who aren't Christian are offended by the words "Merry Christmas." Those people are nuts. You're crazy if you're offended by the words "Merry Christmas."

In counterpoint, Bill O'Reilly:

Philip Nulman: "Seasons Greetings" and "Happy Holidays," Bill, does not offend Christians.

Bill O'Reilly: Yes, it does. Absolutely does.

Bill O'Reilly is so far and balanced that he can hold contradictory opinions on the same topic.

(Transcribed from unattributed video aired on The Daily Show.)

At Bush's most recent press conference, he demanded an absolute lack of accountability. Bush's authorization to spy on Americans without warrants pretty clearly violates the law. Now that his questionable decision has been brought to light, he has the guts to claim, "My personal opinion is it was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very important program in a time of war. The fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy." Bush views himself as above the laws Congress passes. Reasonable disagreement with Bush's decisions to ignore the law is "shameful."

When asked point blank about basically demanding for "unchecked power", Bush said, "To say 'unchecked power' basically is ascribing some kind of dictatorial position to the President, which I strongly reject." His defense? He's briefed Congress. He didn't ask Congress for permission, he just briefed them. And he managed to brief them in some way that most of Congress had no idea what he was doing. But that's apparently okay since he's apparently monitoring himself. Well, gosh, he's monitoring himself. With the President of the United States being carefully monitored by... the President of the United States, I can't see any possible conflict of interest. Self monitoring and reporting to Congress hardly counts as being checked.

Bush wants zero accountability. That completely ignores the point of the checks and balances carefully crafted into our Constitution. Perhaps instead of an amendment crushing free speech to stop flag burners we need an amendment to stop Bush from pissing all over our Constitution.