> Rather, they are saying, "I don't want my taxes to pay for other people to read this trash."

Not quite. In fact, not at all. What they are saying (and you seem to be supporting) is "Even though my tax money has already been spent, and even though other people contributed THEIR tax money to help buy this book, and even though those people might think the money was well-spent, I want to remove this book from the shelves so that it will be more difficult--or better, impossible--for anyone to read this book that I personally dislike, despite the fact that there is no financial benefit to doing so." It's all about suppressing ideas, and the people who make the complaints make that position quite clear.

There are mechanisms (e.g., elections) for changing future spending priorities. After-the-fact censorship isn't one of them.

Your ignorance of the issues is glaring and appalling.
If the people were really objecting to the choices made by librarians, they would be clamoring for particular purchases as well as objecting to the books that were currently on the shelves. That's not the case. Nor are the citizens asking for the librarian to be replaced or instructed in their tastes. They are quite simply saying, "I don't think anybody in my school/town should be allowed to read this particular book." That's a hugely different question.

You seriously misunderstand. Most of these libraries are government-operated, either public libraries or schools. While it's true that SOME of the libraries rightfully resisted, the ALA's primary point is to illustrate the pressure that is being put on these libraries. And in many cases, the books were actually removed (note that the second-most-frequent challengers were administrators). Sometimes, lawsuits got them back, sometimes not. So yes, it's censorship.

Nor is your claim that "All these materials are easily available elsewhere" supported by the facts. In many cases, the library facing the challenge is the only library in a small town that doesn't have a bookstore, and often the readers can't afford to buy their own books. So your argument really boils down to "If you're poor, you don't get to read what you want."

At least your dig at Twilight gets humor points.

Clearly, the Mozilla folks are clueles. But there's hope: they should just ask Netflix for business advice, and then all will be well.

Obviously, the TSA is slipping, because there are several threats they missed in the current warning. For example, I heard that the bad guys are planning to kidnap the President, replace him with a robot, and hide a nuke inside. If that doesn't work, they're going to hijack a rocket, land on an asteroid, and divert it to crash into New York City. Expect porno scanners for astronauts to be announced in the next few days.

The reason terrorism is relevant is because it is regularly used as justification for loosening wiretap restrictions. If the wiretaps aren't actually being used for terrorism, the justification is bogus. Your claim about the rise in wiretaps being due to the rise in electronic communication is completely wrong; in case you haven't noticed the telephone is over 100 years old and has been the normal mode of communication for many decades. If mobiles were the cause of the increase, you'd expect a very high number of "roving" wiretaps, but the report lists only a tiny number. Likewise, online accounts are a poor explanation since wiretap orders can cover multiple technologies. But your worst "reasoning" is in your postscript, where you try to imply that two year-to-year decreases prove there is no upward trend. A glance at the graphe is sufficient to nuke that allegation; it's obvious that there is noise in the data but the trend is upward (and although it's too early to be sure, there seems to be an explosion going on since Obama took office).

It's even worse than you think. It's midnight right now in California, and the number of calls on the map is tiny. And since you can use Google Maps to zoom in, I had no trouble learning that there was an onSIP customer at the headquarters of the Los Angeles Police Department. Just think of the fun: you can zoom in on somebody's house and tell that they're awake...

I had this same issue (different only in minor details) a few months ago. The best I found was Red Pocket (http://www.redpocketmobile.com). They operate on AT&T's network, so coverage is good. They sell prepaid service at a reasonable price. Cons: you have to get the SIM card ahead of time, and overseas shipping is slow, so if you're leaving soon that's a problem. When I got to the US, only voice worked, and it was impossible to activate data using Firefox & NoScript. IIRC, I eventually had to bring up a VM with Internet Explorer to get data to go. But once I had leapt through the hoops, it was fine.

Funny how it's the right wing that always decries the "nanny state" while constantly trying to control behavior...