2006's Bill of Wrongs 605
Jamie continued the never ending flow of year-end recap stories, this one is the Bill of Wrongs which lists the 10 most outrageous civil liberties violations of the year, according to Slate. Several of these aren't news to Slashdot readers, but it's still worth a read.
Attempt to Get Death Penalty for Zacarias Moussaou (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Attempt to Get Death Penalty for Zacarias Mouss (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:well said (Score:5, Insightful)
And it's easy to get bogged down on defining when a fertilized ovum becomes a person. What I find interesting is that the closer you look at the right-to-life movement, you start seeing trends. People in this movement are the same ones giving alarmist, erroneous "information" that condoms don't protect against disease, and so on. The abortion thing is the biggest item, but it is still one item on a continuum, and the continuum is their agenda. They oppose sex-ed, condom availability, and so on. They don't mix messages, and you won't see this in an anti-abortion spot, but if you look at both movements you see that they are the same movement.
They want a world where sex outside of marriage is outright dangerous because they think that "sin" is dangerous and should have consequences. This is why right-wing groups (not all of them, to be fair) object to the Day After pill and the HPV vaccine--they want "Jezebels" to pay for their sins, so other women won't be Jezebels. They don't want a world where women can have casual sex with no consequences. The abortion crusade is only the most marketable element of this larger agenda.
Lust is not a bug, it is a design feature. (Score:5, Interesting)
What a crock of shit. What happens if I don't want to be emotionally handcuffed to one person, I'm supposed to jerk off for the rest of my life? The term whore (or "ho" if you must) means doing something you don't like with your body for payment, ie: we all spend time "whoring". In the modern world, unwanted children come from a lack of intelligence, lack of education, lack of access to birth control or some combination of all three, they do not come from "sleeping around" even though sleeping with "someone" is normally a pre-requisite.
"Seriously people, it's not hard to keep it in your pants and keep your skirt to your knees."
Adults are pre-programmed to have sex in the same way they are pre-programmed to seek food and water but with a lower priority, adults can get all sorts of diseases from all three activities, they also don't react well when denied access to any of the activities ( again sex has a lower and more variable priority ).
Disclaimer: I caught the end of the "free love" orgy in the 70's, was married for 20yrs (90% happily), 2 adult kids (both now living with their lovers), got "snipped" but it felt like being "bricked", divorced the unfaithful alcoholic that is possesing my wife's body, had a long "midlife crisis" to the tune of "you and me baby are nothin' but mammals", and will soon be celebrating the 5th "anniversary" of my monogomous relationship with a new love (albeit seperated by 1km). I have no idea what will happen to my sex life in my remaining years, perhaps I will just get bored with sex and post two minute rants on slashdot instead.
What about bans? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What about bans? (Score:4, Insightful)
Considering how many of the people in the states of New York and Washinton have their health care paid for by the state, typically the elderly and infirm who are receiving expensive treatments for the effects of trans-fats and smoking, these bans seem to be a justified cost-saving measure to me.
It's like state seatbelt and motorcycle helmet laws; it's not the state saying "These things are good for you" so much as "Ambulance rides are expensive and our emergency rooms are full."
Re:What about bans? (Score:4, Insightful)
As for "these bans seem to be a justified cost-saving measure to me"...
Now that is a liberal. Bitch at the Republicans accusing them of "trading liberty for security" but if it saves money, why not!?
Re:What about bans? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the state is to be exptected to pay for a steady stream of oxygen tanks, heart stints and bypasses and the like, then the state is justified in reducing the costs to the taxpayers by reducing their frequency.
I would also be more than willing to accept a designation on your driver's license, similar to the markings for organ donors, that marks you as a (e. g.) smoker, thereby exempting you from both state-funded medical care or from the responsibility of any group healthcare programs you may be a part of, requiring you to pay for everything out-of-pocket as well as lowering your priority in gaining access to treatment for your self-inflicted ailments. But the hue and cry against such a measure from indignant smokers (et al) would keep it from ever being enacted.
I don't particularly mind people doing stupid things that kill them where they stand (unless the local morgue is particularly overtaxed), but in the case of activities that place an undue burden on public health resoures, resoures that must be shared between all citizens of the state, then the rest of the people have the right to take action, in their own self-interest, to prevent that burden. Whether they treat the demand side of the problem (by segregating off abusers into their own "separate but equal" healthcare system) or the supply side (by banning the materials in question) is up to them, but one way or the other, your right to smoke ends where it effects the livlihood of others.
Re:What about bans? (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I am more for a vastly smaller government, and that they stay the hell out of people's private lives... I'm also against the current system of socialized medicine.. how about a government sponsored non-profit insurance company... or even one that isn't govt sponsored? Reduce the tax burden on people to something below the 50% or so most people pay now (between income, fica, utility, and taxes on goods at more local level that's a lot of f-ing tax burden), then people could actually *pay* for their health care... also, if people were directly responsible for health care, they'd be more likely to shop around, instead of bowing to whatever the local hospital wants to charge...
I live in a more rural community, and the local hospital charges more than 2x what a hospital in phoenix charges in most cases... this is with an overhead that is actually *lower*... Also, if the federal (and state) government wasn't so wasteful to begin with, it wouldn't matter so much. As for smoking affecting others, do like GB, and put smokers at the bottom of any list for aid when it comes to smoking-related illness (at least as far as govt sponsored health issues)
Re:What about bans? (Score:4, Interesting)
But, it has to be part of an omnibus law; one that will apply the same restrictions to people who drink alchohol, eat red meat, ingest products made with high fructose corn syrup, etc.
I would also suggest that you restrict in a similar fashion people who are injured while driving a motor vehicle in speeds in excess of 30mph, bungee jumping, mountain climbing, scuba diving, flying, etc.
It's only fair; people who purposefully do things which endenger their health shouldn't have to be treated the same way Sane, healthy, non-risk takers do.
As this pretty much leaves the Amish, I imagine tax income would be seriously impacted, as it wouldn't be in the vast majority of peoples interest to pay taxes, since they wouldn't see any benefit.
On a unrelated note, can someone direct me to a forum or mailing list where I can talk about TOR development? I can't seem to find anyplace, and I have some things I want to try.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And that is the best argument I've heard all day as to why the state should not be in the business of providing health care at taxpayer expense. Period.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure. And if you're paying for your own health care, if you want to pay more for the cost incurred by your smoking, it's nobody's damn business but your own.
When the taxpayers are footing the bill for your health care, then your personal habits are everybody's business.
I'd prefer to foot the bill for my own healthcare, and have the taxpayers mind their own damn business, thankyouverymuch,
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What about bans? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The ability for you Americans to oversimplify complex issues for idealist reasons is absolutely incredible (and frightening).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow! that is mindblowing. Apparently civil rights are great except when allowing them is more costly, right??
Now consider this fact, blacks have a higher incidence of heart disease, does that mean they'll get treated to "separate but equal" again with federal healthcare? Forget that!!!
My position is this: If the feds want nationalized health care, then suck up the costs no m
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To my knowledge, few people aside from the likes of John Howard Griffin woke up one morning and said "I want to be black!" But the various ailments people face from (e. g.) smoking, especially if they picked up the habit after the mandatory health warnings were placed on the packaging, were brought upon themselves voluntarily. It is wholly by t
Re:What about bans? (Score:5, Insightful)
Get rid of the state sponsored crap, let people choose their own insurance providers, let people deal with the consequences of their choices, and let people live their own lives.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyone who catches a viral disease should bloody well have stayed home that day. Let them deal with the consequences of their choices.
Re:What about bans? (Score:4, Insightful)
Reductio ad absurdum. The GP was speaking about removing the government from a mainstream market that is already filled by the private sector. You are speaking of a government service I cannot "purchase" from Blue Cross and Blue Shield.
In my opinion, the CDC is the perfect example of where the government should get involved. And, I would suspect that people opposed to direct government competition with the private sector would mostly agree.
Re:CDC (Score:4, Insightful)
Can you imagine for a second the crap that would be put in our food and mislabeled or deceptively labeled? It's already pretty bad WITH the FDA stopping much of it, and without them, it would be a field day of cost-cutting at the expense of the health and safety of the consumer.
Don't think for a second that your freedom of choice will protect you, because your freedom of choice doesn't mean anything if there is no agency enforcing the availability of accurate and detailed information so you can make an informed choice.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What really changes for your arguement? People who get sick before normal retirement age don't pay into social security as much, so 'your right to smoke' (eat
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What about bans? (Score:5, Insightful)
Smoking bans: reducing freedom, or increasing it? (Score:5, Insightful)
In my country, the majority of people do not smoke. Smoking is known to cause many health problems, and we've long since debunked the myth that passive smoking is harmless. So is banning smoking in a public place -- something that directly prevents harm to the health of the majority, at the expense of some convenience for the minority -- really an infringement of freedom?
Hint #1: Will my non-smoking, asthma-suffering friend who will finally be able to go to a bar in the evening have her freedom restricted?
Hint #2: Will a family member who gave up smoking years ago and no longer has to suffer the smoky atmosphere he wanted to leave behind every time he goes out for a drink have his freedom restricted?
Hint #3: Will the many non-smokers who will now be able to take work in the hospitality trade without risking their own health to do it have their freedom restricted?
There are lots of rights and freedoms, and by default we should defend them all for everyone. But sometimes they come into conflict. Sometimes resolving that conflict is difficult, particularly when it involves an important principle (such as a right to privacy) clashing with a very practical need (such as the right to travel safely, even if it means your fellow passengers have to be searched/background checked/whatever).
But sometimes, the decision is very easy for most people. Should the freedom of movement of a tried and convicted murderer outweigh the right of his neighbours not to be killed, or should we throw him in prison until he's no longer a danger to others? I believe the decision in that case would be near unanimous anywhere.
There are no right answers on these ethical issues, no black and white, always shades of grey. But you're wrong that the argument can be used to ban anything, at least if you mean used effectively. Some things are worth spending money on, even though it means compelling everyone to contribute. If a strong majority really did not agree with this (rather than just whinging about paying taxes, while at the same time being happy to use facilities funded through taxation) then chances are that we would long since have reverted to a completely private, insurance-based, very multi-class society.
For an argument about cost-saving to be effective, there has to be a clear moral case that the consequences are justified. In the case of smokers, as long as they were genuinely aware of the consequences and capable of making a reasoned decision independently, I don't see that there's much moral argument for putting their interests ahead of others who are given no choice about the smoker's actions, yet who suffer in health and potentially financial terms as a consequence.
If you want a more difficult argument with smokers, try the case of an older person, who smoked in their youth before the dangers were fully understood, but who has long since given up and who now gets lung cancer. But for current smokers, it seems to me that banning them from doing so (at least when non-smokers are nearby) can be easily justified in health grounds, and the financial argument is compelling (given that the public money you aren't spending treating smokers can then be spent on helping others who may not have had any choice about their misfortune).
(Footnote: The financial argument here assumes, of course, that the net cost of smoking to the health service is positive. This may or may not be a valid assumption, given that smokers tend to die younger and therefore not need increasing amounts of more expensive treatment in their old age. I've seen good arguments, backed by real statistics, on both sides of this argument. I'm not going to get into it again here, since my point is that the financial argument cannot be used automatically to justify arbitrary bans as the parent claimed, and smoking merely serves as a convenient example for discussion.)
Re: (Score:2)
And what if we don't call them bans? The asthmatic is no more able to go into a bar here now than if there were a legal ban or armed guards on the door. Any "freedom" here is a mere illusion.
If you really think that allowing large groups of people to go to large groups of places they previously couldn't -- even if it wasn't officially called a ban -- reduces their freedom, then I'm afraid you're missing this very important point. Freedoms are only worth anything if you can meaningfully exercise them.
I d
Re:Smoking bans: reducing freedom, or increasing i (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is exactly what smokers have been doing to non-smokers for years. The only differences are that (a) passive smoking doesn't just make non-smokers uncomfortable, it actually damages their health, and (b) there are a hell of a lot more people who don't want smoking venues than do. By your own argument, banning smoking is exactly what we should do.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is exactly what smokers have been doing to non-smokers for years. The only differences are that (a) passive smoking doesn't just make non-smokers uncomfortable, it actually damages their health, and (b) there are a hell of a lot more people who don't want smoking venues than do. By your own argument, banning smoking is exactly what we should do.
Ah but nothing is stopping you from patronizing a place that bans smoking, or of starting one yourself. What I find ironic is that you say this at the same
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As opposed to
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Since all of Europe has socialized health care, there should be ample instances of things being outlawed to reduce health care costs, right? Yet it seems to me America is at the forefront of restrictions on smoking and trans fats.
And since
Re:What about bans? (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom of Association (Score:2)
Re:Freedom of Association (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But how do you know if a restaurant serves transfats?
This is a good point. I think the government's role should be the unbiased publication of factual research data (I support government funded research for everyone's quality of life), in simple layman's terms, of what impact a given activity can have on your health. Then you decide. If you decide to participate in an activity that is harmful, then along with all the claimed rights you have, you also have to accept the responsibilities.
Of course w
Re: (Score:2)
OTOH, I already see lots of things that advertise "0% TransFats!" in brightly colored letters. So it can't be THAT much of a burden.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Trans fatty acids are not essential and provide no known benefit to human health. Therefore, no AI or RDA is set. As with saturated fatty acids, there is a positive linear trend between trans fatty acid intake and LDL cholesterol concentration, and therefore increased risk of CHD.
In addition they don't even taste as good [bantransfats.com] . Everyone thinks that this means you can't eat french fries in New York anymore when in fact, the fries will taste better and decrease fry-lovers' chances of dying of heart disease. Trans fats are just used to make the food last longer. Why would you choose to eat trans-fats?
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Trans-fats are not good for the consumer in any way, they are good for the fast food corporations and as we all know they won't stop selling a product that kills there patrons slowly unless the state forces them to do so.
Stop listening to the fast food propaganda and for that matter take a step back to really see what you are defending.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What about bans? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is that a troll or do you actually have a reference to show that the ACLU was actively supporting such bans?
Would you be against a ban of mercury in food as a seasoning?
Is the ACLU actively against the ban? (Score:2)
Re:Is the ACLU actively against the ban? (Score:5, Funny)
Or the American Center for Law and Justice, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Cato Institute, Greenpeace, the local Rotary club, the 700 Club, Sam's Club, Met Life, or the Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Cry me a river (Score:4, Insightful)
How in the world does your "civil liberty" to eat trans-fats or stick a cancer stick in your puss compare with being tortured or having habeas corpus revoked? If this ranks as one of the more serious problems you have with the ACLU, then they must be a remarkable group.
I'm sorry, I just don't see these as civil liberty issues. Of course, there are things the ACLU fights for that I also think don't qualify, but still, to claim silence on such petty issues is the same as support, is like saying that you obviously supported Kenneth Kaunda [wikipedia.org] since you never spoke against him.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would be. As a seasoning it is far too hot and dry. Also, it tends to take up much more of your plate. I find Europa far more suited to seasoning IMO.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
not exactly (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/commercial/11064leg 20020918.html [aclu.org]
From the article:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Emphasis added. Your own link undercu
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
it bans ban you from selling me that crap (because it is 0.001% cheaper than healthier stuff), and it bans you from polluting the air I breath.
your liberties stop were they start hurting others.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The anti-smoking propaganda is so thick in the last few years that it's hard to separate the bullshit from the fact. My favorite ad is the one that says, non-chalantly and without reference to any scientific publication, that second-hand smoke causes asthma in child
Re:What about bans? (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh right, I forgot that everyone always has the choice to have a different job than they currently have. No one ever gets stuck, unable to find a better job and unable to quit and live with no job.
Re: (Score:3)
Whose problem is that - your's or your employers? It's not your employer's fault if you're too much of a dim bulb to improve your circumstances.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OK, I'll play. Where's the link on badscience.net that shows that passive smoking isn't really damaging at all, and it's all just a popular myth?
Failing that, how about one of the other well-respected urban legends pages, maybe snopes.com?
You know, it's ironic that a person who objects to a "scientifically illiterate population" being "so easily lead[sic]" makes a post in which he uses phrases like "as far as I know" and "My hunch is that", yet the one "proper scientific report" mentioned is not cited e
Second hand smoking (Score:3, Insightful)
Have you even bothered looking at the evidence? Try this factsheet on passive smoking [ash.org.uk] for example -- yours for the price of Googling "second hand smoking evidence" and reading the second hit. (For those who are curious but can't be bothered to follow the link: it's by an anti-smoking lobby group, but cites numerous scientific papers from diverse sources to back up its specific criticisms.) If you don't buy that one, go ahead and follow a few mo
Re: (Score:2)
With that logic, three'd be no worker safety laws. And on a personal level, it used to be the one smoker who dragged everyone to a smoking section, now everyone else get what they want and the smoker has to go outside. My sympathy-o-meter is really at a low, now final
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, I don't suppose you would trust the U.S. Surgeon General [surgeongeneral.gov] that secondhand smoke causes asthma in children.
And I suppose the International Journal of Epidemiology is in on the Vast Conspiracy about secondhand smoke: Non-smoker lung cancer deaths attributable to exposure to spouse's environmental tobacco smoke [oxfordjournals.org]
Not to mention the American Lung Association. "Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 22,700-69,600 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States ea
Re: (Score:2)
I've heard a bunch of people complain about the NYC trans-fat ban, and I really don't get why people are upset. It isn't an attempt to make "unhealthy eating" illegal, or even make it illegal to eat trans-fats. It's just a ban on selling trans-fats in restaurants. You have to remember that, when you're talking about trans-fats, you usually aren't talking about naturally-occuring stuff in real food. It's kind of a gross grey goop that is artificially made, horribly bad for you, and used because it's chea
Re: (Score:2)
Banning trans-fats in New York, banning smoking in Seattle. This has been the year of banning activities in the name of public health. Talk about violating civil liberties!
The trans-fat ban only applies to restaurants, so restaurant customers in NYC will hopefully be able to go out to eat without having to stress over whether their food is loaded up with one of the greatest (and most unnecessary!) evils the food industry has assaulted us with. Meanwhile, idiots who don't care about their health are still
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Banning trans-fats in New York, banning smoking in Seattle.
Smoking, at the very least, is a public nuisance. There is no law against public smoking that isn't justified. People should not be allowed to smoke within 500 yards of any other person.
I was with you about Trans-Fats, until I read this article [straightdope.com] about the issue on The Straight Dope. I figured it was more idiocy from the Health Nazis who want to ban anything that tastes good, but this is really about a cheaper substitute that has a big effect on
Re: (Score:2)
You can go to the grocery store and buy as much margarine (and whatever else) with trans fats as you want.
Trans fat has been prohibited for use by *restaurants* serving prepared food in New York City. It's a public health concern because there's no way for a patron to know whether the fried food they are ordering was made with regular fats and oils or the much more dangerous, not as tasty, and overall inferior trans fats.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Smoking in public places I might understand. (Though I'd be inclined to disagree, since I don't smoke cigarettes.) But you lost your civil liberty to sell me trans fats in New York? Find me a violin.
People specifically want to buy cigarettes, because they are addicted to nico
Re: (Score:2)
It would be fine for me if smoking was stopped everywhere, but it is kind of pointless as long as many areas still do not have mandatory automob
Re: (Score:2)
--jeffk++
Re: (Score:2)
Article recap for the lazy (Score:2, Informative)
My responses to the Slate article. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, "the government" tried to execute someone. Everyone in the entire government was in on it. They all wanted to slay him mercilessly. But wait.. The jury decided against it. Hrmm. And the jury is technically part of "the government". Remember, the three parts of the US government? Yeah, one of them being judicial? Apparently "the government" decided not to execute him after all. Because once you are selected for a jury you are in the government, being paid by the government, performing a government role. So, let's get a little more specific, shall we Slate? It wasn't "The Government" that tried to execute him. It was overzealous prosecutors riding a power-trip straight to hell.
Way to misrepresent the facts. The prisoners were deemed potentially to be the so-called vicious killers. Given the attacks on the USA, can you really expect us not to be at least a little sensitive to the possibility? So we found out many of them weren't. That is why we released them. And, what do you expect, we should yell at the top of our lungs that they were innocent? Nobody really cares. The USA is out for blood after 9/11. If we find people to be innocent we release them. There's really no reason to go out of our way to release them any way *but* quietly.
This point at least has some reasonable balance to it. There's no doubt the Bush administration is having serious trouble with their information intelligence. Whether their motives are pure or not we cannot say. Do you have proof they are injuring civil liberties out of mere selfish political drive? I don't see it anywhere if you do.
Re:My responses to the Slate article. (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, we did not release most of the people who were released from Guantanamo Bay, we shipped them to other countries for "rendition" and those countries let them go. Furthermore, that court hasn't even been built, we haven't "found out" anything either way. Innocent until proven guilty is a great idea, shame the Republicans only believe in it when DeLay is getting hammered by their worldview.
Do you have proof they are injuring civil liberties out of mere selfish political drive?
What would that proof mean to you? That it's OK to "injure civil liberties" as long as you're not being selfish about it?
Not enough people are active enough to contribute to the voice of the country.
The voice of the country is perfectly healthy these days as long as you toe the party lines. Suggest after 9/11 that the pentagon was a valid military target, and even though it would have been the act of war that could have justified everything that followed, you end up getting death threats because that's not the politically expedient thing to suggest while the administration twists and grasps for any other excuse to go to war. In the years following that, over and over the same thing: if you don't say we're winning and things are going great, you're "aiding and abetting the enemy", grounds for a capital offense of treason, I believe. The only difference is that later, the threat was to use the power of government to execute you, rather than the suggestion that someone might break into your house at night and stab you in your sleep.
Since this is about "activist courts" I'll throw in the observation that Bush's "signing statements" have been every bit as activist as the justices he decries. "Legislating from the White House" has no basis whatsoever in the Constitution, which specifically gives him the power to veto bills he does not like. The rest, he has sworn to faithfully execute.
The rest of your post is the same pointless parroting "it couldn't have happened if the people didn't want it to". This, of course, can excuse anything from murder to p2p filesharing. The fact that we are "a nation of laws, not of men" is lost on you, Bush, and the rest of the die-hard Republicans. I'll believe that the "people wanted it to happen" when the Republicans obey the legally defined constitutional amendment process and set the laws of our nation to permit these things.
Until then, we're going to be stuck listening to the same blowhards that have been spouting off the last 5 years. They'll be begging the Democrats not to impeach Bush over "partisan bickering" and it will probably work. These masses will hear about how changing presidents mid-war will be a sign of weakness (just like any other company, if a person quitting mid project or getting hit by a bus kills the company, you were doing it wrong), and they'll believe it. These masses will be told that the people complaining about Joseph Padilla, Maher Arar, international wiretaps, domestic call tracking, torture, and so on and so forth... they all want the terrorists to win and Americans to die, and they'll buy it.
And so the world turns...
Re: (Score:2)
First, I am not a die-hard Republican. Are you a die-hard Liberal?
Second, "a nation of laws, not of men" misses an important point about humankind. Humans won't follow laws if they don't believe in them. They won't blindly believe a law is to be followed. People evaluate laws on a personal level based on their own values. The collective of personal evaluations across the country is what le
Re:No fair. Wrong on many levels. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, I took note of that respect during the Clinton years. Good job.
Re: (Score:2)
You are right though, most people really don't care... and won't do anything about it.. despite there being things that *could* be done.. petition, writing campaigns.. but still, people woul
Re: (Score:2)
Although I don't agree with your entire response, this is a very good point.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The number one civil liberties problem this entire year was... hubris ?!? My God, the Administration is claiming to be doing the right thing, even though their critics don't think they are? Batten down the hatches, ethnic cleansing can't be far behind!
Seriously, though, look at this list: Only two items are concrete people (Jose Padilla and Zacarias Moussaoui), an
Re: (Score:2)
I think the idea that Bush is some sort of unique evil and that civil liberties violations must must must be connected to Bush is blinding people to the other far more real problems in the United States.
Baldrson points out prison rape [slashdot.org]. I'm not personally certain about the true extent of the problem, but that's a big one.
The endless actual civil liberty abuses in the name of the drug war dwarf the supposed civil liberty abus
Re: (Score:2)
TLF
How did the song go? (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyway, some people in Washington may need a reminder [wikipedia.org] of what they claim the USA is about:
O say, can you see, by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming,
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there;
O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
On the shore, dimly seen thro' the mist of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected, now shines on the stream
'Tis the star-spangled banner. Oh! long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has washed out their foul footstep's pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation,
Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the Heav'n-rescued land
Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserved us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto--"In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Re: (Score:2)
Guess what's missing from this Slate Top 10 list? (Score:3, Interesting)
Not an attack on civil liberties (Score:2, Insightful)
The appearance is now real, but that doesn't make the Duke lacross players who were
Waxman is coming back, and so is oversight (Score:5, Interesting)
Check out the Committee on Government Reform, United States House of Representatives, Minority Office [house.gov]. This is the official view of congressional Democrats of what the administration has been doing wrong. They're the minority office, so they can't do much except update their web site.
On Tuesday, they become the Majority Office. Congressman Waxman becomes committee chair. Investigations will start shortly thereafter. We're going to see plenty of Administration officials being asked hard questions. Under oath. On TV. That's how Waxman works.
"As set forth in House Rule X, clause 4, the Committee on Government Reform may, at any time, conduct investigations of any matter regardless of whether another standing committee has jurisdiction over the matter."
Prisoner rape should have topped the list (Score:5, Interesting)
When pressure came from Human Rights Watch [hrw.org] the US government's response was to pass a "Prisoner rape elimination act" the chief result of which was to commission a study by one Mark Fleisher, who concludes that, get this [spr.org]:
So the way your government retreats from its threat of having some ethnic gang make you its bitch and infect you with Hepatitis C if not AIDS while sexually torturing you because you're a technologist who got out of line, is to claim that you aren't being raped, you are experiencing "sexual awakening".This should have topped the list and of course, since American technologists don't count (just look at the H-1b and outsourcing riots trashing their ability to support families) it didn't appear anywhere
Rather more fundamental ... (Score:2)
If you've got clean elections you've got some chance to fix the other stuff. If you don't have clean elections you're stuffed whatever you do.
Depressing on more than one count. (Score:2, Interesting)
It is depressing to read a list of this sort and know that it is only a small example of rights being trampled. It is depressing to read this article and realize that the governm
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Aside from that, please name the serious wr
Re: (Score:2)
Then let's call the article "Things That Happened in the US Last Year That Annoyed the Left (even if Bush and his folks had nothing to do with some of them)."
That "any criticism" bit is so very, very weak. It implies that there's very little criticism of the Bush administration going on, instead of the daily, incessant, inaccurate sort of thing we see in the article.
Aside from that, please name the serious wrongs missing
Re:I love #2 (Score:5, Insightful)
The stance that the liberties asserted in the US Constitution and Bill of Rights somehow only apply to citizens is flatly at-odds with those documents. Nowhere does it say anything to the effect of "for US Citizens only". Furthermore, these documents go so far as to say that our rights are inherent, by virtue of us being human - not because some government authority (US or otherwise) grants us those rights. Try going back to Civics class, and leave your xenophobia at the door this time.
Re:I love #2 (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently the point of our civil liberties is to protect everyone on earth, including the alleged terrorists, huh?
Yes.
Re:I love #2 (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, yes, that is the point, and the fact that so many Americans don't understand this is precisely why they will eventually have no civil liberties at all. Because the moment you decide that it's "some men are created equal" rather than "all men are created equal," the only thing left is to decide who the privileged "some" will be... and history tells us that it will always end up being the richest and most powerful, who invariably get that way by being the most despotic.
Human rights for one requires the value of human rights for all. Otherwise, all rights are just granted by whatever dictator happens to be in charge at the moment.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not invariably - a lot of rich people are rich because their parents were rich, not because they're self-made. It doesn't really change the point, though, as generally speaking people tend to look out for themselves and their own, and so if in a position to influence or even buy a law, will generally do so in such a way as to best suit themselves. They may not even do so co
Re:As slanted as it gets.. (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm typically non-religious conservative/libertarian in my mindset, so I don't get into the Bush hating as much as the Moveon.org crowd; but I also see our rights shrinking across the board in the name of "fighting terrorism" and "protecting intellectual property"... I don't see these as good things.
It looks to me like fear and greed are overly dominating our rights to: travel unhindered, make free use of the products we buy, speak our minds, protest against perceived government and corporate wrongs, address real grievances in court, associate freely with whomever(adults) we wish in whatever manner we wish, etc.
I know it's harder to judge harshly the political party you normally support. When it comes to civil liberties, though, there are no political parties. There are the guys supporting them, and then there are the bad guys.
Re: (Score:2)
About the only thing that the government has done, that has directly af
Re:Missing from the list... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you were a true patriot you'd be looking for ways to improve your country, not waving the flag and shouting 'BUT WE'RE STILL BEATING CUBA, YEEEEAHHHH!'
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not saying that these are all worse than what's going on worldwide, just that the grandparent's knee-jerk rant was irrelevant considering the fact that the article very clearly focuses on the US.
Or whateve
Re: (Score:2)
Also, as bad as things are in some other countries at least the people living there know what will get them taken away in the middle of the ni
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sorry, but your attempt to distract me from my country's evil by pointing out that some other country is worse has been a failure. You are painfully nieve in the ways of debate young operagost, and are not yet ready for the position at the right hand of the president being his PR flak.