BillL
Full Member
RIGHT ON !!!!
Posts: 172
|
Post by BillL on Dec 4, 2005 14:23:32 GMT -5
Scott says: In response to Bill L, who wanted some concrete evidence that the Patriot Act was being used to limit anyone's activities and/or threaten their liberty, here's a small bit
<snip>
and also: Okay ... so the players are small. Clearly, they abused powers granted by the Patriot Act, and were acting outside of its actual parameters. And they got caught.
I guess that's my point. If there is such widespread abuse, where is it and why aren't we hearing about those "real" cases of abuse? Again, for the record, I don't support the act as it is. But I do understand the knee-jerk reaction of why it was passed in the first place.
and he continues with: But how do we know this is the only group that has thusly interpretted the PA? Or that other groups have not done more? Or that larger fish aren't being fried, even as we speak?
Agreed. So all we can go on is what is being reported. And so far, this (and maybe a handful of other small players) have been caught overextending their reach. I would submit that many of these people were doing the same thing before the PA, but now they can try to pass off their interpratation using the PA in the hopes that they'll be left alone. One can only hope that anyone abusing any power is brought to justice. Sadly, that will never happen (as evidence in many RI political battles currently raging) so I'll settle for what ever I can get.
Bill L
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Dec 4, 2005 19:59:39 GMT -5
If there is such widespread abuse, where is it and why aren't we hearing about those "real" cases of abuse? So all we can go on is what is being reported. And so far, this (and maybe a handful of other small players) have been caught overextending their reach. Bill L Bill, what sort of "quota" do you feel is necessary here? The numbers in volume may not be that large because basically there aren't that many people privileged enough to abuse the Patriot Act. But when Tom Delay commands the FAA to track and chase some TX Democrats on a private plane headed for Oklahoma, it proves the few aforementioned privileged can and will be pretty damned "trigger happy". Hopefully things will change but for the moment, Delay ain't no small fish! Can you imagine J. Edgar Hoover with the PA at his disposal? Sure you can...just turn on the news.
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Dec 4, 2005 20:18:09 GMT -5
Again, for the record, I don't support the act as it is. But I do understand the knee-jerk reaction of why it was passed in the first place. Bill L Just ponder for minute how much "milage" this administration has gotten out of "knee jerk" reactions. The passing of the Patriot Act after 9-11 would probably be a good thing if Dubya etal were on our side but.... As soon as they discovered the beauty and benefit of a good knee jerk situation...they began to create them. My favorite is still.."The Democrats will ban your bible..." ;D Ah that Karl Rove. He is such a prankster to his sheep.
|
|
BillL
Full Member
RIGHT ON !!!!
Posts: 172
|
Post by BillL on Dec 5, 2005 9:40:36 GMT -5
Bill, what sort of "quota" do you feel is necessary here? The numbers in volume may not be that large because basically there aren't that many people privileged enough to abuse the Patriot Act. But when Tom Delay commands the FAA to track and chase some TX Democrats on a private plane headed for Oklahoma, it proves the few aforementioned privileged can and will be pretty damned "trigger happy". Hopefully things will change but for the moment, Delay ain't no small fish! Can you imagine J. Edgar Hoover with the PA at his disposal? Sure you can...just turn on the news. So you are actually going to argue that because it could be abused that it shouldn't have passed? If that's your criteria, than nothing should ever be passed through Congress. Regarding Hoover, he was dangerous before the PA (which only proves my earlier point) and would be worse now. However, and in using your ground rules from earlier, that was so long ago that it has nothing to do with this discussion. Show me something now. Remember, I'm not the one always pointing to the PA as the end of Democracy (or even freedom/privacy) in this country. Is it a gross overreach of intrusiveness...well, it could be. Has it been (at least up to now that we know of)...no. Is it good legislation that is needed in this country...not as it is written. I firmly believe that there are too many laws as it is and many of those laws overlap. Sorry to drag this to a hockey example but here it is: In hockey if you interfere with another players progress that's a penalty (called interference). With these new rules (actually a few years old now) they added a rule called obstruction interference. It's basically the same thing, but if you are interfering away from the play, that's what it's now called. Is that really necessary? There is already a penalty on the books for this. Shouldn't they just call the penalty what it is? Shouldn't they just enforce the laws on the books rather than create new legislation? I think you know my answer. Bill L
|
|
BillL
Full Member
RIGHT ON !!!!
Posts: 172
|
Post by BillL on Dec 5, 2005 10:39:48 GMT -5
In continuing with my rebuttal, Mike says: Just ponder for minute how much "milage" this administration has gotten out of "knee jerk" reactions.And how is this any different than any other administration. Whoever is in charge (either in the White House or Congress) immediately jumps at the chance for good PR. Then they try to spin it in their favor and make their opponent(s) look weak on whatever issue it is. A good example is global warming. Many people (including some of the folks in this discussion) would prefer a knee jerk reaction to questionable science because "the consequences are devestating" if we don't. Could it possibly be that because you believe in global warming (maybe not you personally, but stay with me here) that this is an OK knee jerk reaction? Could it possibly be that some people in the country were so frightened after 9-11 that they were willing to grant law enforcement additional powers to, hopefully, prevent something like that from happening again? Again, I don't agree with the PA as written, but it was done to minimize the vulnerability that many saw in this country in regards to intelligence pertaining to terrorist activity. The passing of the Patriot Act after 9-11 would probably be a good thing if Dubya etal were on our side but....We've already established in this discussion that, short of suicide, you will never agree with anything W does. That's your perception and you're entitled to it. As soon as they discovered the beauty and benefit of a good knee jerk situation...they began to create them.As both parties have, and continue, to do. Much like the knee jerk reaction to the PA (however founded it may have been). My favorite is still.."The Democrats will ban your bible..." ;D Ah that Karl Rove. He is such a prankster to his sheep. Well, you certainly don't have to believe me but, there is a perception out there that there is a movement to rid this country of Christianity. I personally don't think it's a massive conspiracy. Rather, it's a group of very vocal people with some decent support (money and otherwise) that would love nothing more than to rid the US of some of Christianity (specifically the Catholic Church). And to be honest, organized religion seems unable to not shoot itself in the foot at every turn. They truely are there own worst enemies (in the more publisized cases, anyway) most of the time. Me...I think I already quoted Jethro Tull (specifically Ian Anderson) earlier but I feel the need to do so again: from Wind Up on the Aqualung album; He's not the kind you have to wind up on Sunday Just my opinion, of course. Bill L
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Dec 5, 2005 19:52:27 GMT -5
So you are actually going to argue that because it could be abused that it shouldn't have passed? If that's your criteria, than nothing should ever be passed through Congress. Regarding Hoover, Bill L No I am not going to argue that. In fact I'm not going to argue anything as is usually my norm. I usually just state my opinions. And here are a few now... With Al Queda running around and Bin Laden still thumbing his nose at us 5 years after 9-11, I think a program like the PA is very necessary and could be very useful in the right hands (John McCain/John Kerry/Collin Powell..you know..guys that weren't sitting on the beach drinking pinacoladas with the chicks during the last big war and willing to disclaim the efforts of the vets that were). As usual the features and benefits displayed when it was sold to us was a "demo model" and didn't include anything like chasing a bunch of TX Democrats to the Oklahoma state line because they were defying "The Hammer" ;D. Lemme say this another way. This administration is eager to use anything they can con the American public out of for their own personal use to benefit a small connected group. As far as my political beliefs go, I am An American Citizen first and foremost! I will not go along with most of what this administration does because of that reason. You're right...I despise Dubya and everything he stands for. Including being the front man for Dick Cheney etal, instead of being "American first". I could fill up pages and we'd be on "Political thread #10" with reasons, but I won't. It's like this Bill. If you are impressed with this administrations performance then that's your business. If you want to back "The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight" then here you go... www.defenddelay.com Myself, I'm going to continue to bitch and stay as informed as I can about this evil bunch of mofo's that want to steal my Grandchildren's (if I ever have any?) future. As we've "discussed" before; most administrations have had corruption, but this one has decided to just go ahead and clean out the bank. I know that I brought it up, but I'm not discussing J Edgar Hoover. He was a disgusting waste of DNA, and the world is a better place now. I no more agree that Christianity is being stolen than I think there is a shortage of oil or gas. I do believe that the notion of that is another tool of manipulation. I don't buy Rove's illusions. I do agree very much with Ian Anderson's words..."He's not the kind you wind up on Sunday". But like I've said before. Too much discussion of religion confuses my moral values. And I do have them, no matter what Karl Rove and the "Christian Right" say. There are a lot of "christians" around that I wouldn't stand next to in an electrical storm...if you know what I mean.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Hays on Dec 6, 2005 9:43:50 GMT -5
Just some off the wall comments (not aimed, yet, at any specific thing said by anyone, but inspired mostly by things Bill had to say and a few of Mike's as well) ...
I know of no "conspiracy" to eliminate Christianity, but it might be the best thing humans can do in preparation for their next leap forward.
Some people in this country could never forgive JKF the sin of being Catholic (and the greater sin of actually winning), and ... like a few other major social blunders we have commited as a nation (genocide directed at the Native population, slavery, the Bomb, and Vietnam near the top of that list ... but lots of smaller pecadillos could be thrown in) ... the hypocrisy in which we shroud ourselves in denying such things only makes the pain that much more difficult to confront.
Belief is a powerful and delusional tool. It shrouds us from truth and honesty, and enables to look evidence in the eye and explain it away. Please refer back to my all-too-brief description of Navajo "witchcraft" a couple of pages back.
The power of the scientific view of the world is that it doesn't matter what you believe. If you are closed to the evidence because your belief is too strong to let you see it, then you cannot be a scientist. This applies to religious fools (of any faith) as much as it does to scientists who believe that their explanation is correct and fixed. Remember, "science" is really nothing more than a collected set of observations and tentative explanations. Each explanation is refined, changed, and even thrown out as new evidence is collected. Scientists, being human beings, often forget that the explanation on which they stake their understanding can easily change underneath them.
That said, most current evidence suggests quite clearly that the planet is warming up. The so-called "flawed science" is flawed only in the eyes of a minority of the scientific community, almost all of those scientists "coincidentally" in the employ of petroleum-based industries, think-tanks, political action committees and the like. When you come right down to it, the criticisms of climate science conclusions are very small in number, but only made to look more pervasive and widespread by clever manipulation of the media ... try and track down who actually said the science is "flawed", and you will find nothing more substantial than one or two studies that have subsequently been quoted and cited and cross-sited until it looks like there is a large body of work out there.
The same tactics were successfully employed by the promoters of canned "direct-instruction" and "phonics-based" programs a decade ago. All it took was one or two key folks embedded at the Department of Education who had buddies in the major conservative think tanks (Manhattan Institute, Hoover Instititute, and others I don't want to think about), a few key op-ed writers at the New York Times and Washington Post to plant the stories, and 2 researchers in middle America conducting flawed "scientific studies" on third graders to (1) "prove" that kids who learned phonics first became better readers and (2) create the false notion that these studies were "scientific" and then to base all subsequent assessment on these flawed "scientific" approaches. Again ... those two studies were cited, quoted and re-cited by all the above named think-tank gurus, the op-ed pundits, and then government officials to begin to create the notion that a ground swell of support existed for such crap, and each of those statements was added to the list of people who "proved" it was right and counted when the National Reading Panel did it's "study" of "research" on reading practices, concluding that umpity hundred of "studies" proved direct phonics instruction was most effective when in fact there were only two such studies, and the other umpity hundred minus two were reports about those studies made to look like "new" work.
These two examples are but the tip of the iceberg of the work of this Administration. From Iraq to "Clear Skies" to "Voter ID Cards" and everywhere in between, this Administration fabricates data, manipulates data, and selectively reports data to support its policies and positions. This is "good" politics. It is not science.
Such tactics are NOT an outgrowth nor an invention of this Administration, though this Administration is quick to utilize such tactics to support its policies. Do not confuse such tactics with "science"
|
|
BillL
Full Member
RIGHT ON !!!!
Posts: 172
|
Post by BillL on Dec 6, 2005 11:21:30 GMT -5
For the record, I don't think there is a conspiracy. I did say, however, that there is a perception among some of the extremists (Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed, etc.) that that is what's happening.
As for flawed science et al, how can you take roughly 100 years of temperature readings (most of which are inaccurate due to the inability to correctly calibrate their instruments) and come to any conclusion on whether or not the earth is going through a "standard' cycle or not. The earth is something like 4 billion years old. To correctly infer that global warming is happening based on the available (accurate) temps would still be laughable using the Scientific Method. You are correct, however, when you state that science is about observing, concluding and reasessing. And in many ways, that's exactly what religion does. If I'm not mistaken, was it not Martin Luther's issues with the church that lead to his splitting from them? Was it not Henry VIII (maybe, I'm too lazy to look it up) that lead to the split that created the Church of England? I'm Greek Orthodox and the Catholic Church split from us (who split from who depends on who you talk to) in 1054 (called the Great Schism).
I would conclude from our discussions over the past year that you are one of the "prove it" guys. If God (or god, if you prefer) exists, why can't you prove it? And then there's the old comeback, do you love your family? Then prove it! It's not easy to prove something like that, yet I find it very easy to look up at the stars, or over the ocean, or at the trees in my yard and I feel quite comfortable in believing that there is a God.
Bill L
<side note to Mike> I mean argue in the good sense of the word. You are stating your opinion and defending it. I am stating an opposing opinion and defending it. Even by the loosest definition that's an argument. And I also think it's fun and enlightening. ;D
|
|
BillL
Full Member
RIGHT ON !!!!
Posts: 172
|
Post by BillL on Dec 6, 2005 11:23:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by featphoto on Dec 6, 2005 11:58:57 GMT -5
I'm going to pick a couple of nits here ... For the record, I don't think there is a conspiracy. I did say, however, that there is a perception among some of the extremists (Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed, etc.) that that is what's happening. no, that's not what you said. you said, "I personally don't think it's a massive conspiracy. Rather, it's a group of very vocal people with some decent support (money and otherwise) that would love nothing more than to rid the US of some of Christianity (specifically the Catholic Church)." what this says is that you think it's a smaller conspiracy, not a massive one, but still a conspiracy. at least that's how the above reads to me ... this is a gross oversimplification of the data (both pro and con) that scientists are working with ... mean yearly temperatures are just a fraction of the measurements being used, which range from co 2 analysis of ice core samples to satellite measurement of atmospheric layer imbalances to the ratio of solar energy absorbtion vs re-radiation ... I'd agree that religion is big on observation and conclusion ... I'd take issue with you on the idea that religion is open to reassessment. the likes of Martin Luther (who protested Catholic practices like dispensations, hence the Protestants) and Henry VIII (who created a new religion solely for the purpose of shedding a barren wife in hopes of a fertile one) didn't cause their religions to reassess, just split off new ones. the original religion they left behind maintained it's dogma then, and still does.
|
|
BillL
Full Member
RIGHT ON !!!!
Posts: 172
|
Post by BillL on Dec 6, 2005 12:25:59 GMT -5
That's why I love ya, Hank. Always keeping it real. I didn't mean to imply that I thought there was a conspiracy...merely that some thought there was. My mistake and I'll try to keep an eye on that. regarding this bit: this is a gross oversimplification of the data (both pro and con) that scientists are working with ... mean yearly temperatures are just a fraction of the measurements being used, which range from co2 analysis of ice core samples to satellite measurement of atmospheric layer imbalances to the ratio of solar energy absorbtion vs re-radiation ...That still doesn't prove that man has had any impact on the warming. It just shows that it has been warming which would make sense having just come off an ice age. I'd take issue with you on the idea that religion is open to reassessment. the likes of Martin Luther (who protested Catholic practices like dispensations, hence the Protestants) and Henry VIII (who created a new religion solely for the purpose of shedding a barren wife in hopes of a fertile one) didn't cause their religions to reassess, just split off new ones. the original religion they left behind maintained it's dogma then, and still does.I'll conceed that. It was not the best of examples. When you get down to it, they just took their ball and went home. However, if you click (and read) the link I posted above you may be surprised just how flexible the Orthodox Church is (as compared to other Sects). And please, no silly comments about my ethnicity from the peanut gallery. Bill L
|
|
|
Post by Scott Hays on Dec 6, 2005 14:46:40 GMT -5
you mean something like "Greek being Sects to me"? (or something like that) ... heaven forbid, I would never be the first to say anything offensive (but I might pile on!)
Speaking of Heaven ... there is no "proof" of God, which is the basic issue separating religion from Science. As I stated, some scientists become a little confused because they are (at least most of them) human, and seek "ultimate causes" and/or defend a favored position with the zeal of a believer ... but for most practicing scientists, the operative words are observe, record, hypothesize, test, replicate, and start again. "Proof", in that layman detective sense of the word, is not amongst the key words (although "disprove" and "negate" are).
Hank is correct about the complexity of the data supporting global warming. The question of human causation is the one that has humans the most upset. I won't push the "who has the most to lose" button in order to discuss this part of the question ... at least, not yet. Instead, I'll look at policy ...
Let's assume, for a moment, that human activities contribute squat to the increases in CO2 and methane in the atmosphere (though anyone driving behind my old 59 Pontiac would surely laugh at the silliness of such a proposition), and that the observed trends are part of a purely "natural" cycle. Ooops ... I guess there is nothing we can do about it except go about our daily lives and hope that the cycle naturally reverses itself before Los Angeles becomes Atlantis. That's good policy ... hide your head in the sand. Not sure what we could do, but "business as usual" does not seem to be the wisest of choices.
Some contend that human activities are natural (humans being a part of the natural world, as it were), and therefore, anything we do is part of whatever natural cycles that take place. This idea has logical appeal, and there is more than a grain of truth to it, but it is more in line with Spencerian notions of social darwinism (a philosophy embraced by many members of the Republican Party), and again leads many to conclude we should do nothing ... the fit will survive. Oh boy.
Still working from the "squat hypothesis", others argue that even if human activity has nothing to do with global warming, it is prudent to take steps and be cautious about the things we do and/or start making plans or adjustments for the changes that global warming will bring about. This argument, at least, is proactive.
Then there are those (me amongst them) who feel that human activity does contribute to global warming. It only makes sense. Hundreds of millions of years passed with increasing quantities of carbon being buried inside Earth due to natural Earth processes. When it was discovered that all those buried petrochemicals could be burned and the resulting energy applied to existing steam technologies, a quantum leap in carbon release began. It has only taken about 150 years to burn most of them up ... the same energy at least 200-300 million years to trap and bury has been suddenly released into the atmosphere, without the concommitant time necessary to cycle it through natural systems. It would take a pretty blind person to not see the logic in this argument.
So then the question becomes how actively should humans pursue steps to mollify these outcomes. Even a very conservative human being ought to opt for caution here ... gee, if there's even a chance that the car I have to drive to get around is contributing to global warming, then maybe I should carpool, or buy a smaller car, or purchase a hybrid, or consider public transportation, or bicycle/walk instead. The degree of caution is an independent choice, of course ... but why anyone still believes they can continue with business as usual simply because it makes life so much simpler is clearly bargaining with the (someone else's) devil.
How about a national policy that rewards private entrepeneurship, initiative and invention/creativity by discovering and implementing new sources of energy and/or new technologies to do work while punishing those who continue to create the old and potentially contributing to global warming. How about incentives to develop new structural materials (lighter, ,more durable), new engines, new road surfaces. How about campaigns to eliminate the need for haste and speed? I mean, the opportunities for innovation and revolution are endless.
But no ... it's business as usual.
Mostly because of the bottom line ... follow the money.
|
|
|
Post by chadgumbo on Dec 6, 2005 15:34:18 GMT -5
From Scott earlier today: Not much of a political post here, but here's a great little story about phonics... I used to play a game with my boys when they were at the age where they were learning how to read. Neon signs are notorious for having only a portion of the sign burned out and so if, for example, we were driving past Wal-Mart at night and the "W" wasn't lit up I'd say to my boys "Oh look. Rochester has a new store called " al-Mart." Once the R was out at Red Lobster, so I asked the boys if they wanted to eat at " ed Lobster. You get the idea. I used to do this a lot, and the idea was to 1.) get a laugh out of my kids, and 2.) get them to look for signs and see if they could spot something similar themselves. So one night, about 10 years ago when Phillip was 6, we were rolling up Highway 52 in Rochester. I was driving and my boys were in the back seat, and luckily (on this one) Chris wasn't with us. I'm zooming along at about 60 mph. Apache Mall is on my right and a smaller shopping center is on my left. I wasn't checking the signs out, but Phillip was. In the shopping center to the left is a restaurant "The Old Country Buffet." Apparently, the " ry" was burned out. Well, Phillip didn't mention the word "count." He quoted a slang term for the female anatomy that rhymes with "bunt" and from the back seat my son suddenly pipes up and says, "Hey Dad, you want to eat at The Old C___ Buffet tonight? I burst into laughter, knowing he'd had no clue as to what he'd just said. Phillip just thought he'd gotten "a good one" off with the road sign game. I don't think Phillip necessarily knew how to spell "country" or "buffet", but he knew that was the restaurant and that was their sign. Seeing the missing letters, his "phonics" logic just took the next step. Where's Art Linkletter or Bill Cosby when you need them? More from Scott: If God exists, then alienating ourselves from Him/Her is obviously not a wise course of action regardless of how great a leap we could take forward. If God doesn't exist, I'm still not sure that abandoning the idea of God is a good idea. If God is a hinderance to our next leap forward, Id' like to point out that God did not get in the way of... inventing the wheel, taming fire and using it to our benefit, inventing tools, ships, trains, automobiles, planes, spacecraft, telephones, computers, weapons, atomic weapons, etc. I know President Bush makes us feel as though God is getting in the way of stem-cell research. After all, our president is a Christian and he can't reconcile his beliefs against the necessary intricacies involved to go forward with stem-cell research. But be assured that it will find its way into the American laboratories sooner or later. Science has never been hindered for very long by the church, and I don't believe it will be here either. As for the number of people who die in the name of God or Allah, or any other deity - if we weren't dying in the name of God, then we would be dying in the name of oil, land, government, cultural differences, etc. We'd simply have one less reason for fighting wars, but make no mistake the wars would still be fought. Personally, I believe in God. But even if He doesn't exist He has provided hope for countless millions over a number of millenia. If God doesn't exist, is He still greater than me? Of course. Exist or not, His influence is undeniable. Even if God doesn't exist, is He still more real than me? Again, the answer is yes. Fifty years ago, I didn't exist and fifty years from now I'll either be dead or wish I were. But in a matter of only a few generations from now, only a handful of people will know that I ever existed (and they will know precious little about me and the life I lived). God will, presumably, be alive and well (either literally or at least in the minds of the people who believe in Him). My existence can't compete with that. Well, that's enough from my philosophical soap box for now. As Bill said, if I allow myself too much roap I'll just hang myself with it anyway
|
|
BillL
Full Member
RIGHT ON !!!!
Posts: 172
|
Post by BillL on Dec 6, 2005 17:16:09 GMT -5
Chad, Regarding your last paragraphs, you've said it much better than I could have myself. Thank you. Scott, Just a couple quick things: Regardless of which party is in power, they are all bound to the oil companies. They yeild way too much power in Washington and the alternate energy source that you speak of will eventually be found...but whoever is in charge will have a tough battle against the fossil fuel intrests. And as you stated, "follow the money". Also, regarding the carbon monoxide splinter in this thread, I understand what you mean. However, I find it hard to believe that 100+ years of industrialization could put as much junk into the atmosphere than 4 billion years of volcanic activity not to mention all the methane released by the dinosaurs (and all the other animals for that matter) which had created a much more real greenhouse effect. I don't say that we don't have an impact. We do. Just that it's not as bad as it's portayed in the media and certainly not as bad as Al Gore suggests. Not to mention that, short of detonating our entire nuclear arsenal, I don't think man could make such an immediate impact. And for that matter, I think it's pretty egotistical to think we could. Nature takes time to do everything. Ecosystems are constantly changing. Darwinism (in the sense that all things will evolve until they outlive their usefullness and then disappear) will certainly win out. And I also think the earth itself will overcome (with time) anything we throw at it (again excepting nuclear holocaust, alien invasion or interstellar garbage collection). Would I like to be around to see if I'm right? Sure, but that won't happen. Our lifetimes are truely a blip on the screen when compared to the earth. Bill L ---> And thanks for keeping it clean! You can pile on if'n someone starts. But I have a quick trigger and ask questions later.
|
|
|
Post by jashley on Dec 6, 2005 17:17:25 GMT -5
BillL,
Sorry I haven't responded sooner to you're last post, I wrote it out and as I was preparing to post when my web provider went down and I lost it. It did include the following. An American citizen was arrested and detained on American soil over three years ago under the provisions of the "Patriot Act" because he was declared an "enemy combatant" by that great American (I hope you can hear the sarcasm) John Ashcroft. He received no hearing. No charges. Mr. Ashcroft claimed he was planning a terrorist attack. These charges have been found to have no evidence to support them. The administration has finally granted this young man a hearing on completely different charges because his lawyers were threatening a constitutional fight that the administration was fearful (their words not mine) would reach the Supreme Court at which time most legal scholars admit that the "Patriot Act" would probably be declared unconstitutional. This is why the court is insulated from elections (as strictly intended by the framers of the constitution). So that they hopefully will not be subject to the "knee jerk" reactions (some would say panic) of the majority. Citizen:no charges; no hearing; three years in jail; American: I don't think so. REAL LIFE enough for you.
I apologize for stating my position unclearly but I have never and would never advocate changing the language of the constitution (except under the provisions contained therein). However, some rights that are not spelled out in the constitution (such as a right to privacy) are there because they are necessary to the rights written there. A right to privacy is contained in the Constitution because it is necessary for rights spelled out (due process and freedom of religion come immediately to mind) and should be applied in other situations. In other words the people advocating a narrow application of the constitution are unreasonably limiting the constitution because they want the other branches of government to have MORE power over the citizens of this country and not for any intellectually honest reason they claim. The constitution is designed to protect the rights of the minority (even a minority of one) and don't ever forget that. Whenever anyone says the court should rule one way or the other because of the mandate of an election or because that is the way the majority wants it they are arguing contrary to the intention of the constitution. The above example illustrates how fearful neo-cons are of the constitution. Patriots huh.
You're right wing buddies are not going to like you pointing out the flaws in their arguments about the second amendment. When you read a law you have to read the whole thing and the second amendment clearly deals with a right to form a state sponsored militia and not an individual's right to bear an uzi. Thank you for your intellectual honesty.
Bill I know you hate Mike Moore but one of the scariest portions of Fahrenheit 9/11 was when he was interviewing Rep. Rangle (I think)(a democrat by the way) and he asked him if he had read the "Patriot Act" before he voted on it and the congressman laughed and said that they didn't have time to read most of the legislation they voted on. This might be why we get stupid laws or maybe why we don't get more of them. Yes I suppose all laws have the capacity to be corrupted but as in everything some have a greater capacity than others to be wrongly used and I feel that the "patriot act" has the highest possibility of being badly used as any in our history. This law is like something from the taliban, if we become them while fighting them we have already lost.
I have to go to a meeting at democratic hq, I know you hate that Bill. Talk to you again soon.
Peace j
|
|