And now the Senate wants to track your use of cold-medicine.
Mike Rezulli writes about the "anti-meth" bill.
A progressive-libertarian virtual online magazine with news aggregation, lifestyle and humour, and editorial comments on society, including excoriating outrages against freedom, subverting the rise of the omnipotent state, advocating personal responsibility and social justice, eliminating corporate welfare, and celebrating victories for liberty.Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action. -- George Washington
Mike Rezulli writes about the "anti-meth" bill.
While some folks like Chris Woods of The Political Forecast have questioned the priorities of Bill Frist/Senate Republicans in postponing the Defense Appropriations bill in favor of the legislation to block liability lawsuits against gun manufacturers, this editorial from The Washington Post suggests that it may have more to do with trying to block the McCain/Graham Amendment "that would exclude exceptional interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay and ban the use of "cruel, inhumane and degrading" treatment for all prisoners held by the United States."
Many (most?) people equate fascism with Hitler's Nazi state, and while they are related fascism is more Mussolini than Hitler, and many of the same qualities make up neo-fascism.
Where does this put America today?
The nation/state is exalted, with jingoism to the degree that the rhetoric says that dissent is unpatriotic and tantamount to treason.
George Bush is seen as the Supreme Commander, whose policies are not to be questioned.
We've seen the Orwellian speak of the Bush Administration, the extreme amount of documents classified, the attacks on those who try to disseminate information like the Downing Street Memos or question motivations for the War in Iraq or Turd-Blossom-Gate.
We see extremes of corporate welfare, with the pork in all spending bills, no-bid contracts, the "bancruptcy reform." Corporations play a large part in making government policy for their benefits, not the citizens.
We have the (anti-)PATRIOT Act, the (un-)REAL ID, and so many searches that we "consent" to (to engage in basic rights such as freedom to travel) as to render the 4th Amendment meaningless. Citizens are told that their security depends on infringement of their civil liberties. Everything is justified by "The War on Terror."
Full article here.
Retired Special Forces Col. Dave Schroer seemed like the perfect fit for the terrorism analyst position with the Congressional Research Service at the Library of Congress. Last December, two weeks before he was due to start work, he met for lunch with the supervisor who'd hired him, Charlotte Preece, at a Chinese restaurant on Capitol Hill. According to Schroer, Preece assured him that his impressive resume--25 years of Army service, a master's degree from the National War College, and a stint as the head of a classified 120-person group dedicated to tracking terrorists in the wake of 9/11--put him leaps and bounds ahead of the next best candidate they'd considered.
Then Dave explained that by the time he started work, he would be a she: Diane Schroer.
The next afternoon, Schroer says, Preece called to tell her that in light of their
conversation, "After a very long and sleepless night, I've determined that you're not what we're looking for, you're not a good fit for the Library."
Now the George Pataki has bowed out of running for a 4th term as Governor of New York, will former Massachusetts Republican Governor Bill Weld through his hat in the ring?
The Police State Act: A Report
The Patriot Act, like every political issue, boils down to a simple choice: Should we expand government power, or reduce it? This is the fundamental political question of our day, but it's quickly forgotten by politicians who once promised to stand for smaller government. Most governments, including our own, tend to do what they can get away with rather than what the law allows them to do. All governments seek to increase their power over the people they govern, whether we want to recognize it or not. The Patriot Act is a vivid example of this. Constitutions and laws don't keep government power in check; only a vigilant populace can do that.
One thing that I really don't get is why so many people get in a huff about a lawyer's membership in the Federalist Society.
Founded in 1982, the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is ... dedicated to reforming the current legal order. We are committed to the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be. The Society seeks to promote awareness of these principles and to further their application through its activities.Sounds like good principles to me.
These 43 Democrats need to be told that they are violating their oaths of office to support and defend the Constitution, and fighting against the civil liberties that make us American.
I don't care where you are on any political spectrum, this story reported over on the Knappster should concern everyone.
We knew it had to happen eventually: A blogger arrested for pissing off the powers that be.
DuBois' "crime?" Exposing some fairly nasty political corruption and prosecutorial abuse in his little corner of Ohio. Here's a chronology of events.
Matt Welch of Reason wants the Senate to ask John Roberts 7 Questions:
This Entry over at 2 Political Junkies prompted me to write this, a proposal for every sitting federal elected office, judicial nominee, and candidate for federal office.
"The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants andSo Ricky -- where in the Constitution do you find these rights for the Government?
passions. I disagree with that," said the Senator, "I think we absolutely have
rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we're seeing it in our society."
(Adapted from: Because the Government is evil and stupid...)
Because government is prone to excess, if it violates any of these principles, individuals may need to shoot it.
There fore the Government May NOT:
Our polarized society seems to be inclined to shout at each other, not listen to the arguments at all (why should we let little things like facts get in the way of propaganda and talking points anyway?), and engage in vicious ad hominem attacks. I think a lot of this has to do with the Limbaughs and Honsbergers out there, taking away the civil discourse and serious policy discussions. But even among some people I talk with among DFAers and Young Dems can't get past dogmatic positions, to reason.