Archive for November, 2006

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Look what Katrina got us

Monday, November 6th, 2006

Bush Moves Toward Martial Law : SF Indymedia

Public Law 109-364, or the “John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007″ (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a “public emergency” and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to “suppress public disorder.”

President Bush seized this unprecedented power on the very same day that he signed the equally odious Military Commissions Act of 2006. In a sense, the two laws complement one another. One allows for torture and detention abroad, while the other seeks to enforce acquiescence at home, preparing to order the military onto the streets of America. Remember, the term for putting an area under military law enforcement control is precise; the term is “martial law.”

Section 1076 of the massive Authorization Act, which grants the Pentagon another $500-plus-billion for its ill-advised adventures, is entitled, “Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies.” Section 333, “Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law” states that “the President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of (“refuse” or “fail” in) maintaining public order, “in order to suppress, in any State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.”

Nice, so due to the idiots in Louisiana that couldn’t prepare for or handle the Katrina emergency, we get this piece of crap legislation that allows the President to override the Governors of the states and deploy troops.  As if we need to concentrate any more power into the executive brance, as if we hadn’t done enough of that over the past 5 years.

Tweet This Post

Posted in National | No Comments »

U.S. House: What are your views on net neutrality regulation?

Monday, November 6th, 2006

The News Leader – www.newsleader.com – Staunton, Va.

Bob Goodlatte

I believe in free market principles and the fact that government involvement often stifles innovation in the marketplace. I also believe that the Internet has ushered forth tremendous benefits in quality of life and continues to be a powerful engine for our economy. I am concerned about the potential that broadband service providers, who control the Internet pipes that enter citizens’ homes, could use their facilities to discriminate or exercise anti-competitive conduct against Internet content providers by denying consumers access to certain websites or information.

Our nation’s antitrust laws have served as important guidelines to ensure that markets remain competitive and that companies cannot discriminate against others. The way to ensure competition in the provision of broadband is not to bury broadband providers with more government red tape and regulations. I believe that competition in this area can be encouraged by setting forth clear and articulate guidelines that do not stifle innovation or the ability for broadband providers to recoup the investments they make in their infrastructures. Relatively minor amendments to our nation’s antitrust laws could be the right approach in this area.

Ok, so explain to me the practical difference between government mandated guidelines and government regulations.  Hmm, I bet he’d have a tough time with that one.  Goodlatte did put in a nice effort to disguise that though, I’ll give him that.

Andre Peery

This is a subject that is still being debated and if the definition of “net neutrality” is the same as “open access” then I am for it. The Internet is one last free frontier that I would like to see preserved.

Ok, the question wasn’t about preserving the internet.  The question was about net neutrality regulation.  Ms. Peery artfully(?) dodged that question.

Barbara Pryor

The Internet should be free and open.

Access to information should not be determined by a viewer’s ability to pay. Corporations should not have not have the ability to prioritize what we see first when are searching for information.

Ok, I’m going to go out on a limb and say without prior knowledge that Ms. Pryor is the democratic candidate.  The reason I say that is that she seems to be inventing more “rights” for the government to provide to the people (i.e. access to the internet).  Unfortunately Ms. Pryor fails to recognize that information has never been free, and people have always controlled what and how that information is presented to other people.  It is up to the viewer to develop good bullshit sensors.

Tweet This Post

Posted in election, Local | No Comments »

Packing heat

Wednesday, November 1st, 2006

The News Leader – www.newsleader.com – Staunton, Va.

People normally do not go around Staunton, Waynesboro or Augusta County with sidearms strapped on. Families trying to have an evening out together should not feel uncomfortable about who (or what) is sharing their space. No one except bona fide law enforcement officers (not “defense league” wannabes) needs to sit down to a meal with a weapon strapped to their side.

Yes, but they can if they want to, and it is legal to do so.

Yes, it’s legal to do so in Virginia, but it’s normal to feel wary when we see someone obviously not a police officer packing a gun; it’s reasonable to run a check on them when they do.

No, it is not.

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

There was no probable cause in this situation, these men were doing nothing wrong, so there was no reason to have a background check run on them.

The police department did its duty, and we commend them for it. We feel much safer knowing that they are looking after our safety than some group of out-of-area gun advocates who are just looking to score brownie points with the National Rifle Association.

These “out-of-area gun advocates” are helping to look out for your freedoms (I deliberatly did not call them “rights”, as that implies that the government gives them to us), and I commend them for their efforts.

Here is a good post from the comments

Here is the editors problem with this whole situation. He doesn’t THINK that people should carry guns openly in urban settings, so using negative language and a ‘shaming’ technique, he hopes to prevent the citizens of Virginia from exercising their right to carry a gun AND to provide for their own protection. NOBODY has the right to deny a basic human right to another person for the sake of their own emotional security and by publishing this editorial and by promoting the random stops and ID checks of anyone openly carrying a gun is attempting to deny people of an inalienable right.

If you get nervous or scared because someone who is NOT a police officer is wearing a gun, then stay in your house the rest of your life. THAT is your right. You do NOT have a right to FEEL safe unless you provide, FOR YOURSELF, that feeling. You provide that feeling by carrying a gun for your own protection, not by denying the rights of others to protect themselves and their families.

As for having a police presence for your protection, this is classical evasion of your own personal responsibility. YOU have a responsibility to provide for your own protection, not the police. This is a proven supreme court precedent. While the police will do their best to provide protection, they are neither obligated, nor are they liable, if they fail to provide that protection to YOU as an individual…only to the public at large. The people who promote the ‘only police should carry guns’ are the people who are either incapable of handling their responsibility of defending their own lives or they just plain don’t want that responsibility. This is part of the problem in this country today. People refuse to accept that they are responsible for their own safety. By pushing for huge police presence to protect their lives, instead of handling that responsibility themselves, they are chiefly responsible for the resulting socialist/police state that this country is headed in.

All of those supporting the ideas of these editors need to grow up, become men and women in the real world, and better society by handling their own responsibility.

Tweet This Post

Posted in Local | No Comments »

Vote Democratic, even if Republican?

Wednesday, November 1st, 2006

The News Leader – www.newsleader.com – Staunton, Va.

Vote Democratic, even if RepublicanMany people in this area think they are Republicans, because that’s the way it’s been for years and the lies and twisted rhetoric of the Republicans sound convincing. Now, before the election, is a perfect time to take stock. Valley citizens might be surprised to learn they have more in common with the Democratic Party than they realized!

If you favor fiscal responsibility, vote Democratic. Under President Clinton, the federal budget was balanced; under President Bush, we are experiencing deficits that threaten to derail the economy and jeopardize our well-being. Democrats don’t love taxes any more than Republicans, but we do believe that it is critical to balance the budget and invest in essential services to assure an equitable future for all.

Absolutely, if you favor higher taxes, and bigger government vote Democratic (or Republican, they both do the same thing in this area.  With Dems you pay now, with Reps you pay later).  Someone needs to step in and say “I want to cut down the size of government to balance the budget, not raise taxes or run a deficit”

If you favor national security, vote Democratic. Republicans would have you believe that Democrats are weak on national security, but that is not true. Most Democrats believe security resources can be used more effectively. We are wasting lives and money in Iraq; that must change. But America must also remain strong, we must stay vigilant against terrorism; we must restore our international relations with our allies. After 9/11 we had an opportunity to unite the world against terrorism; instead, our arrogance has inspired new generations of terrorists who will threaten world peace for decades, if not centuries.

I don’t know about the factual basis of that last statement.  In any case, whatever your opinion is on if we should have gone into Iraq, we are there, and we need to leave the country in a state where they won’t be a threat to us in the future.

If you favor personal responsibility, vote Democratic. Legislating behavior doesn’t work. We are all motivated by personal interest – Republicans understand this better than anyone – and resent when someone else’s views are imposed on us.

Now, I am with the democrats on this social responsibilty thing.  We don’t need to be legislating any more morality to people (that’s not to say we can’t, because we do).  As long as what you’re doing isn’t hurting anyone else, go for it.

What we ought to address is poverty. There is a shocking income disparity in this country, with many millions of people living in deplorable circumstances. Before we tell people what they can or cannot do with their own bodies, we ought to ensure that there is opportunity for the poor to participate in the economy. Right now, thanks to Republican policies, our economic system is pushing more and more women and children into hunger and despair. That’s just wrong.

If you favor freedom of speech, vote Democratic. If you favor civil rights and fairness, vote Democratic. If you favor better health care and education for all citizens – not just a privileged few – vote Democratic. The list goes on, and the conclusion is clear. Support Jim Webb and the Democratic Party on Nov. 7.

And here we go.  This country was founded on equal opportunity, not equal results.  This is what the Democrats seem to consistantly get wrong.  I’m all for everyone having equal opportunity, but when you have that, you will not get equal results.  In order to get equal results (nobody poor, nobody hungry, everybody has a house, etc,. etc.) you have to create unequal opportunity.  You have to move to communism, from each according to abilty, to each according to need, and that is anathema to what this country was founded upon.  If you want to piss away your life and do nothing, you’re going to end up living in the gutter and being hungry, but you should have equal opportunity to make something of your life, not have everything handed to you.

Tweet This Post

Posted in National | 1 Comment »

Do you agree the president and executive branch have the power to wiretap U.S. residents?

Wednesday, November 1st, 2006

The News Leader – www.newsleader.com – Staunton, Va.

Do you agree the president and executive branch have the power to wiretap U.S. residents or otherwise conduct surveillance on them without warrants? Why or why not? (200 words)Bob Goodlatte

After September 11th, Congress passed and the President signed into law the Authorization for Use of Military Force Act (AUMF). This authorized the President to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

In 2002, the President issued a directive to the NSA to create a surveillance program to intercept international communications into and out of the United States of persons linked to al Qaeda or related terrorist organizations.

Some contend that President Bush’s directive violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which provides a framework for the use of electronic surveillance in acquiring foreign intelligence information. The Bush Administration asserts that the AUMF grants him the authority to institute the directive.

Congress is continuing aggressive oversight over the program to ensure that Americans’ civil liberties are not violated. While the world we live in since September 11th requires us to be more patient, we must be careful not to trade our personal freedoms for the promise of security. Once we have sacrificed the civil liberties that our Nation was founded on, we have allowed terrorism to defeat us.

Goodlatte seems to have done his homework, at least in hindsight.  I’m don’t know how he voted on the AUMF bill, but someone needs to call into question the constitutionality of that bill with regards to the 4th amendment (see Pryor’s repsonse below)

Andre Peery

I do not agree they have the power to do that. I agree that the Congress and the Courts could agree to give them that power in certain situations. Always this should be done with oversight. How could we trust them now to do the right thing when we have been misled thus far?

Peery appers to be saying what the people want to hear, and is lacking in knowledge on the area.  Congress did pass a law allowing the Executive branch to do just that.  It’s the constitutionality of that law that is in question.

Barbara Pryor

ABSOLUTELY NOT! See: Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America, Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I would have to agree with Pryor on this one 100%.  I think the AUMF Act is unconstitutional, and needs to be challenged.

Tweet This Post

Posted in Local | No Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »