Slashdot Mirror
2006's Bill of Wrongs
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.
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! (And, natch, in every single case the ACLU was behind it 100%.)
Comment of the year
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.
I for one, am happy to be a European right now - although the Blair Government is currently contemplating putting people predispositioned to crime in jail before they actually commit a crime. Nice....
Anyway, some people in Washington may need a reminder 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.
People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.
let me fix this:
Apparently the point of our civil liberties is to protect everyone on earth, including the alleged terrorists, huh?
Yes.
"Apparently the point of our civil liberties is to protect everyone on earth, including the terrorists, huh?"
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.
What a stupid fucking argument. Who said said that such violations happen only in the USA? Nobody did. Saying 'XYZ is worse than us' when the article is about the US means jack shit. The fact that you're somehow proud that you're beating North Korea for human rights is very telling. You should compare yourself to the best, not the worst, if you want to prove your excellence.
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!'
Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
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.)
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
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.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
The reason that the Republicans don't turn on him publicly is that they have some semblance of respect for the office of the presidency
Yeah, I took note of that respect during the Clinton years. Good job.
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.