> While we have very strict drug laws in America,
> they are not enforced very often.
Then I wonder what we're spending the $1200/second budget of the drug war for. It can't all be for "education"; there were only a couple of Superbowl commercials.
> is there a Bar where there is never anything illegal going on (at some point)
> no.
> so why should we get rid of on-line privacy just because the real world is reflected on line.
Hey, the on-line world isn't being singled out; I know it sounds trite, alarmist, and jingoistic, but the (U.S.) government is getting more repressive every day. For example, since the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act (a.k.a. the RAVE Act) was passed 3 months ago, Bars (and all other event organizers, including rave organizers, who were the nominal target) ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR DRUG USE AT THEIR EVENTS if one could reasonably assume that drugs would be done at said event, even if the organizer and/or property owner made a good-faith effort to keep their event drug-free.
The IDAP/RAVE act was introduced in Congress in 2002. A coalition of anti-drug-war activists and entertainment businesses rallied against it, and it never got to the floor for a vote, and even lost two of its original co-sponsors in the process.
This spring, however, Senator Biden (D-DE) snuck it into the conference-commitee version of the popular Amber Alert law. It was thus passed without any congress-wide debate, and with many who voted for it ignorant that it had even been included.
Biden claimed that the the critics were misreading the bill and exagerating its dangers as expressed above. Even those who would have given him the benefit of the doubt may have second thoughts, because the law has already been used for blatant political repression. In May, the DEA told the owners of a Billings, Montana, venue that they could face a fine of $250,000 if illicit drugs were found in their premises during a fund-raising concert for 2 drug-law-reform groups. The bands were given a similar threat, and the benefit was cancelled.
Sorry to go off-topic, but I think it's usefull to try to see the big picture.
OK, I expect to be paid for this posting. If I am not, the universe will have morally wronged me.
To claim that there is a "moral" dimension to "intellectual property" is just Cato Institute blather.
"Intellectual property" is a legal fiction for the benefit of society, by encouraging authorship. As such, it is an economic and legal issue, not a moral one.
You shouldn't brag about having Iranian friends. It makes you look even more stupid for assuming "Tannaz Haddadi" to be a male name (in your 'joke' above.)
The USA Today mentions the ACLU's campaign in an article entitled "Armey: Justice 'out of control,' violating rights" and starting:
WASHINGTON -- House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas,
lashed out at the Justice Department Wednesday for what he
called its ''lack of regard for personal civil liberties in
America'' while combating terrorism.
''I told the president I thought his Justice Department was
out of control,'' the retiring lawmaker told USA TODAY's
editorial board.
Armey has long expressed concerns about civil liberties
violations in the name of fighting terrorism. He helped
scuttle Bush's plan to set up a government hotline for
delivery workers and others to report suspicious activity.
''Are we going to save ourselves from international
terrorism in order to deny the fundamental liberties we
protect to ourselves?'' he said. ''It doesn't make sense to
me.''
Your use of the word "challenging" is misleading, bordering on an outright lie. Most readers would infer that if the ACLU is "challenging" something, they have filed a court action, or have decided to do so.
As the article you cite makes clear, they are simply "examining whether the order might violate parts of the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 law prohibiting the military from direct involvement in civilian law enforcement." They might challenge it in the future, but have not made any such decision.
The phrase you use, "anti-globalization movement" is a misnomer created by the corporate press. Leaders of the movement use either the term "global justice" or the term "anti-corporate-globalization," meaning against the model of globalization advocated by corporations, and their lackeys in academia and government. (You can always find some less-than eloquent member of the movement to use the simpler, misleading term "anti-globalization," but the leaders never use it.)
I don't know what you mean by "more globalization." Yes, fewer agricultural subsidies and fairer prices for the developing world "would homogenize prices across the market," but this would result in less international trade.
I don't know where you get the ridiculous idea that the corporate CEO and the "tree hugger" want the same thing. Because you don't back it up, I don't know where to start critiquing it; its fallacy is self-evident to anyone who has the slightest knowledge of the movement.
Slashdot Mirror
> they are not enforced very often.
Then I wonder what we're spending the $1200/second budget of the drug war for. It can't all be for "education"; there were only a couple of Superbowl commercials.
Actually, there were 1,579,566 arrests for drug law violations in 2000. 734,497 of those were for cannabis. 646,042 people were arrested for cannabis possession alone.
Granted, they're not all convicted, but many are: prisoners sentenced for drug offenses make up about 55% of Federal inmates and about 20% of adults in state prisons.
All this helps to give the United States the highest prison population rate in the world, at 686 per 100,000.
[Obviously this is nothing compared to the number of people who speed. I'm just objecting to the "not enforced very often" line.]
I don't know about Canada, but in the U.S. there's been a longstanding loophole big enough to shove $150 million a year through.
> no.
> so why should we get rid of on-line privacy just because the real world is reflected on line.
Hey, the on-line world isn't being singled out; I know it sounds trite, alarmist, and jingoistic, but the (U.S.) government is getting more repressive every day. For example, since the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act (a.k.a. the RAVE Act) was passed 3 months ago, Bars (and all other event organizers, including rave organizers, who were the nominal target) ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR DRUG USE AT THEIR EVENTS if one could reasonably assume that drugs would be done at said event, even if the organizer and/or property owner made a good-faith effort to keep their event drug-free.
The IDAP/RAVE act was introduced in Congress in 2002. A coalition of anti-drug-war activists and entertainment businesses rallied against it, and it never got to the floor for a vote, and even lost two of its original co-sponsors in the process.
This spring, however, Senator Biden (D-DE) snuck it into the conference-commitee version of the popular Amber Alert law. It was thus passed without any congress-wide debate, and with many who voted for it ignorant that it had even been included.
Biden claimed that the the critics were misreading the bill and exagerating its dangers as expressed above. Even those who would have given him the benefit of the doubt may have second thoughts, because the law has already been used for blatant political repression. In May, the DEA told the owners of a Billings, Montana, venue that they could face a fine of $250,000 if illicit drugs were found in their premises during a fund-raising concert for 2 drug-law-reform groups. The bands were given a similar threat, and the benefit was cancelled.
Sorry to go off-topic, but I think it's usefull to try to see the big picture.
OK, I expect to be paid for this posting. If I am not, the universe will have morally wronged me.
To claim that there is a "moral" dimension to "intellectual property" is just Cato Institute blather.
"Intellectual property" is a legal fiction for the benefit of society, by encouraging authorship. As such, it is an economic and legal issue, not a moral one.
My Humble apologies. (it's been a very caustic day; better hit the hay before i get flippant with anyone else...)
Yes, and if a serial killer gets bored and stops killing, we should just let him go too, huh?
You shouldn't brag about having Iranian friends. It makes you look even more stupid for assuming "Tannaz Haddadi" to be a male name (in your 'joke' above.)
Your use of the word "challenging" is misleading, bordering on an outright lie. Most readers would infer that if the ACLU is "challenging" something, they have filed a court action, or have decided to do so. As the article you cite makes clear, they are simply "examining whether the order might violate parts of the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 law prohibiting the military from direct involvement in civilian law enforcement." They might challenge it in the future, but have not made any such decision.
The phrase you use, "anti-globalization movement" is a misnomer created by the corporate press. Leaders of the movement use either the term "global justice" or the term "anti-corporate-globalization," meaning against the model of globalization advocated by corporations, and their lackeys in academia and government. (You can always find some less-than eloquent member of the movement to use the simpler, misleading term "anti-globalization," but the leaders never use it.)
I don't know what you mean by "more globalization." Yes, fewer agricultural subsidies and fairer prices for the developing world "would homogenize prices across the market," but this would result in less international trade.
I don't know where you get the ridiculous idea that the corporate CEO and the "tree hugger" want
the same thing. Because you don't back it up, I don't know where to start critiquing it; its fallacy is self-evident to anyone who has the slightest knowledge of the movement.