The government may put *anyone* on this list, you or me or your mother or Cat Stevens or anyone with a strange name. They don't have to tell you why, nor do they provide a method of petitioning to have your name removed from this list.
The DHS already has the ability and responsibility to screen people before boarding. That is why, during check-in, I am unable to use the electronic kiosks. Somebody with my name (perhaps me) is on a watch list. So, this requirement both delays takeoff of the flight, and effectively gives the government final say over who flies and who does not.
The regulation provides unfettered governmental control of ingress and egress via commercial carriers. The stated goal is to catch terrorists; however, there is nothing in the wording to restrict use and abuse, nor any method of US (or other) citizens to seek relief.
You seem to trust our government. That's great. But what will happen when President Hillary Clinton and Vice President John Kerry have this kind of unfettered control of your life? Remember, the power we give this President is the power the next President inherits.
At this rate, I don't believe Americans are going to vote for a Republican president for a long, long time.
Yes, leftist groups. Unless you're suggesting it was conservative circles encouraging people to be skeptical of the "evidence" that got us involved in Iraq.
Wow! From this quote, I'm not sure if you believed the "evidence" or not. However.
Considering we were being quickstepped to war with a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 11-Nov-2001, every US citizen had a *duty* to be skeptical. The fact that few were only shows how willingly we as a nation are complicit in the fiasco of the US-Iraq war.
The evidence presented was proven false before one soldier had set foot in Iraq, and not just on the internet. The fact we continued to war, and the fact that the President didn't delay the war to investigate the validity of his evidence, indicates he was either intentionally lying, or willfully ignorant.
Even if the evidence had proven solid, the President had a duty to investigate the allegations before proceeding to war. The potential loss of life (currently at about 650,000, most of them civilians) demanded it.
If you still believe the evidence against Iraq was true, that's more than President Bush, who stopped trying to claim the evidence was true long ago.
There was a link to a federal website. There was a docket number. There is a search engine at said federal website.
The results of that search (should you choose to search all documents, not just those open for comment) will result in a link to said document. The search results do not seem to be good links themselves, so I'm afraid you will have to do a little bit of work yourself; however, anyone with a modicum of intelligence should be able to figure it out.
Because we should trust a non-binding press release over the binding details of the deal. It's not like the stated goal will be different from the actual goal. Nobody is ever sly; everybody says exactly what they mean.
Whilst I have no doubt that Apple make superior hardware and software to Dell/HP/etc and Microsoft, I can't help thinking that part of this "loyalty" that Mac owners have is because once they've purchased the software to run, they have no choice in moving away from the platform unless they want to re-purchase all their software again.
I think it's more that moving from OSX to MS-Windows is a painful experience. My wife, who used and liked MS-Windows at work before she got her Powerbook at home, hated her work computer after just a week or two of OSX. It was just painful to use for the most trivial of things.
Strangely, she doesn't seem to mind Ubuntu that much. "It's still not a Mac," she told me, but she has little choice, as her Powerbook is having, ironically, power problems.
It's not just the hardware, thought that's part of it. It's the well-designed software, too. There's brand loyalty because it's a damned good brand.
Tens of thousands of voters from poorer (usually Democratic) counties being erroneously included on a list of felons, thus not being allowed to vote. The list was compiled by a company in the employ of Republican campaigners.
Per-capita, older and fewer machines being sent to Democratic counties.
Unofficial recounts that indicate that Gore won.
State-initiated opposition to recount requests.
And the list goes on.
There's good, solid evidence the 2000 election was stolen, pure and simple. Whether it was intentional or not is another question. But there were more than enough anomalies without electronic voting to make it . . . irregular, to say the least.
Especially considering that the Dow isn't a good direct indicator of economic health. If you consider how well the dollar isn't doing, the DOW isn't doing that hot.
The Bush spend and spend fiscal policy has pushed the US debt to the greatest it's ever been. As Alan Greenspan tried to explain, increasing the national debt is the worst thing you can do for the economic health of the US. At least the Democrats want to balance the income and the outgo, as anybody with a pocketbook and a job should understand.
As far as the Republicans being tougher on terrorism: prove it. Prove that Iraq wasn't a distraction from real terrorism. Prove that Iraq didn't contribute to terrorism, as a recent intelligence report indicates.
So, assuming you weren't being obliquely ironic, you are a nard. If you were being all ironical and stuff, I apologize. I'm not in the most subtle of moods right now, as there are a lot of Bush apologists out there, considering he's an asshat with a terrible approval rating, and I'm really worried that Bush and his gang have fucked us over to the point of no recovery.
Just because our current military probably wouldn't shoot citizens (though I'm not sure-- I live about 75 miles away from Kent State), one that is controlled by fear, and "traitors" shot, probably would.
If Bush seriously makes a power grab in two years, that's the kind of army he'll have. He'll pass down orders to declare as an "enemy combatant" anyone who refuses orders to shoot civilians. He'll make a few public displays, execute a couple, and then we'll have a military willing to shoot civilians.
It's an unlikely scenario, I agree. But it's dreadfully frightful to consider.
I don't think you can say Bush is responsible for the lack of terrorist attacks. In spite of the propaganda, there are very few people who really want to attack the US. Otherwise, we'd have roadside bombs and car bombs every few days. Considering it had been about six years between 9/11 and the previous terrorist attack in the US, Oklahoma City, I don't think terrorist attacks in the US are really all that frequent. So, there is no cause and effect here. There is no evidence to suggest Bush has stopped a single attack on US soil.
In May of 2001, Bush gave the Taliban $42,000,000. True, he removed them from power after, but he failed to catch bin Laden, though he promised the US he would. Now Afghanistan is controlled by warlords, the Taliban is still around, and people are still dying.
In Iraq, the civilian death toll is at least 45,000 people. We are no longer in control of Baghdad, and Iraq has gone from one the most progressive middle-eastern countries to . . . well, I don't know. If conservative fundamentalists take control of the government (which seems very possible, if not probable), chances are it will turn into a religious government such as Iran. In any case, Iraq is now more likely to produce a bumper-crop of terrorists with no real reason to like the US, according to recent intelligence reports.
But, I guess you reap what you sow.
Unemployment is relatively low, but real wages are not keeping up with inflation, though adjusted profits are up, and executive pay increases are greater than inflation. As others have pointed out, the Dow as a pure number isn't an accurate indicator economic health. You have to factor in the value of the dollar, at a minimum. By that standard, things are not that rosy.
Anyhow, in the end history will judge this presidency. It is impossible to judge it whilst we are in the middle of it.
It is *not* impossible to judge his Presidency at the moment. He has authorized the use of torture, he has stripped habeas corpus from "enemy combatants," who can be *anyone*, even US citizens. He changes laws to suit his desire through the use of signing statements. The economy has improved since 2001, but is still soft. He lied to get us into an unnecessary war. (It was proven at the time we went to war that all of the pieces of evidence used in his case for war were forged, incorrectly represented, or outright fabrication. We knew before a single troop stepped foot in Iraq that there was no good case for the war.) He has used the tragedy of 9/11 to frighten and cow American citizens, and to justify laws we would never have allowed otherwise.
He has given billions of dollars to corporations in no-bid or single-bid contracts. He has quelled investigations into abuse of those contracts. He has single-handedly pushed the US into the greatest debt it has ever seen.
It is easy to judge him now. It may be hard for me to see the good for the bad, but the things you call "good" are not as good as you seem to think.
Um, you guys know that bills don't just magically appear on the president's desk, right? One swipe of the pen?! If he was able to sign something that screws you, it's because hundreds of people, working against your interest, put it there. Yes, blame Bush for not vetoing it, but don't stop there. If you can only count ONE pen, you're retarded.
That'd be insightful, if it were true, which it unfortunately is not.
Bush often attaches "signing statements" to bills, offering his "interpretation" of the bill. Although there is debate about the legality of these signing statements, the important thing isn't their legality, but whether Bush treats them as legally binding. If he behaves as if they are legally binding, then his actions reflect that, and they are in effect legal, at least until someone grows a pair and takes Bush to task.
Actions speak louder than words, and Bush s actions scares the fuck out of me.
Now, this doesn't necessarily apply to this bill, as I don't know about any signing statements. However, I just wanted to point out that Bush does indeed single-handedly alter laws as he signs them.
I don't think we call that "freedom." We call that "security." We seem to prefer (perhaps false) security over freedom, safety over honor. It seems we would rather have an all-powerful state rather than personal liberty.
Oh, well. I guess that is merely the evolution of government.
I believe you underestimate the power of philosophy. The "proprietary model" is the result of one such philosophy, one which places corporations and corporate profit at the center.
RMS espouses another philosophy, one which places the individual, ideas, and the free interchange of ideas, at the center.
That is more than just setting the computer industry back 50 years. That is setting civilization back several hundred (since before the advent of scientific reason and discourse).
To summarize, I believe in the right to bear arms, but lets do away with the fiction that legal firearms will protect us against a government that spends more than every other nation combined on defense.
3) The government is not committing any wrongdoings, just (possibly) being incompetent. Revealing the source would be a threat to national security. The responsible thing for the reporter to do would be to talk to the government about it, off the record. Nevertheless, if the reporter did report such a thing, my thought would be that the reporter still should not have to reveal his sources, but should be punished.
Here, I'd have to disagree. If the reporter discovered that the US was basing a major military operation partly on the words of an unreliable source, I believe it is the reporter's duty to report this. The government *had* been talked to in this case, just as there had been discussions about the invalid nature of the yellow cake documents, the aluminum tube suitability for uranium refinement, etc. The government appeared to be willfully ignorant about the evidence they presented to the American public.
So, in that specific case, I believe national interest (and national security) was better served by the reporting that our government was ignoring real evidence, clinging instead to false evidence that supported their case.
Unfortunately, that kind of reporting didn't happen much here in the States. I learned about it first through British media. Here, it was relegated to page 8 of the NY Times until it was too late, and we were busy creating a terrorist breeding ground out of Iraq.
Reporters should report the news, not be the news. This reeks of left-wing propaganda.
Left-wing? What's that, other than a quick label to slap on something with which you don't understand or agree?
From what I've seen of the news media, it's generally propaganda, pure and simple. There's no information like disinformation, no matter which side of the partisan street it walks.
Don't complain too much about buzzwords:) They make this business run, if you didn't notice.
Okay, I'm confused. What's the antecedent for "this?" Which business? The business that caused this buzzword-laden FA to be forced onto the world?
Buzzwords are stupid, and they make no business run but marketing. All marketers should kill themselves. Really. They do nothing but pollute the universe and cause people to start using words like "utilize" instead of "use," "impact" instead of "affect." That's just plain stupid, and makes the writer/speaker sound stupid.
Oh, I'll complain about buzzwords all right. The first time I read a document from a marketer that said, "We will help you utilize your creative for maximum impact," I about shat gold nuggets. This is the ultimate effect (or "impact," for those of you who don't know the words "affect" and "effect") of a marketing society: sentences that mean nothing, and are written as bad poetry for the sake of hawking something. Usually, buzzwords are used in place of real content to hide the fact that there is no content, or that the writer/speaker has no clue about the content, but wants to make money off you anyway.
Buzzwords are a sign of ignorance. They make no business run, except marketing. If you are in marketing, please: kill yourself. No, really. It'll be a mercy killing, in that you will be showing mercy to the rest of us.
(Please note: marketing is not advertising. Advertising is the art of informing citizens of your product or service, hopefully in an amusing, not-to-obtrusive fashion. Marketers are annoying advertisers, who use whatever trick they can to get you to purchase whatever it is they are hawking. You know the kind. They will go to your boss, or your bosses' boss, if they think they are going to lose the sale.)
The fact is, we could have universal, free health care *and* a smaller government. These goals aren't contradictory. With the amount of money we spend on healthcare already, we could run a real universal healthcare system, such as those found in Norway or Japan.
As far as smaller government goes: we could quite easily reduce the government by cutting back on non-essential spending, and reducing government interference in what amounts to states' rights.
The fact you wish I couldn't vote pretty much indicates you are anti-democracy, and your own opinions are pretty much not well-thought-out.
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for 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.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
It seems to me that the concept of "privacy" was embodied in the concept of "liberty," for without privacy, liberty is reduced. Also, as noted in the fourth amendment, a person is as inviolable as their house, which means the government has no right to request anything from me without a warrant, which includes fingerprints.
As the ninth amendment states, the enumeration of rights in the constitution does not imply these are the only rights held by the people. Rather, the implication is, the US government and states are only allowed those rights specifically listed in the constitution. All other rights belong to the people.
The U.S. Constitution does not specifically mention privacy, but that is merely because the comings and goings of person at the time were private by nature, subject only to observation by other people. The principles outlined in the founding documents of the United States clearly imply that a person is sovereign within themselves, and the government is supposed to be limited in power.
But then again, what do I know? I'm clearly idealistic, and believe the only way for a democracy to properly work is when every single person embodies the full power of the state.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't get to comment about this subject again. Ever.
Sorry, I did mean 11 September. Thanks for politely correcting me.
The government may put *anyone* on this list, you or me or your mother or Cat Stevens or anyone with a strange name. They don't have to tell you why, nor do they provide a method of petitioning to have your name removed from this list.
The DHS already has the ability and responsibility to screen people before boarding. That is why, during check-in, I am unable to use the electronic kiosks. Somebody with my name (perhaps me) is on a watch list. So, this requirement both delays takeoff of the flight, and effectively gives the government final say over who flies and who does not.
The regulation provides unfettered governmental control of ingress and egress via commercial carriers. The stated goal is to catch terrorists; however, there is nothing in the wording to restrict use and abuse, nor any method of US (or other) citizens to seek relief.
You seem to trust our government. That's great. But what will happen when President Hillary Clinton and Vice President John Kerry have this kind of unfettered control of your life? Remember, the power we give this President is the power the next President inherits.
At this rate, I don't believe Americans are going to vote for a Republican president for a long, long time.
Please go here. Click the radio button for "all documents." The search for this document ID:
USCBP-2005-0003-0005
Happy hunting.
Yes, leftist groups. Unless you're suggesting it was conservative circles encouraging people to be skeptical of the "evidence" that got us involved in Iraq.
Wow! From this quote, I'm not sure if you believed the "evidence" or not. However.
Considering we were being quickstepped to war with a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 11-Nov-2001, every US citizen had a *duty* to be skeptical. The fact that few were only shows how willingly we as a nation are complicit in the fiasco of the US-Iraq war.
The evidence presented was proven false before one soldier had set foot in Iraq, and not just on the internet. The fact we continued to war, and the fact that the President didn't delay the war to investigate the validity of his evidence, indicates he was either intentionally lying, or willfully ignorant.
Even if the evidence had proven solid, the President had a duty to investigate the allegations before proceeding to war. The potential loss of life (currently at about 650,000, most of them civilians) demanded it.
If you still believe the evidence against Iraq was true, that's more than President Bush, who stopped trying to claim the evidence was true long ago.
There was a link to a federal website. There was a docket number. There is a search engine at said federal website.
The results of that search (should you choose to search all documents, not just those open for comment) will result in a link to said document. The search results do not seem to be good links themselves, so I'm afraid you will have to do a little bit of work yourself; however, anyone with a modicum of intelligence should be able to figure it out.
Good luck, Sir.
Because we should trust a non-binding press release over the binding details of the deal. It's not like the stated goal will be different from the actual goal. Nobody is ever sly; everybody says exactly what they mean.
Whilst I have no doubt that Apple make superior hardware and software to Dell/HP/etc and Microsoft, I can't help thinking that part of this "loyalty" that Mac owners have is because once they've purchased the software to run, they have no choice in moving away from the platform unless they want to re-purchase all their software again.
I think it's more that moving from OSX to MS-Windows is a painful experience. My wife, who used and liked MS-Windows at work before she got her Powerbook at home, hated her work computer after just a week or two of OSX. It was just painful to use for the most trivial of things.
Strangely, she doesn't seem to mind Ubuntu that much. "It's still not a Mac," she told me, but she has little choice, as her Powerbook is having, ironically, power problems.
It's not just the hardware, thought that's part of it. It's the well-designed software, too. There's brand loyalty because it's a damned good brand.
The only good software patent is a dead software patent.
All software patents are bad patents. Full fucking stop.
Let's see.
Tens of thousands of voters from poorer (usually Democratic) counties being erroneously included on a list of felons, thus not being allowed to vote. The list was compiled by a company in the employ of Republican campaigners.
Per-capita, older and fewer machines being sent to Democratic counties.
Unofficial recounts that indicate that Gore won.
State-initiated opposition to recount requests.
And the list goes on.
There's good, solid evidence the 2000 election was stolen, pure and simple. Whether it was intentional or not is another question. But there were more than enough anomalies without electronic voting to make it . . . irregular, to say the least.
Much harder.
Especially considering that the Dow isn't a good direct indicator of economic health. If you consider how well the dollar isn't doing, the DOW isn't doing that hot.
The Bush spend and spend fiscal policy has pushed the US debt to the greatest it's ever been. As Alan Greenspan tried to explain, increasing the national debt is the worst thing you can do for the economic health of the US. At least the Democrats want to balance the income and the outgo, as anybody with a pocketbook and a job should understand.
As far as the Republicans being tougher on terrorism: prove it. Prove that Iraq wasn't a distraction from real terrorism. Prove that Iraq didn't contribute to terrorism, as a recent intelligence report indicates.
So, assuming you weren't being obliquely ironic, you are a nard. If you were being all ironical and stuff, I apologize. I'm not in the most subtle of moods right now, as there are a lot of Bush apologists out there, considering he's an asshat with a terrible approval rating, and I'm really worried that Bush and his gang have fucked us over to the point of no recovery.
In any case, Allah Be With You.
I do wonder if this is related to Oracle's recent announcement in any way?
Or I wonder if they have decided to use a Linux kernel for their next iteration of MS-Windows the same way Apple used a *BSD kernel in OSX?
Or I wonder if someone wanted some ad impressions, and so cooked up this baloney story to get some page hits?
Or I wonder if there just isn't enough evidence to say one way or the other if this deal is in any way real?
Lots of armies shoot their own countrymen.
Just because our current military probably wouldn't shoot citizens (though I'm not sure-- I live about 75 miles away from Kent State), one that is controlled by fear, and "traitors" shot, probably would.
If Bush seriously makes a power grab in two years, that's the kind of army he'll have. He'll pass down orders to declare as an "enemy combatant" anyone who refuses orders to shoot civilians. He'll make a few public displays, execute a couple, and then we'll have a military willing to shoot civilians.
It's an unlikely scenario, I agree. But it's dreadfully frightful to consider.
That *only* works when the government and the people have equal footing when armed.
Bah. I could take Bush in an arm-wrestling contest. He looks like a pussy to me.
In May of 2001, Bush gave the Taliban $42,000,000. True, he removed them from power after, but he failed to catch bin Laden, though he promised the US he would. Now Afghanistan is controlled by warlords, the Taliban is still around, and people are still dying.
In Iraq, the civilian death toll is at least 45,000 people. We are no longer in control of Baghdad, and Iraq has gone from one the most progressive middle-eastern countries to . . . well, I don't know. If conservative fundamentalists take control of the government (which seems very possible, if not probable), chances are it will turn into a religious government such as Iran. In any case, Iraq is now more likely to produce a bumper-crop of terrorists with no real reason to like the US, according to recent intelligence reports.
But, I guess you reap what you sow.
Unemployment is relatively low, but real wages are not keeping up with inflation, though adjusted profits are up, and executive pay increases are greater than inflation. As others have pointed out, the Dow as a pure number isn't an accurate indicator economic health. You have to factor in the value of the dollar, at a minimum. By that standard, things are not that rosy.
It is *not* impossible to judge his Presidency at the moment. He has authorized the use of torture, he has stripped habeas corpus from "enemy combatants," who can be *anyone*, even US citizens. He changes laws to suit his desire through the use of signing statements. The economy has improved since 2001, but is still soft. He lied to get us into an unnecessary war. (It was proven at the time we went to war that all of the pieces of evidence used in his case for war were forged, incorrectly represented, or outright fabrication. We knew before a single troop stepped foot in Iraq that there was no good case for the war.) He has used the tragedy of 9/11 to frighten and cow American citizens, and to justify laws we would never have allowed otherwise.
He has given billions of dollars to corporations in no-bid or single-bid contracts. He has quelled investigations into abuse of those contracts. He has single-handedly pushed the US into the greatest debt it has ever seen.
It is easy to judge him now. It may be hard for me to see the good for the bad, but the things you call "good" are not as good as you seem to think.
That'd be insightful, if it were true, which it unfortunately is not.
Bush often attaches "signing statements" to bills, offering his "interpretation" of the bill. Although there is debate about the legality of these signing statements, the important thing isn't their legality, but whether Bush treats them as legally binding. If he behaves as if they are legally binding, then his actions reflect that, and they are in effect legal, at least until someone grows a pair and takes Bush to task.
Actions speak louder than words, and Bush
s actions scares the fuck out of me.
Now, this doesn't necessarily apply to this bill, as I don't know about any signing statements. However, I just wanted to point out that Bush does indeed single-handedly alter laws as he signs them.
I don't think we call that "freedom." We call that "security." We seem to prefer (perhaps false) security over freedom, safety over honor. It seems we would rather have an all-powerful state rather than personal liberty.
Oh, well. I guess that is merely the evolution of government.
I believe you underestimate the power of philosophy. The "proprietary model" is the result of one such philosophy, one which places corporations and corporate profit at the center.
RMS espouses another philosophy, one which places the individual, ideas, and the free interchange of ideas, at the center.
That is more than just setting the computer industry back 50 years. That is setting civilization back several hundred (since before the advent of scientific reason and discourse).
I know which side I choose.
I define evil as, "Intentionally fucking over someone else for your own personal gain." That is objective, simple to remember, and fairly accurate.
There's no legal system required, and it's fairly portable. Take it or leave it, but that's how I judge evil.
To summarize, I believe in the right to bear arms, but lets do away with the fiction that legal firearms will protect us against a government that spends more than every other nation combined on defense.
I think you mean "against a government that spends over twice as much as the rest of the world combined."
3) The government is not committing any wrongdoings, just (possibly) being incompetent. Revealing the source would be a threat to national security. The responsible thing for the reporter to do would be to talk to the government about it, off the record. Nevertheless, if the reporter did report such a thing, my thought would be that the reporter still should not have to reveal his sources, but should be punished.
Here, I'd have to disagree. If the reporter discovered that the US was basing a major military operation partly on the words of an unreliable source, I believe it is the reporter's duty to report this. The government *had* been talked to in this case, just as there had been discussions about the invalid nature of the yellow cake documents, the aluminum tube suitability for uranium refinement, etc. The government appeared to be willfully ignorant about the evidence they presented to the American public.
So, in that specific case, I believe national interest (and national security) was better served by the reporting that our government was ignoring real evidence, clinging instead to false evidence that supported their case.
Unfortunately, that kind of reporting didn't happen much here in the States. I learned about it first through British media. Here, it was relegated to page 8 of the NY Times until it was too late, and we were busy creating a terrorist breeding ground out of Iraq.
Reporters should report the news, not be the news. This reeks of left-wing propaganda.
Left-wing? What's that, other than a quick label to slap on something with which you don't understand or agree?
From what I've seen of the news media, it's generally propaganda, pure and simple. There's no information like disinformation, no matter which side of the partisan street it walks.
Don't complain too much about buzzwords :) They make this business run, if you didn't notice.
Okay, I'm confused. What's the antecedent for "this?" Which business? The business that caused this buzzword-laden FA to be forced onto the world?
Buzzwords are stupid, and they make no business run but marketing. All marketers should kill themselves. Really. They do nothing but pollute the universe and cause people to start using words like "utilize" instead of "use," "impact" instead of "affect." That's just plain stupid, and makes the writer/speaker sound stupid.
Oh, I'll complain about buzzwords all right. The first time I read a document from a marketer that said, "We will help you utilize your creative for maximum impact," I about shat gold nuggets. This is the ultimate effect (or "impact," for those of you who don't know the words "affect" and "effect") of a marketing society: sentences that mean nothing, and are written as bad poetry for the sake of hawking something. Usually, buzzwords are used in place of real content to hide the fact that there is no content, or that the writer/speaker has no clue about the content, but wants to make money off you anyway.
Buzzwords are a sign of ignorance. They make no business run, except marketing. If you are in marketing, please: kill yourself. No, really. It'll be a mercy killing, in that you will be showing mercy to the rest of us.
(Please note: marketing is not advertising. Advertising is the art of informing citizens of your product or service, hopefully in an amusing, not-to-obtrusive fashion. Marketers are annoying advertisers, who use whatever trick they can to get you to purchase whatever it is they are hawking. You know the kind. They will go to your boss, or your bosses' boss, if they think they are going to lose the sale.)
Great comment, AC.
The fact is, we could have universal, free health care *and* a smaller government. These goals aren't contradictory. With the amount of money we spend on healthcare already, we could run a real universal healthcare system, such as those found in Norway or Japan.
As far as smaller government goes: we could quite easily reduce the government by cutting back on non-essential spending, and reducing government interference in what amounts to states' rights.
The fact you wish I couldn't vote pretty much indicates you are anti-democracy, and your own opinions are pretty much not well-thought-out.
It seems to me that the concept of "privacy" was embodied in the concept of "liberty," for without privacy, liberty is reduced. Also, as noted in the fourth amendment, a person is as inviolable as their house, which means the government has no right to request anything from me without a warrant, which includes fingerprints.
As the ninth amendment states, the enumeration of rights in the constitution does not imply these are the only rights held by the people. Rather, the implication is, the US government and states are only allowed those rights specifically listed in the constitution. All other rights belong to the people.
The U.S. Constitution does not specifically mention privacy, but that is merely because the comings and goings of person at the time were private by nature, subject only to observation by other people. The principles outlined in the founding documents of the United States clearly imply that a person is sovereign within themselves, and the government is supposed to be limited in power.
But then again, what do I know? I'm clearly idealistic, and believe the only way for a democracy to properly work is when every single person embodies the full power of the state.
Exchanging liberty for extended government control is never a good trade. Never. Ever.
That is, unless you want to be controlled, ruled, herded, marked, investigated, and dominated. In that case, you are on the right track.