If people would drive better in this state then, these measures would not be needed.... New Mexico drives are some of the worst in the country. Running red lights is pretty common down here in Las Cruces. These cameras are a response to a problem.

So, when democrats promote a surveillance state in the name of public safety, it's OK? You deserve to be spied on.

A surveillance state occurs as the government increasingly watches the activities of the citizens. With the red light cameras, it is the government (via private contractor) watching. ATMs, stores, etc are not. If those ATMs and stores patched their video feeds into government entities, then it is yet more of a surveillance state.

I know my notions of privacy and anonymity are dated. who'd have thought 20 years ago that so many of us would simply expect to be videoed while shopping. Meanwhile, we monitor our kids with technology and then act surprised when they share videos of themselves screwing. Who knows where this will lead.

As such, I agree that privacy is not the biggest issue with the cameras. The biggest issues are the presumption of guilt, the shoddy evidence, and the out sourcing. The city really has no idea who is driving the car (it is declared a public nuisance regardless of driver). The city can't tell the difference between a license plate's picture and a piece of cardboard's picture. The calibration data on the MPH sensors has yet to be divulged. There is no way to tell if the private company (redflex) is making stuff up. Also, there is evidence that the city is shortening yellow light intervals below accepted norms with the result that more cars enter the intersection on red or fail to screech to a stop before the stop line.

Still, even if everything worked perfectly, I'd still be extremely uncomfortable with a government that contracts private companies to ferret out and fine law breakers.

Especially with the laws these guys are getting passed. Houses condemned for poor stucco. They can do the same if someone (anyone) reports you for chaining a dog in your yard. Even if there was never a dog or a chain. Paranoid? Some, but by the letter of the law it can work out that way.

By every catholic yardstick? Umm, how about being ordained within the authority of the RC church? If the RC church doesn't recognize them as ordained RC priests, then they aren't.

The RC church is a hierarchical structure centered on the vatican with the pope as its head. Random people can declare fealty (via profession of faith, baptism and confirmation) but can't inject themselves into the power structure without an invite.

A corollary would be someone walking around best buy claiming to be a customer service rep but not actually being an employee. (It has happened). No matter how they walk the walk, they won't get a pay check.

I enjoyed Sidney's articles. Sure, he's way liberal and I'm not, but his writing was tight and his analysis was insightful. Hopefully, he'll be back after hillary loses the dem nomination.

Even sadder is that wally shapiro hasn't gone away. He's just a mouth piece for the beltway dems.

How's about a trade, Joan? Wally for Sidney? You'll have to toss a little more into the deal though. Maybe hire the macaca guy, pump up his cred, and then add him to the deal.

Or Paglia. She's good, but her and hillary in the same room for too long would result in a sumo match. That would be fun. Besides, Paglia would still write for Salon because it damn well pleases her.

Is the human race supposed to suddenly turn on its heel and become rational? In the developing countries they burn the witches. In the developed counties we have religeous fundamentalists jousting with pseudo scientists. Which is worse? They all look the same to me.

A friend expressed it best with respect to america. He said he could deal with irrational thinking because it was a matter of training. The problem is the surging arational thinking wherein the mind actively rejects and is hostile towards rationality.

There is, and should be, tension between national security and personal security. They are not the same. National security is about the safety of the state, not necessarily the citizens. The bill of rights addresses this - defending personal security against the state.

Richardson was right. How much are we supposed to give up in the name of national security? Security in our homes? The ability to travel freely?

The nation is most secure when the people are completely helpless against the state. After all, the people are a primary threat to national security. Hint - check out "revolution" on wikipedia.

What is the point of national security if not human rights? The answer, obviously, is to buttress the state/emperor/king. You need to look at abuses in the US, not Pakistan. Citizens are already getting "disappeared" in the name of national security.

The best current example of national security over human rights that I can think of is North Korea. There, the iron boot of the state ensures that the people are little threat to the dictator. People starve as the state hoards food.

National security is important. Especially when it is protecting the rights of citizens. There is, however, a tipping point where the state, for its own security, starts abusing the citizens. That is why we must always put human rights first. That is why we have a bill of rights.

Make national security subservient. Then the nation is safe because the people are free and vice versa.

Put national security first and all you get is national security.

You left Saddam Hussein of you list of US supported dictators. We loved him while he was a compliant tool against Iraq.