Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 1824
-
@ L.W.M.
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Mona thinks Scientology is a legitimate religion. She defends it on a first amendment basis when it is obvious that Scientology is a an actual threat to the first amendment. This is a prime example of an OCD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_S._Touretzky#Criticism_of_Scientology
Guess you don't appreciate Pastafarianism then?
When I was in college, people became pastors of the Universal Free Life Church (or some such thing), mainly for religious exemptions from the draft, but being a minister has other advantages. Scientology is a cult, a scam, and a religion all rolled into one. They aren't any worse in any of these than other organisations, but they do manage to hit the trifecta to greater effect than perhaps anyone but the Moonies (and that's pretty much a tie). So the Scientologists use the system and game it to the max; as I said, they're no worse on "free speech" rights that others that have sued over material (think Hollyword stars or other personalities and embarrassing pictures).
I think anyone should be able to call anything a "religion", but the flip side is that I don't think, given that wide, laissez faire atttitude towards what a religion is, that gummint should give an advantages to religions.
Cheers,
-
Bucky1 sings the Libertarian Anthem....
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here][Arne]: No, you don't. I really don't care a whole lot about what people do to themselves. People are creative and unique, quite capable of making stoopid decisions (from my POV; ones that perhaps I would never make, or ones that I pretend I'd never make when I think I'm a better and smarter person than I am).
It would be beyond human understanding for you to ever realize just how wrong you are in the above statements. I believe in free will, voluntary cooperation that arises naturally in society when government officials with guns are not standing in the way.
... and unicorns, the Easter Bunnny, Santa Claus, and Things That Aren't And Will Never Be.
This is the archetypical example of the fundamental flaw in the thinking of Libertoonarians.
That said, no point in further ... ummmm, "discussion" ... with our Lonytoonarian buddy Bucky1. C'ya. Send us a postcard from Libertarian Island when you guys build it. Oh. Nevermind. Postal services are provided by gummints; silly me.
Cheers,
-
child psychologists and boy Republicans
[Read the article: Mike Allen and Hugh Hewitt on the politicization of the military]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]House erupts in chaos
In a massive flare-up of partisan tensions (video link courtesy Breitbart.tv), Republicans walked out on a House vote late Thursday night to protest what they believed to be Democratic maneuvers to reverse an unfavorable outcome for them. http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0807/House_erupts_in_chaos.html
Kind of like that "citizen riot" in Miami in December, 2000....
They just want attention. If you ignore them and get on with what you're doing, they'll sulk, but eventually STFU.
Cheers,
-
Not sure this is true:
[Read the article: Democrats' responsibility for Bush radicalism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here][Glenn, from the post]: There is this gap in FISA, which everyone, even Russ Feingold, says needs to be filled, which is that if there is a foreign-to-foreign conversation which happens to be routed through the U.S., it requires a warrant....
50 USC § 1801(f)(2) requires a FISA court order only if a). the intercept is done domestically, and b). if the communication is "to or from a person in the [U.S.]":
(2) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other
surveillance device of the contents of any wire communication
to or from a person in the United States, without the consent
of any party thereto, if such acquisition occurs in the United
States, but does not include the acquisition of those
communications of computer trespassers that would be
permissible under section 2511(2)(i) of title 18;...
The rub is that if you "target" all conversations of a foreign person, and do the tap domestically, you may pick up their calls to the U.S., which would be a violation of FISA without the court order.
The obvious "cure" for this is to say that there's no ban on domestic acquisition as long as the "target" is not a "United States person" (as does 50 USC § 1801(f)(1) already).
Repealing § 1801(f)(2) would have done the job better. The mealy-mouthed "concerning" as opposed to "targeting", and "reasonably believed" to be outside the U.S. is far less clear in what it authorises, and in that I see some danger....
Not to mention, there was no problem in getting a FISA court order for foreign targets (in which case even domestic "associates" could be listened in on if they were called or called the target) for targets that could be shown to be al Qaeda....
Cheers,