Letters to the Editor
-
Be very afraid...
Anybody can check my life's history (what a wild ride its been), starting with my birth certificate. I have no control over my privacy, the same way you don't. I'm positive information on me is being shared. I'm part of the database.
I wonder if punkout is aware that I'm "part of the database", partially translated into Arabic comes out "I'm part of al Qaeda." Bet your entry is flagged now, but at least you haven't been blown up.
Were the 1 billion calls overseas distributed uniformly among the American people (which they are not), you would have a better than even probability of being in the database for at least 1 minutes by the end of the 6 month sunset clause provision. Your chance of being struck by lightning is 681 times that of being a victim of a terrorist attack. With odds like that, I can see why someone would want to hide in a hole and give away their privacies and freedoms.
I'd watch who you told about your connections to "the database".
-
portho's posts
Porthos
... And Saddam had attacked us, or perhaps you forget all those missle launches at American and British aircraft,
Porthos has that same post at the The Strong... whatever thread. I answered him over there much in the same way that he has been answered over here.
-
Databases and totalitarianism
I was sort of joking upthread when I asked shooter242 if he would mind having all his personal health information monitored to see if he's "ripping off" his health provider. After all, it's for security's sake, etc...
Now I see on Slashdot:
In late June, the Indianapolis-based hospital system announced that starting in 2009, it will fine employees $10 per paycheck if their body mass index (BMI, a ratio of height to weight that measures body fat) is over 30. If their cholesterol, blood pressure, and glucose levels are too high, they'll be charged $5 for each standard they don't meet. Ditto if they smoke: Starting next year, they'll be charged another $5 in each check.
http://biz.yahoo.com/bizwk/070802/aug2007db2007081804238.html
-
Illegal no fly zones
Porthos
... And Saddam had attacked us, or perhaps you forget all those missle launches at American and British aircraft,
Here is more on that:
The Embarrassment and Illegality of the No-Fly Zones
by Jacob G. Hornberger, November 21, 2002
President Bush's "zero tolerance" for Iraqi violations of UN resolutions has apparently dropped to "two percent tolerance." According to administration officials, Iraqi forces have once again fired on U.S. planes patrolling the no-fly zones in Iraq, which U.S. officials had previously claimed would constitute an immediate justification for invading Iraq, not only under the principle of "self-defense" but also for violation of the recently passed UN resolution.
The Bush administration, however, is backing off and so far is not using the shootings as a "self-defense" excuse to invade Iraq, and so far isn't even taking the matter to the UN Security Council.
There's a very good reason for the government's decision: Despite their mild protestations to the contrary, U.S. officials know that the no-fly zones have been illegal from the get-go. And their decision not to use either "self-defense" or violation of the UN resolution as a justification for invading Iraq is an implicit acknowledgment of that illegality.
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0211h.asp
-
@ondelette
sorry--I was rushed and didn't look closely. You are right, two separate bills to FISA, and furthermore the house version never got into the fight (look at current fdl post) due to democratic blunder on house side. If they had played it right, the senate bill would have had to be conferenced with the house bill, and something might have been salvaged. But apparently Hoyer blew it, so no conference.
The senate bill should be linked somewhere at Balkinization--if you find it, post it up as I'd like to see it was well. DClaw may also have it somewhere--if he is looking in.
-
take with a grain of salt
U.S. officials know that the no-fly zones have been illegal from the get-go.
Take this with a grain of salt, since it appears on an extreme libertarian website.
But it raises a larger question: "illegal" according to what or whom? Saddam freely signed the cease-fire (not a surrender or truce) at the end of the Gulf War and agreed to abide by the allies' dictates. The no-fly zones were added and approved by the allies after Saddam started slaughtering Shia in the south and Kurds in the north.
The fact that it was a cease-fire and not a truce or surrender is important, too. Technically, the first Gulf War never ended. Saddam did not comply with the terms that he agreed to, which makes the cease-fire null and void. He also disregarded 17 UN resolutions, rendering the cease-fire null and void.
-
oops, 'tis I
That previous letter was not meant to be "anonymous." I must have accidentally dragged my cursor across the the little check box.
-
Porthos
Are you sure you are a right winger? You admitted to making a mistake.
-
Greenwald Not Correct
Glen says in headlines: GOP fear-mongering does not work
this of course is not correct as GOP fear mongering works perfectly as intended against democrats, getting them [democrats] to do exactly as the cult of republicanism wishes.
.
-
Back from practice, Glenn.
Mining collapse may have killed several workers in Utah.
Hatch's state. His former staffer is now an attorney there, moved in place to benefit mining interests.
Follow the Money.
-
@Porthos
That previous letter was not meant to be "anonymous." I must have accidentally dragged my cursor across the the little check box.
Do you do this often? 'Cause it would solve a lot of questions I have about all the Anonymi ;-)
-
Yep, it's Bush's fault
Mining collapse may have killed several workers in Utah.
Yep, Bush used the same magic wand to cause this mine collapse as he used to cause Hurricane Katrina. It must be malfunctioning, though, because no hurricane has struck North America for that last two hurricane seasons.
Al Gore, call your office.
-
@casual_observer
Nope. Balkinization hasn't got it, and all the others (WashingtonWatch, etc.) link to GPO/Thomas, which says it hasn't been posted. Do you think they're embarrassed about it?