Yearly Archives: 2004

cheney Yes, cheney No and Both are Wrong

This entry was posted in cheney Constitution Domestic Terrorism Federal Government Libertarianism US History US Politics on by

Well, there is just no agreement in the cheney family these days:

Lynne Cheney, the vice president’s wife and mother of a lesbian, said Sunday that states should have the final say over the legal status of personal relationships.
That stand puts her at odds with the vice president on the need for the constitutional amendment now under debate in the Senate that effectively would ban gay marriage.
While her position is certainly preferrable to that of her husband I can not, as does Alex Knapp, agree with it.
We would all be better off, i.e., it would promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity1, if neither state legislatures nor congress involved themselves in the legal status of personal relationships beyond regularizing the contract law that applies to the freely chosen relationships of informed, consenting adults.
1Preamble to the Constitution

Cool Space

This entry was posted in Astronomy Education Oceanography Science Space Exploration on by

The California Institute of Technology provides a site that has some great tutorial material on infrared and multi-wavelength astronomy. Also, the many images and videos will make multiple visits worth your time even after you have learned all the basics!
The material also covers applications to biology, geology, oceanography and more.
Interestingly, the site warns readers when material is written for those older then 14 and refers the reader to their parents or guardians if the text is too difficult. I wonder just who the average adult is supposed to get help from.
Via The Internet Scout Report.

Homeland Insecurity

This entry was posted in Patriot Act on by

These stories will, I’m sure, help feel much more at ease.
First, PZ Myers points us to this student’s adventures in photography and then Kevin Drum shares this writer’s experience.
It is pretty clear that the bushies have been pretty successful so far in building their culture of fear. So when someone like Washington Representative Adam Smith (D) says:

No, I’m sorry, I actually understand the issue.
when asked why he voted against the Sanders amendment I have to believe him and believe he means he supports the kind of behaviour depicted in these two stories. Certainly his broken understanding of the Patriot Act supports this view:
Smith, a member of the Armed Services and International Relations committees, disputed statements by some critics that the law allows investigators to gather sensitive information on suspected terrorists without a warrant or probable cause.
“If that was true I would vote against it, no doubt,” he said. “But it’s not true. You have to get a warrant, you have to show probable cause and there’s no evidence that this has been abused.”
Take a quick look at Section 215. Sure it requires a warrant but the only probably cause that is required is that
shall specify that the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation conducted in accordance with subsection (a)(2) to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.
In other words the alleged probable cause is the word of the investigator. No other evidence is required. I don’t think this is what most of us understand by probably cause.
Isn’t it time to rise up and say NO??