Constitution

Where is America Headed?

This entry was posted in bush Constitution Drug Laws Election 2004 Patriot Act US Politics on by

As a follow up to last night’s Late Night Reading take a look at Doug Giebel’s article Ending America as We Know It which opens:

The neo-conservative Bush Administration “plan” to remake our American nation intends to alter forever the relationship between government, business and the people.

In the summation to his arguments Giebel asserts:

Americans are being played for suckers by a carnival of macho scam artists, the likes of which this nation has never before experienced.

You read it, you judge.
Via Talkleft.

Can you hear me now?

This entry was posted in Constitution Economics Trademark Law on by

Everybody got caught up in Fox’s rediculous ‘fair and balanced’ suit angainst Franken. But how many of you are aware of the effort Verizon is making to play the same game with ‘Can you hear me now?”
Brett Marston has written a number of posts on this trademark issue. Start with his most recent one here and follow his links to his other writings and other materials.
Here is Verizon’s statement of their position:

We are sorry that you feel this way about the lawsuit. However, “The company has spent millions of dollars in advertising and public relations to establish the phrase ‘Can you hear me now’ as a symbol of our network’s quality and our relentless efforts to continue to test and expand our coverage. We will take action against any company or other organization that infringes upon our trademark and damages the valuable brand we have created.”

Apparently Verizon doesn’t like others, especially their union members, using the phrase. As Brett argues it is our language. If Verizon want’s something trademarkable then they should make up some new words.
I think I’ll make an effort to use the phrase regularly, say at least once a week.
Oh, and I wonder what Verizon thinks about this?

Don’t Tread on Us

This entry was posted in Capitalism Constitution Drug Laws Economics Law Enforcement Libertarianism Patriot Act on by

I don’t usually borrow whole posts but this from Doug Allen at Catallarchy aptly describes one aspect of the bizarre and misguided priorities that citizens of the US have built up around themselves over the last 200+ years:

Somewhere, violent criminals are still at large. Somewhere, a shady character is plotting terrorist activities. Somewhere, a drunken teen is getting behind the wheel of a car. Somewhere, a man is beating his wife.
But law enforcement resources are being used to charge Tommy Chong, fine him, and send him to a prison filled with dangerous whackos for nine months for selling bongs over the Internet.

When people exchange goods on mutually agreeable terms leave them alone.

More CAPPS II

This entry was posted in CAPPS II Constitution Domestic Terrorism Law Enforcement Libertarianism Patriot Act War on Terrorism on by

Barry Steinhardt, director of the ACLU’s Program on Technology and Liberty, summed up CAPPs II thusly:

CAPPS II would for the first time put the government in the business of conducting regular background checks on everyday citizens. Not only would the government conduct searches and evaluations of individuals’ past history and records, but it would generate a “risk score” for each person. The social and political consequences of this new role for government are far-reaching and truly frightening.

Read the transcript of the Washington Post online forum he participated in here.
Via beSpacific.

Patriot Act II or?

This entry was posted in bush Constitution Domestic Terrorism Drug Laws Law Libertarianism Patriot Act War on Terrorism on by

Whatever it is going to be called bush is stumping for it. At Quanitco today, he made a pitch for increased use of administrative supoenas, elimination of bail for terrorist suspects and additional death penalty provisions. Part of his rationale being something like if we can have these things for certain other crimes why not terrorism. For instance, with regard to administrative supoenas:

They’re used in a wide range of criminal and civil matters, including health care fraud and child abuse cases.

Perhaps they shouldn’t be used in any situation. It strikes me that probably cause approved by a judge ought to be the minimum standard.
I don’t think anyone outside bush’s cabal has seen what they plan to send to congress. Expect things to go less well for whatever it is then the roll over and play dead act that congress did for Patriot Act 1.
Talkleft (and I’m sure others) has been working this heavily. See here (the most recent as of this writing) and previous posts.