Defending Yourself (06/22/2011)
I wrestled with the title and content of this column realizing I wanted to challenge thought processes. My context is asking, “When would you take up arms?” Recent Supreme Court rulings, at state level and the federal level have eroded 4th Amendment rights. These freedoms have been held sacred since the Bill of Rights passed and evolved from British tyranny and further back to feudal tyranny. Looking around I see this erosion becoming the norm, no longer the exception. Sadly, people who raise questions are now “domestic terrorists” or “troublemakers” harassed through detention, no-fly lists, and watch lists.
If you are pulled aside for additional screening at an airport and suddenly find yourself touched inappropriately by a TSA officer are you willing to yell “Stop!” Are you willing to kick and punch to defend your person? Are you willing to engage local law enforcement to file assault charges? What if you are an 18 year old girl attending your high school prom and security guards run a hand up your bare thigh under your dress? Would you be willing to complain, or more importantly file a lawsuit like Candice Herrara of Santa Fe, New Mexico?
Examples of concern abound. Recent state and federal Supreme Court rulings have changed search and seizure rules allowing police offers more leeway. My question, without cause and absolutely wrong in your view and demanding entry to your home would you let them in? Similarly, what if you are legally and rightfully openly carrying a gun and police officers, not knowing the law, are now threatening you at gunpoint and moving to arrest you, as recently occurred in Philadelphia? What if you were selling unpasteurized milk or free range eggs on your farm and USDA Officials raided your homestead, guns drawn, and arrested you even though no crime was committed.
In theory we are all safe in our homes, our cars, and while traveling. Our founding fathers experienced British tyranny and knew fundamentally they had to protect themselves, their families, and their property. Obsequious citizenry today is leading to a government police state that turns neighbors against each other and infallible beliefs in lawmakers. Sooner or later “Dancing with Stars” will end and a confused America will realize they lost the freedom to defend themselves. Our children will believe pat-downs to attend prom are the norm and police can enter homes anytime. Are you willing to speak up and defend yourself? “The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted,” James Madison.
Showing posts with label Civil Rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Civil Rights. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Gestapo and Gulags
Gestapo and Gulags
Congress successfully reauthorized the Patriot Act on May 27th, 2011 with hours remaining before the Act would expire. America is eerily following the same path Hitler’s Nazi Germany took in the early 1930’s; a path of Federal law enforcement, diminished civil rights, and lack of transparency in the courts. The Gestapo was given the authority to investigate treason, espionage, sabotage and criminal attacks against Germany. The basic law passed in 1936 gave the Gestapo the right to operate without judicial oversight. The Gestapo could not be sued by citizens in Administrative court.
Americans are subjecting themselves to our own Gestapo, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) willfully. Examples abound from TSA searches, disrobement, and groping at airports, rail stations, and even high school proms to document and papers required to open a bank account or get a job. Openly over the last 18 years there has been a push from local community law enforcement to a federally dominated model of control. Any local assertion of state’s power is met with federal resistance, like the Arizona and Georgia immigration lawsuits or economic threats to Texas over passing an anti-groping bill. DHS has pushed a “see something, say something” campaign to encourage spying on neighbors and standing up to Big Brother is now cause for consideration as “domestic terrorist.” It was that “domestic terrorism” that brought us freedom and the genesis of our country.
As police power expands, and 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendment rights are reduced more citizens are being jailed than ever before. The term “Gulag” was originally an acronym for the Soviet agency administering the prisons, but has since come to represent any penal system. America has sharply turned her view on incarceration from on of rehabilitation to mandate. In 1982 approximately 1 of 77 Americans was under “correctional-control”, today that number is 1 of 31. Georgia leads the country with 1 of 13 adults under some type of judicial supervision. Take into account wage garnishment orders, child support orders, and foreclosure liens and judicial findings and the number is higher. Today the United States has the highest incarceration rate (3.1%) and the largest prison population of any country in the world. Even communist China with three times the population incarcerates fewer people.
The trend I see developing is one of government control creating fear among the citizens. I challenge you, what consequences would you face if you question how TSA handles you? What would you expect to happen if you say “no” to a police officer regarding a roadside search? Why are our countryman arrested for filming police stops? Why do victimless crimes, like drug use or possession, result in incarceration? More frequently the noose is tightening around our necks, “We the People..”
Congress successfully reauthorized the Patriot Act on May 27th, 2011 with hours remaining before the Act would expire. America is eerily following the same path Hitler’s Nazi Germany took in the early 1930’s; a path of Federal law enforcement, diminished civil rights, and lack of transparency in the courts. The Gestapo was given the authority to investigate treason, espionage, sabotage and criminal attacks against Germany. The basic law passed in 1936 gave the Gestapo the right to operate without judicial oversight. The Gestapo could not be sued by citizens in Administrative court.
Americans are subjecting themselves to our own Gestapo, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) willfully. Examples abound from TSA searches, disrobement, and groping at airports, rail stations, and even high school proms to document and papers required to open a bank account or get a job. Openly over the last 18 years there has been a push from local community law enforcement to a federally dominated model of control. Any local assertion of state’s power is met with federal resistance, like the Arizona and Georgia immigration lawsuits or economic threats to Texas over passing an anti-groping bill. DHS has pushed a “see something, say something” campaign to encourage spying on neighbors and standing up to Big Brother is now cause for consideration as “domestic terrorist.” It was that “domestic terrorism” that brought us freedom and the genesis of our country.
As police power expands, and 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendment rights are reduced more citizens are being jailed than ever before. The term “Gulag” was originally an acronym for the Soviet agency administering the prisons, but has since come to represent any penal system. America has sharply turned her view on incarceration from on of rehabilitation to mandate. In 1982 approximately 1 of 77 Americans was under “correctional-control”, today that number is 1 of 31. Georgia leads the country with 1 of 13 adults under some type of judicial supervision. Take into account wage garnishment orders, child support orders, and foreclosure liens and judicial findings and the number is higher. Today the United States has the highest incarceration rate (3.1%) and the largest prison population of any country in the world. Even communist China with three times the population incarcerates fewer people.
The trend I see developing is one of government control creating fear among the citizens. I challenge you, what consequences would you face if you question how TSA handles you? What would you expect to happen if you say “no” to a police officer regarding a roadside search? Why are our countryman arrested for filming police stops? Why do victimless crimes, like drug use or possession, result in incarceration? More frequently the noose is tightening around our necks, “We the People..”
Wednesday, June 01, 2011
Little Noticed News
Little Noticed News (6/1/2011)
Oprah, Republican presidential candidate implosions, and Obama’s Irish roots seem to dominate the news. On a national and international level none of these newsworthy events will impact most Americans. Instead, I argue there is an entire underlying level of news taking place nationwide, some of which gets a brief mention on one of the cable or broadcast networks, but most of the news disappears not to be heard from again. America is changing, and changing rapidly. Willfully civil rights and constitutional guarantees are being eroded, and yet a blind eye is turned. Below I have listed examples from the last three weeks.
On May 22, 2011 - a Santa Fe, NM high school announced TSA would pat-down students as part of security to enter Prom. From TSA’s own web site, the agency’s mission is, “The Transportation Security Administration protects the Nation’s transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce.” Nowhere is a high school or sports event mentioned, and I cannot imagine being groped on my last night in high school.
May 21, 2011 – Mark Fiornio strolled through downtown Philadelphia lawfully, openly, carrying his permitted gun. The issue at hand is Mr. Fiornio was detained, nearly shot, and charges brought against him for disorderly conduct and reckless endangerment. He tried to explain to police offers he had a permit and cited the statutory laws allowing him to open carry. Local authorities are warning gun owners that they will be "inconvenienced" if they carry unconcealed handguns in the city.
May 15, 2011 – The Indiana Supreme Court, 3-2, ruled people have no right to resist officers who enter their homes under the premise it is in the greater public good and would minimize confrontation. Additionally, the Indiana Court ruled police do not need to knock to serve a search warrant.
May 17, 2011 – Historically police offers required probable cause and a search warrant before breaking into a home. That changed with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kentucky v. King. Ruling 8-1 the justices gave police more leeway to break into homes or apartments in search of illegal drugs when they suspect the evidence otherwise might be destroyed. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented, fearing the ruling gave police an easy way to ignore 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
In each of the above cases I can easily see the argument for “greater good”, “public safety” and other pansy excuses. Sadly, “we the people” are continuing to allow our freedoms to incrementally erode away. In one week, four cases that have far reaching circumstances. As a reminder, blood was shed for The Fourth Amendment, which assures that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,”
Oprah, Republican presidential candidate implosions, and Obama’s Irish roots seem to dominate the news. On a national and international level none of these newsworthy events will impact most Americans. Instead, I argue there is an entire underlying level of news taking place nationwide, some of which gets a brief mention on one of the cable or broadcast networks, but most of the news disappears not to be heard from again. America is changing, and changing rapidly. Willfully civil rights and constitutional guarantees are being eroded, and yet a blind eye is turned. Below I have listed examples from the last three weeks.
On May 22, 2011 - a Santa Fe, NM high school announced TSA would pat-down students as part of security to enter Prom. From TSA’s own web site, the agency’s mission is, “The Transportation Security Administration protects the Nation’s transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce.” Nowhere is a high school or sports event mentioned, and I cannot imagine being groped on my last night in high school.
May 21, 2011 – Mark Fiornio strolled through downtown Philadelphia lawfully, openly, carrying his permitted gun. The issue at hand is Mr. Fiornio was detained, nearly shot, and charges brought against him for disorderly conduct and reckless endangerment. He tried to explain to police offers he had a permit and cited the statutory laws allowing him to open carry. Local authorities are warning gun owners that they will be "inconvenienced" if they carry unconcealed handguns in the city.
May 15, 2011 – The Indiana Supreme Court, 3-2, ruled people have no right to resist officers who enter their homes under the premise it is in the greater public good and would minimize confrontation. Additionally, the Indiana Court ruled police do not need to knock to serve a search warrant.
May 17, 2011 – Historically police offers required probable cause and a search warrant before breaking into a home. That changed with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kentucky v. King. Ruling 8-1 the justices gave police more leeway to break into homes or apartments in search of illegal drugs when they suspect the evidence otherwise might be destroyed. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented, fearing the ruling gave police an easy way to ignore 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
In each of the above cases I can easily see the argument for “greater good”, “public safety” and other pansy excuses. Sadly, “we the people” are continuing to allow our freedoms to incrementally erode away. In one week, four cases that have far reaching circumstances. As a reminder, blood was shed for The Fourth Amendment, which assures that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,”
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Nuclear Meltdowns
Nuclear Meltdown (5/25/2011)
This past week I counted at least four meltdowns, all covered with vigor, in the media headlines. Probably the most obscure and curious regarding the hype to most Americans was the arrest, indictment, and release of IMF Chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn. Little do many of my countrymen understand regarding monetary policy, let alone the calls for an end to the dollar as the reserve currency by Strauss-Kahn. The second meltdown was the failure of the Gingrich campaign to gain traction. Laughably, the most academic of a possible Republican field of presidential nominees, fell flat before starting. Like Strauss-Kahn, Newt melted down.
Meltdown number three was President Obama extinguishing his fiery return in the polls by crossing middle-east ally Israel with a call to return to territory held 44 years ago. The contradictory nature of Obama is puzzling as a blind-eye is turned toward our own border issues and we idly watch killing of refugees seeking democracy in Syria. But, the President is pro-Hamas supporting the terrorist organization publicly as far back as May 2008. Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu skillfully schooled our President on the fallacies of his position and Obama’s action may be the beginning of his re-election meltdown. Finally, the mainstream pundits could not get enough of the Terminator’s marriage meltdown, number four last week, as revelations exposed infidelity and a love child with a household staff member. Each of these personal meltdowns, in my opinion, is rooted in ego and self-interest.
Sadly though, the most important nuclear meltdown in the world is not garnering any media coverage and is similarly rooted in ego and self-interest. However, this meltdown over the next 30 years will result in many unnecessary deaths and cancers worldwide. On March 11, 2011 the historic earthquake rocked northern Japan, suspiciously damaging nuclear reactors, but denied by Japanese government. A newly released TEPCO report this week contains a disaster timeline stating within 5 hours of the quake fuel rods were exposed and rapidly melting, and within 16 hours Reactor No. 1’s rods had melted down and dropped to the bottom of the reactor. Similar events occurred in Reactors 2 and 3. Today the reactors are continuing to spew radiation and radioactive water is flowing to groundwater and the ocean. Worse than Chernobyl, Fukushima has become the world’s first nuclear meltdown. Curiously, the four men in personal meltdowns garner far more coverage, but every plant, animal, and human being in the Northern hemisphere is now poisoned by the ineptness of a government and power company that chose to hide their failures to protect their egos.
This past week I counted at least four meltdowns, all covered with vigor, in the media headlines. Probably the most obscure and curious regarding the hype to most Americans was the arrest, indictment, and release of IMF Chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn. Little do many of my countrymen understand regarding monetary policy, let alone the calls for an end to the dollar as the reserve currency by Strauss-Kahn. The second meltdown was the failure of the Gingrich campaign to gain traction. Laughably, the most academic of a possible Republican field of presidential nominees, fell flat before starting. Like Strauss-Kahn, Newt melted down.
Meltdown number three was President Obama extinguishing his fiery return in the polls by crossing middle-east ally Israel with a call to return to territory held 44 years ago. The contradictory nature of Obama is puzzling as a blind-eye is turned toward our own border issues and we idly watch killing of refugees seeking democracy in Syria. But, the President is pro-Hamas supporting the terrorist organization publicly as far back as May 2008. Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu skillfully schooled our President on the fallacies of his position and Obama’s action may be the beginning of his re-election meltdown. Finally, the mainstream pundits could not get enough of the Terminator’s marriage meltdown, number four last week, as revelations exposed infidelity and a love child with a household staff member. Each of these personal meltdowns, in my opinion, is rooted in ego and self-interest.
Sadly though, the most important nuclear meltdown in the world is not garnering any media coverage and is similarly rooted in ego and self-interest. However, this meltdown over the next 30 years will result in many unnecessary deaths and cancers worldwide. On March 11, 2011 the historic earthquake rocked northern Japan, suspiciously damaging nuclear reactors, but denied by Japanese government. A newly released TEPCO report this week contains a disaster timeline stating within 5 hours of the quake fuel rods were exposed and rapidly melting, and within 16 hours Reactor No. 1’s rods had melted down and dropped to the bottom of the reactor. Similar events occurred in Reactors 2 and 3. Today the reactors are continuing to spew radiation and radioactive water is flowing to groundwater and the ocean. Worse than Chernobyl, Fukushima has become the world’s first nuclear meltdown. Curiously, the four men in personal meltdowns garner far more coverage, but every plant, animal, and human being in the Northern hemisphere is now poisoned by the ineptness of a government and power company that chose to hide their failures to protect their egos.
iTracker
iTracker (5/4/2011)
In the “Daily Mail” on 4/18/2011 I first read hackers in London discovered iPhones are recording and storing specific location data about their users. Initially the major networks and newspapers in America were slow to report this, taking almost 4 days to do so. Humorously Apple’s, Steve Jobs first offered no such information was gathered and certainly without malicious intent. With persistence though, the media found more details and Jobs did acknowledge the data gathering. So what's my beef? As a programmer I do not consider the tracking file an accident and my concern is the potential misuse of the data. Possibly the programmers had good intentions but knowing a data record of individual details exists would be too tempting for use by others.
Let’s consider three examples. First, police in Michigan have been accused of downloading the data during traffic stops, without warrants or arrest in violation of the 4th Amendment. Law enforcement could use the data to pinpoint the whereabouts of a particular individual. Imagine the phone doing detective work for the police by providing when and where he goes. Second, employees are at risk from employers as the employer typically owns the phone; thus the data can be checked to verify the whereabouts of employees to ensure he is working, or where reported during office hours. Third, consider a contested divorce with a vindictive ex-wife. Through Discovery the data file must be made available and the husband’s whereabouts at any time readily known. In my second and third examples the 4th Amendment does not apply, thus anyone with an iPhone has already voluntarily submitted to 24-hour tracking.
My preference is to believe Apple had no malicious intent in mind when the file was created and most likely it was created to improve location data services and their product service offering. However, some have reported this is a requirement under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and most likely “we the people” allowed this further erosion of our privacy and personal rights to take place based on the premise, “they would never do anything bad and it will help stop crime or save lives.” In my recent column, “Land of the Free” I argued there is no longer bravery among us and we idly standby while our freedoms disappear. Personally, I have deleted the file on my phone and will continue to do so. Maybe it still exists on a server somewhere, but at least I have fought back. My concern is when will anyone else fight back?
In the “Daily Mail” on 4/18/2011 I first read hackers in London discovered iPhones are recording and storing specific location data about their users. Initially the major networks and newspapers in America were slow to report this, taking almost 4 days to do so. Humorously Apple’s, Steve Jobs first offered no such information was gathered and certainly without malicious intent. With persistence though, the media found more details and Jobs did acknowledge the data gathering. So what's my beef? As a programmer I do not consider the tracking file an accident and my concern is the potential misuse of the data. Possibly the programmers had good intentions but knowing a data record of individual details exists would be too tempting for use by others.
Let’s consider three examples. First, police in Michigan have been accused of downloading the data during traffic stops, without warrants or arrest in violation of the 4th Amendment. Law enforcement could use the data to pinpoint the whereabouts of a particular individual. Imagine the phone doing detective work for the police by providing when and where he goes. Second, employees are at risk from employers as the employer typically owns the phone; thus the data can be checked to verify the whereabouts of employees to ensure he is working, or where reported during office hours. Third, consider a contested divorce with a vindictive ex-wife. Through Discovery the data file must be made available and the husband’s whereabouts at any time readily known. In my second and third examples the 4th Amendment does not apply, thus anyone with an iPhone has already voluntarily submitted to 24-hour tracking.
My preference is to believe Apple had no malicious intent in mind when the file was created and most likely it was created to improve location data services and their product service offering. However, some have reported this is a requirement under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and most likely “we the people” allowed this further erosion of our privacy and personal rights to take place based on the premise, “they would never do anything bad and it will help stop crime or save lives.” In my recent column, “Land of the Free” I argued there is no longer bravery among us and we idly standby while our freedoms disappear. Personally, I have deleted the file on my phone and will continue to do so. Maybe it still exists on a server somewhere, but at least I have fought back. My concern is when will anyone else fight back?
Can I Wear My Shoes Now?
Can I wear my Shoes Now? (5/4/2011)
Sunday night I was on my way home from Atlanta tuned in to CNN when I heard the President planned an unprecedented press conference around 10:40pm. My wife and I speculated on possibilities, “what could be so important?” Jokingly I offered maybe Osama bin Laden was dead, but that certainly was not worth a late night press conference. Of course, if your poll numbers have fallen to historic lows and your re-election campaign was prematurely announced weeks ago then this could be the much needed booster shot.
I argue, “who cares?” Eight or nine years ago the death of Osama bin Laden may have had material impact. For nearly 10 years we have been given the boogeyman of threat, Bin Laden and his minions trying to harm us. Of course, Orwell would not have given up his government boogeyman, Emmanuel Goldstein, because he was the necessary fuel for the government machine. Bin Laden, like Goldstein, is a necessary enemy of the state; serving to distract, unit e and focus the people away from the true issues. Bush brought as bin Laden, a desperate politically troubled president has eliminated him. Reminding us how important it is not to piss off our enemies, the United States is treating Osama bin Laden's body in "accordance with Islamic practice," a White House official says. If this man was our enemy I assert his body be publicly hung in Times Square and treated to a ticker tape parade, unless of course, no body exists and this is a diversion.
So, the real question the next time I board an airplane is, “can I wear my shoes now?” If Bin Laden is dead I assume this means we can pull out of Afghanistan this week and bring our troops home since we spent billions of dollars chasing this idiot through caves, not unlike Bill Murray and the “Caddyshack” gopher. Sadly, the media was quick to report ramped up security efforts, more scanning, and began fear-mongering possible Al Qaeda retaliation attacks. Give me a break, Goldstein (I mean bin Laden) is dead and now the threat level is pushed to imminent. I expect more money will have to be spent to assure Al Qaeda terrorism is minimized. I expect much focus on the White House this week, defining our President as a world-wide hero who saved humanity from an evil man, with the media acting like teen-age girls at a “Teen Beat” cover shoot. Osama bin Laden is dead; can I wear my shoes now?
Sunday night I was on my way home from Atlanta tuned in to CNN when I heard the President planned an unprecedented press conference around 10:40pm. My wife and I speculated on possibilities, “what could be so important?” Jokingly I offered maybe Osama bin Laden was dead, but that certainly was not worth a late night press conference. Of course, if your poll numbers have fallen to historic lows and your re-election campaign was prematurely announced weeks ago then this could be the much needed booster shot.
I argue, “who cares?” Eight or nine years ago the death of Osama bin Laden may have had material impact. For nearly 10 years we have been given the boogeyman of threat, Bin Laden and his minions trying to harm us. Of course, Orwell would not have given up his government boogeyman, Emmanuel Goldstein, because he was the necessary fuel for the government machine. Bin Laden, like Goldstein, is a necessary enemy of the state; serving to distract, unit e and focus the people away from the true issues. Bush brought as bin Laden, a desperate politically troubled president has eliminated him. Reminding us how important it is not to piss off our enemies, the United States is treating Osama bin Laden's body in "accordance with Islamic practice," a White House official says. If this man was our enemy I assert his body be publicly hung in Times Square and treated to a ticker tape parade, unless of course, no body exists and this is a diversion.
So, the real question the next time I board an airplane is, “can I wear my shoes now?” If Bin Laden is dead I assume this means we can pull out of Afghanistan this week and bring our troops home since we spent billions of dollars chasing this idiot through caves, not unlike Bill Murray and the “Caddyshack” gopher. Sadly, the media was quick to report ramped up security efforts, more scanning, and began fear-mongering possible Al Qaeda retaliation attacks. Give me a break, Goldstein (I mean bin Laden) is dead and now the threat level is pushed to imminent. I expect more money will have to be spent to assure Al Qaeda terrorism is minimized. I expect much focus on the White House this week, defining our President as a world-wide hero who saved humanity from an evil man, with the media acting like teen-age girls at a “Teen Beat” cover shoot. Osama bin Laden is dead; can I wear my shoes now?
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Land of the Free
Land of the Free (4/27/2011)
Our national anthem brings pride unto ourselves when we quote the famous lines, “O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.” Sadly, since that fateful night at Fort McHenry I would offer the founding fathers fight against royal tyranny for liberty and our forefathers shedding blood for future generations has been usurped by complacency. Examples abound in our current society of both the loss of freedom and lack of bravery.
A December 4, 2006 column in the Russian paper, Pravda, makes reference to “A record 7 million people - or one in every 32 American adults - were behind bars, on probation or on parole by the end of last year', and when these figures are added to the estimated 1 million prisoners of war held by the United States, all around the World, the once great American Nation has now become the greatest jailer of human beings the World has ever known.” Laws such as “Three Strikes” have increased our incarceration rate for even the pettiest of crimes. Even the truly law-abiding are not free. Consider random traffic stops to check your license and insurance, TSA airport searches, security screenings to enter a public event, and proof of identity requirements for job applications and opening bank accounts. Exacerbating the situation is claims these freedoms are taken in the name of liberty.
Ironically, even bravery has been eroded out of fear of consequences. Questioning TSA regarding the 4th amendment and basis for searching six-year olds will prevent you from flying. Publicly videotaping law enforcement creates a fast path to court with criminal charges. My favorite example occurred two weeks ago: Juror 799, an Asian woman in her 20s, when asked to name three people she least admired on her juror questionnaire, wrote: “African-Americans, Hispanics and Haitians.” In the land for the free and home of the brave the woman was sentenced to indefinite jury duty by Federal Judge Nicholas Garaufis – a unilateral decision with no crime committed.
I challenge you to listen carefully to political demagoguery and proposals to “make you safer.” Blood was shed September 3, 1814 to capture freedom and liberty for future generations whilst Francis Scott Key watched the fight and immortalized his feelings. Sadly, our former enemies in Russia watch our freedoms erode and write about it, but the timidity bred into our generations of children makes them blind to the blood given for their liberty and they will not stand bravely for themselves.
Our national anthem brings pride unto ourselves when we quote the famous lines, “O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.” Sadly, since that fateful night at Fort McHenry I would offer the founding fathers fight against royal tyranny for liberty and our forefathers shedding blood for future generations has been usurped by complacency. Examples abound in our current society of both the loss of freedom and lack of bravery.
A December 4, 2006 column in the Russian paper, Pravda, makes reference to “A record 7 million people - or one in every 32 American adults - were behind bars, on probation or on parole by the end of last year', and when these figures are added to the estimated 1 million prisoners of war held by the United States, all around the World, the once great American Nation has now become the greatest jailer of human beings the World has ever known.” Laws such as “Three Strikes” have increased our incarceration rate for even the pettiest of crimes. Even the truly law-abiding are not free. Consider random traffic stops to check your license and insurance, TSA airport searches, security screenings to enter a public event, and proof of identity requirements for job applications and opening bank accounts. Exacerbating the situation is claims these freedoms are taken in the name of liberty.
Ironically, even bravery has been eroded out of fear of consequences. Questioning TSA regarding the 4th amendment and basis for searching six-year olds will prevent you from flying. Publicly videotaping law enforcement creates a fast path to court with criminal charges. My favorite example occurred two weeks ago: Juror 799, an Asian woman in her 20s, when asked to name three people she least admired on her juror questionnaire, wrote: “African-Americans, Hispanics and Haitians.” In the land for the free and home of the brave the woman was sentenced to indefinite jury duty by Federal Judge Nicholas Garaufis – a unilateral decision with no crime committed.
I challenge you to listen carefully to political demagoguery and proposals to “make you safer.” Blood was shed September 3, 1814 to capture freedom and liberty for future generations whilst Francis Scott Key watched the fight and immortalized his feelings. Sadly, our former enemies in Russia watch our freedoms erode and write about it, but the timidity bred into our generations of children makes them blind to the blood given for their liberty and they will not stand bravely for themselves.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Homework
My daughter’s homework recently piqued my interest while she was studying for an exam. Currently, she's taking an American Government class; learning about types of government like authoritarian, dictatorship, oligarchy, and democracy. During our studying though we came to a handout that forced me to question today’s teaching as it focused on explaining the role of government. It is this question that divides left and right, Democrat and Republican. Personally I have a strong libertarian view which believes in a very limited role of government.
Reviewing her handout I learned there are seven roles taught to today’s students: defense, taxation, judiciary, education, health care, transportation, and economy. I wondered how many Thomas Jefferson would include on the list and speculated three: defense, taxation, and judicial review. Seeking a more definitive answer I found only defense and judicial protection receive consensus and without taxation the rest of the list cannot exist. Sadly, I think our country has reached a crossroads in development: we can have freedom and independence to control our lives with no government involvement but risk personal loss and failure, or we can mutually combine all of our earnings and share the bounty regardless of productivity to protect our entire society against any calamity that may befall us.
I believe the second option has been tried repeatedly throughout history and most recently by the idealist Karl Marx in a quest to end class struggles; recognizing the needs of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie. Modern communism expanded on the efforts of Marx’s writings with Lenin and then Stalin accelerating its spread; dictatorial regimes use communism to disguise their own human rights atrocities. Many would claim the U.S. has recently failed at the longest running experiment in capitalism and laissez faire economics allowing business to overrun the working class. However, a quick glance at American history confirms anyone, regardless of status, education, or connection can succeed to enormous wealth, unlike communist nations allow. Successes like Bill Gates, Larry Page, and Jeffrey Bezos abound and even Presidents Clinton and Obama come from the poorest of backgrounds and family struggles.
Ayn Rand concisely describes the role of government “as, the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others.” I believe the role of government is to allow me freedom of choice – to succeed or fail
Reviewing her handout I learned there are seven roles taught to today’s students: defense, taxation, judiciary, education, health care, transportation, and economy. I wondered how many Thomas Jefferson would include on the list and speculated three: defense, taxation, and judicial review. Seeking a more definitive answer I found only defense and judicial protection receive consensus and without taxation the rest of the list cannot exist. Sadly, I think our country has reached a crossroads in development: we can have freedom and independence to control our lives with no government involvement but risk personal loss and failure, or we can mutually combine all of our earnings and share the bounty regardless of productivity to protect our entire society against any calamity that may befall us.
I believe the second option has been tried repeatedly throughout history and most recently by the idealist Karl Marx in a quest to end class struggles; recognizing the needs of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie. Modern communism expanded on the efforts of Marx’s writings with Lenin and then Stalin accelerating its spread; dictatorial regimes use communism to disguise their own human rights atrocities. Many would claim the U.S. has recently failed at the longest running experiment in capitalism and laissez faire economics allowing business to overrun the working class. However, a quick glance at American history confirms anyone, regardless of status, education, or connection can succeed to enormous wealth, unlike communist nations allow. Successes like Bill Gates, Larry Page, and Jeffrey Bezos abound and even Presidents Clinton and Obama come from the poorest of backgrounds and family struggles.
Ayn Rand concisely describes the role of government “as, the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others.” I believe the role of government is to allow me freedom of choice – to succeed or fail
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Protected Speech
I sit in the middle on this page with an objective to raise points of interest to anyone, regardless of political view. Writing on this page brings scrutiny to my opinions and exposes myself to debate and argument. I have learned it takes courage to stand in front of the crowd for what I believe, and I always work to ensure there are no personal attacks in my writing, but often I see columnists and bloggers using personal attacks in an effort to drive home their point. Fueling these attacks is the veil of anonymity; no longer signing a letter or a blog response with your name and address creating an inflammatory environment. Furthermore, I do not believe the First Amendment was intended to protect anonymous speech, but the Supreme Court has taken a different view.
I absolutely believe our democracy thrives on protected speech; it differentiates us from the oppression found around the world when ideas and opinions are given. Appropriately, libel and slander laws are also in place to prevent abuse of protected speech.
A few recent examples of my concern over whether anonymous speech is protected are important as I feel the cowardice of anonymity fuels defamatory personal attacks. For example, Tiger Woods is fighting in the Court of public opinion. Legitimate writers are identifiable and must “source” their comments. Sadly though, I have read news articles on various web sites where anonymous bloggers attack Tiger’s character and make crude comments about him personally. These anonymous people don’t know him and have no basis for those comments, but behind the veil of anonymity these people weakly assert defamatory opinions.
Similarly, people either love or hate Sarah Palin. As a country we are as divided on feelings about her as we are on college football in Florida. We all know the story of Palin and her rise to the highest position of leadership in Alaska, but yet people attack her personally. Opinions focus not on Palin’s accomplishments as a politician, but instead follow David Letterman’s method of crude, personal attacks. A quick look at the Huffington Post article regarding the Newsweek cover featuring Palin’s “legs” showed over 1,000 commentators and I must wonder how the tone of those comments would change had real names and addresses been used.
Personally, I feel the problem with the protection of anonymous speech is it allows for cowardice and unfounded statements. But, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled anonymous speech is protected. The much cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre vs. Ohio Elections Commission reads: “Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.”
Although protected, sadly anonymous speech typically leaves the door open to defamation and the burden to prove otherwise is on the victim. Thus, this empowers questionable publications and writings and can sway public opinion on unfounded claims. I will continue to sign my name and always write with the understanding that I stand by my opinions and am not ashamed to hide behind anonymity. I encourage you to consider what you want to say and whether it is anonymity or your beliefs that give you the strength to share your opinion.
I sit in the middle on this page with an objective to raise points of interest to anyone, regardless of political view. Writing on this page brings scrutiny to my opinions and exposes myself to debate and argument. I have learned it takes courage to stand in front of the crowd for what I believe, and I always work to ensure there are no personal attacks in my writing, but often I see columnists and bloggers using personal attacks in an effort to drive home their point. Fueling these attacks is the veil of anonymity; no longer signing a letter or a blog response with your name and address creating an inflammatory environment. Furthermore, I do not believe the First Amendment was intended to protect anonymous speech, but the Supreme Court has taken a different view.
I absolutely believe our democracy thrives on protected speech; it differentiates us from the oppression found around the world when ideas and opinions are given. Appropriately, libel and slander laws are also in place to prevent abuse of protected speech.
A few recent examples of my concern over whether anonymous speech is protected are important as I feel the cowardice of anonymity fuels defamatory personal attacks. For example, Tiger Woods is fighting in the Court of public opinion. Legitimate writers are identifiable and must “source” their comments. Sadly though, I have read news articles on various web sites where anonymous bloggers attack Tiger’s character and make crude comments about him personally. These anonymous people don’t know him and have no basis for those comments, but behind the veil of anonymity these people weakly assert defamatory opinions.
Similarly, people either love or hate Sarah Palin. As a country we are as divided on feelings about her as we are on college football in Florida. We all know the story of Palin and her rise to the highest position of leadership in Alaska, but yet people attack her personally. Opinions focus not on Palin’s accomplishments as a politician, but instead follow David Letterman’s method of crude, personal attacks. A quick look at the Huffington Post article regarding the Newsweek cover featuring Palin’s “legs” showed over 1,000 commentators and I must wonder how the tone of those comments would change had real names and addresses been used.
Personally, I feel the problem with the protection of anonymous speech is it allows for cowardice and unfounded statements. But, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled anonymous speech is protected. The much cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre vs. Ohio Elections Commission reads: “Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.”
Although protected, sadly anonymous speech typically leaves the door open to defamation and the burden to prove otherwise is on the victim. Thus, this empowers questionable publications and writings and can sway public opinion on unfounded claims. I will continue to sign my name and always write with the understanding that I stand by my opinions and am not ashamed to hide behind anonymity. I encourage you to consider what you want to say and whether it is anonymity or your beliefs that give you the strength to share your opinion.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Civil Rights
Civil rights are a class of rights and freedoms protecting individuals from unwarranted government action and ensuring one's ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state without discrimination or repression. I believe most of us take these rights for granted and have no appreciation for these freedoms conveyed upon us. Furthermore, we turn a blind eye to the litigation by brave citizens taking place everyday across the country, as there generally is no publicity, but yet these court cases effect all of us in ways we cannot imagine.
Protection of civil rights is not an issue of political values, whether you are on the Right or the Left. These are rights neutral to politics, but often the court cases surrounding an issue become the source of political argument instead of the issue at hand. For example, my wife and I recently watched the movie, “The People vs. Larry Flynt” covering the landmark Supreme Court Case about first amendment rights and protection of speech. When the arguments were made the Moral Majority dominated public opinion and the Right was blind to the larger concern of speech versus Larry Flynt’s association with the porn industry. Ironically, this case provides Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck with the freedom they need to criticize and satirize the current president.
In Georgia a current case is before the Federal Court of Appeals regarding gun rights and carrying guns on MARTA (the public transit system) when properly licensed with a firearm’s permit. Anti-gun groups from the Left argue these rights should not persist in the name of safety or terrorist concerns. From a civil rights standpoint though, the interesting fact in this case is the 4th Amendment protection from unreasonable search and seizure. The Georgia Carry Organization (GCO) has argues stopping a citizen, who is committing no crime, to check ID and firearms licensure is the same as the Supreme Court’s previously affirmed position that police cannot stop a motorist, who is committing no crime, just to check for a valid driver’s license. A loss in a case like this will permit law enforcement to stop anyone regardless of circumstances.
Similar to the case above, every American has willfully given up civil rights since the terrorist acts of September 11th, 2001. To cross the borders between states every traveler is subject to verification of identity and search including scanning, pat-down, and removal of shoes. Of course, this takes place at airports and applies to millions of daily passengers. With no clear directive, TSA has taken wide sweeping liberties to extend authority to include screening for crimes which may or may not be in progress. For instance, in 2008 an aide, Steve Bierfeldt, to Congressman Ron Paul was detained by TSA at St. Louis-Lambert International Airport and questioned although no crime was committed. In this case, he refused to answer questions regarding why he was carrying $4,700 in cash and had no reason to comply because no crime was in process and it was a violation of his 4th Amendment rights. Fortunately for all travelers, he prevailed and TSA is slowly issuing new policies limiting screenings to searches for “terrorist related” items.
It is easy to criticize Larry Flynt if you are offended by pornography. It is easy to criticize the actions of the GCO if you do not support gun rights. It is easy to defend the actions of TSA in the name of protection. However, it is hard to stand up to the government, fight battles in court, and protect civil rights. These are the unsung heroes of the Left and the Right, fighting battles for all of us each day.
Copyright (C) 2009 John R. Nelson. All Rights Reserved.
Civil rights are a class of rights and freedoms protecting individuals from unwarranted government action and ensuring one's ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state without discrimination or repression. I believe most of us take these rights for granted and have no appreciation for these freedoms conveyed upon us. Furthermore, we turn a blind eye to the litigation by brave citizens taking place everyday across the country, as there generally is no publicity, but yet these court cases effect all of us in ways we cannot imagine.
Protection of civil rights is not an issue of political values, whether you are on the Right or the Left. These are rights neutral to politics, but often the court cases surrounding an issue become the source of political argument instead of the issue at hand. For example, my wife and I recently watched the movie, “The People vs. Larry Flynt” covering the landmark Supreme Court Case about first amendment rights and protection of speech. When the arguments were made the Moral Majority dominated public opinion and the Right was blind to the larger concern of speech versus Larry Flynt’s association with the porn industry. Ironically, this case provides Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck with the freedom they need to criticize and satirize the current president.
In Georgia a current case is before the Federal Court of Appeals regarding gun rights and carrying guns on MARTA (the public transit system) when properly licensed with a firearm’s permit. Anti-gun groups from the Left argue these rights should not persist in the name of safety or terrorist concerns. From a civil rights standpoint though, the interesting fact in this case is the 4th Amendment protection from unreasonable search and seizure. The Georgia Carry Organization (GCO) has argues stopping a citizen, who is committing no crime, to check ID and firearms licensure is the same as the Supreme Court’s previously affirmed position that police cannot stop a motorist, who is committing no crime, just to check for a valid driver’s license. A loss in a case like this will permit law enforcement to stop anyone regardless of circumstances.
Similar to the case above, every American has willfully given up civil rights since the terrorist acts of September 11th, 2001. To cross the borders between states every traveler is subject to verification of identity and search including scanning, pat-down, and removal of shoes. Of course, this takes place at airports and applies to millions of daily passengers. With no clear directive, TSA has taken wide sweeping liberties to extend authority to include screening for crimes which may or may not be in progress. For instance, in 2008 an aide, Steve Bierfeldt, to Congressman Ron Paul was detained by TSA at St. Louis-Lambert International Airport and questioned although no crime was committed. In this case, he refused to answer questions regarding why he was carrying $4,700 in cash and had no reason to comply because no crime was in process and it was a violation of his 4th Amendment rights. Fortunately for all travelers, he prevailed and TSA is slowly issuing new policies limiting screenings to searches for “terrorist related” items.
It is easy to criticize Larry Flynt if you are offended by pornography. It is easy to criticize the actions of the GCO if you do not support gun rights. It is easy to defend the actions of TSA in the name of protection. However, it is hard to stand up to the government, fight battles in court, and protect civil rights. These are the unsung heroes of the Left and the Right, fighting battles for all of us each day.
Copyright (C) 2009 John R. Nelson. All Rights Reserved.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Big Brother IS Watching
The next time you enter Wal-Mart look up and smile while walking into the store. It is stunning, but you will see a dozen cameras scanning the parking lot. Do the same at a major intersection while waiting for the light to change; note the cameras at the top of the traffic lights and count cameras watching the intersection. Willfully, the public has submitted to the pervasiveness of closed circuit television in the name of perceived safety. Ben Franklin wrote, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
For years we have not been able to go in a store without “Theft TV” watching our actions in the name of crime prevention. Municipalities are adding cameras throughout their cities to prevent crimes. Currently, no one has more than the British; in 2001 the country had over one million cameras, by 2005 that number had quadrupled. One measure used is the number of cameras per thousand people. In England, the borough of Wandsworth has the highest number of CCTV cameras in London, with just under four cameras per 1,000 people. Its total number of cameras - 1,113 - is more than the police departments of Boston, Johannesburg and Dublin City Council combined.
The web site, “patrolcctv.com” advertises the latest camera proposals, are vehicles equipped with CCTV. The site advertizes it “stabilizes images, reads license plates at 250FT.” These always on systems analyze license plate numbers to search for a relationship between vehicles, names, and criminals. Furthermore, the date, time, and GPS location of the vehicle may be stored for future reference in a database. Just like software scanning state databases of driver’s license photos for “probable hits” the same will be done for vehicles. Ultimately, all of us now stand in a police line-up every day by virtue of having a driver’s license and are under constant stake-out by driving vehicles.
The saturation of cameras in Britain and the United States has soared due to successes when major crimes are caught on film. Of course, the camera makes police work much easier and the public tends to feel a sense of safety. I on the other hand am bothered by the pervasiveness of CCTV and the potential for misuse by authorities or private agencies. I believe government, when given the opportunity, will ultimately use data-mining, facial recognition software, and other surveillance means to identify potential criminals. At the same time, I believe such use suffers from a high probability of potential error. Sadly, the burden of proof will shift from one of guilt made by prosecutors to one of innocence argued by citizens.
On one side the claim for cameras is obvious: increased public safety and crime prevention. On the other hand, there appears to be no conclusive evidence cameras are a crime deterrent. We believe George Orwell’s “1984” would never happen, but we are now living with Big Brother watching everything we do. Willfully, we submitted in the belief of safety and instead, like Franklin warned, have lost our liberties. Look up and smile the next time you think you are alone.
The next time you enter Wal-Mart look up and smile while walking into the store. It is stunning, but you will see a dozen cameras scanning the parking lot. Do the same at a major intersection while waiting for the light to change; note the cameras at the top of the traffic lights and count cameras watching the intersection. Willfully, the public has submitted to the pervasiveness of closed circuit television in the name of perceived safety. Ben Franklin wrote, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
For years we have not been able to go in a store without “Theft TV” watching our actions in the name of crime prevention. Municipalities are adding cameras throughout their cities to prevent crimes. Currently, no one has more than the British; in 2001 the country had over one million cameras, by 2005 that number had quadrupled. One measure used is the number of cameras per thousand people. In England, the borough of Wandsworth has the highest number of CCTV cameras in London, with just under four cameras per 1,000 people. Its total number of cameras - 1,113 - is more than the police departments of Boston, Johannesburg and Dublin City Council combined.
The web site, “patrolcctv.com” advertises the latest camera proposals, are vehicles equipped with CCTV. The site advertizes it “stabilizes images, reads license plates at 250FT.” These always on systems analyze license plate numbers to search for a relationship between vehicles, names, and criminals. Furthermore, the date, time, and GPS location of the vehicle may be stored for future reference in a database. Just like software scanning state databases of driver’s license photos for “probable hits” the same will be done for vehicles. Ultimately, all of us now stand in a police line-up every day by virtue of having a driver’s license and are under constant stake-out by driving vehicles.
The saturation of cameras in Britain and the United States has soared due to successes when major crimes are caught on film. Of course, the camera makes police work much easier and the public tends to feel a sense of safety. I on the other hand am bothered by the pervasiveness of CCTV and the potential for misuse by authorities or private agencies. I believe government, when given the opportunity, will ultimately use data-mining, facial recognition software, and other surveillance means to identify potential criminals. At the same time, I believe such use suffers from a high probability of potential error. Sadly, the burden of proof will shift from one of guilt made by prosecutors to one of innocence argued by citizens.
On one side the claim for cameras is obvious: increased public safety and crime prevention. On the other hand, there appears to be no conclusive evidence cameras are a crime deterrent. We believe George Orwell’s “1984” would never happen, but we are now living with Big Brother watching everything we do. Willfully, we submitted in the belief of safety and instead, like Franklin warned, have lost our liberties. Look up and smile the next time you think you are alone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)