Thanks to Queen Anthai for drawing the following to my attention: According to a brand spanking new law, it is now illegal for internet denizens to–get this–“annoy” people while posting under fake names.
Now I’ve been an outspoken critic of people who snipe from anonymity. But it would never have occurred to me to ask the government to step in and do something about it. I’d just as soon leave it in the hands of resourceful guys like Glenn. As much as the notion of sending X-Ray to the lock-up for a couple years appeals to me, certainly this has to be a travesty of First Amendment inteference. I can just see it:
“What are you in for?”
“I shot and killed a Federal agent. What about you?”
“I pìššëd øff Peter David on his website”
Did anyone tell Bush that there are amendments other than the second that he’s supposed to protect? Read more at:
http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html?tag=nefd.top
• 
I still think you’re stretching here. Had her nomination actually reached the point where any of these people got to actually vote and had these republicans THEN voted to keep her from getting a vote, knowing that she would go down to an embarrassing defeat…THAT would indeed be hypocritical. As it stands…if Frist et al called for her to withdraw her nopmination you might, maybe, be able to make an argument on hipocrisy. If you could prove that Myeres really really wanted to give it her best shot and she was forced to withdraw her nomination, you could make a good argument. As it stands…not so much.
You want to claim Democrats can be hypocritical sometimes, be my guest — I’ve been saying it for years, and I think it’s healthy to call them on it. But please do not do us the discourtesy of claiming (or implying, as you more often do) that Senate Republicans are any better about it.
I have to get back to this, after a good nap…do you really think the two sides are exactly equal in their malfeasance and hypocrisy? I’m just wondering. If you had said that you believed that Senate Democrats, while far from the people you might want them to be, are at least better than their Republican counterparts, I wouldn’t bat an eye. Perfectly reasonable position to take, even if I’d disagree with it. Wouldn’t really see it as a discourtesy.
If you meant that I never claim or even imply that Republicans can do any wrong, I can pull out many quotes to the contrary, many probably in direct conversation with you. Santorum alone should be good for a half dozen quotes.
I’m not sure what scenario you think I’m expecting and I don’t quite see how your example of proof confirms anything. You’re presuming to know what my worldview is. You do not. You also assume that I find comfort in something that confirms it. I do not necessary do.
Well, if it’s true that liberal lawmakers made and passed this law before they knew how easily Bush would pervert it and use it for evil and that they now, as you say, are “finally getting the plot now”, it is reasonable to expect that they will now take action to stop it. Right?
Were they to do so, it would in my mind be strong evidence that your take on their motives was correct.
Here’s mine–this law is a pretty minor strengthening of the already existing law. The people who made it are not worried about Bush doing anything at all with it. If the vote were held today it would pass by the same margin. We will not see any attempt by Nadler and crew to weaken their bill.
As for my comment on your worldview, point well taken. That was snotty of me.
I still think you’re stretching here.
I don’t, not surprisingly. When the same people who insist that any Bush nominee should get a straight up-or-down vote then make absolutely no response to a nomination’s scuttling, that’s hypocritical. It’s not AS hypocritical as the alternative scenario you lay out, but it’s certainly hypocrisy on a very visible scale.
What would be manifestly UNhypocritical would be for them to say “we consider Ms. Miers unqualified, and we look forward to voting against confirmation.” That would be in keeping with the “everyone deserves a vote” meme. Of course, that would also be humiliating their Dear Leader.
do you really think the two sides are exactly equal in their malfeasance and hypocrisy?
No, and a good point.
If you meant that I never claim or even imply that Republicans can do any wrong, I can pull out many quotes to the contrary, many probably in direct conversation with you. Santorum alone should be good for a half dozen quotes.
Oh, I know you’re willing to acknowledge it — but I would hope that you’d also acknowledge that you tend to call most of those transgressions minor while being willing to nail Democrats to the wall most of the time. One side is significantly played down vis-a-vis the other. (For example, it’s interesting to me how much you’re savaging Ted Kennedy when we’ve got people like Tom DeLay in much bigger positions of power while doing much more obviously criminal things.)
But them’s what makes horse races, I suppose.
TWL
Well, if it’s true that liberal lawmakers made and passed this law before they knew how easily Bush would pervert it and use it for evil and that they now, as you say, are “finally getting the plot now”, it is reasonable to expect that they will now take action to stop it. Right?
Were they to do so, it would in my mind be strong evidence that your take on their motives was correct.
The vast percentage of liberals don’t think Bush is evil and would consequently use his powers thus, but I do believe that they didn’t realize that W. would make a habit of claiming overreaching executive power. I believe that they now are. Excuse please if this was not clearer.
Here’s mine–this law is a pretty minor strengthening of the already existing law. The people who made it are not worried about Bush doing anything at all with it. If the vote were held today it would pass by the same margin. We will not see any attempt by Nadler and crew to weaken their bill.
I tend to agree with you and I think it unlikely that this law will be misused. But, as I’ve said, I have barely a thimble’s worth of faith in this administration. Yes, it’s cynical and yes, I wish I could not be so pessimistic about our president, but I am. His and his administration’s actions have made sure of that. All I can do is try to be objective and call a spade a spade when I see it — and try to make sure that I’m not squinting through my preconceptions when I’m actually looking at a rake. 🙂
As for my comment on your worldview, point well taken. That was snotty of me.
No worries. Happens to the best of us. 🙂
I love you guys. 🙂
Anyway, Tim, for me Ted Kennedy sets off the same bells that Lieberman does for you. I can’t stand the guy. Delay may be a sleaze and he may go to jail but Teddy is going to hëll, if there is a God in heaven. I think I’d loath him even if I was liberal–hëll, ESPECIALLY. This guy represents liberals the same way that Robertson represents conservatives (although in Robertson’s defense, while he has opened his big yap about assassinations I don’t think he has actually killed anyone).
Awful guy.
Anyway, if I tend to overemphasize the transgressions of the Democrats it’s just to try to keep things in a bit of balance. I mean, from the article PAD linked us to you never would have known that this was something that liberal Democrats were pushing at least as hard as conservative republicans, if not harder.
See, for me I think it’s a difference in type. Teddy is personally a very sleazy guy who I wouldn’t want to come anywhere near — but in terms of policy, I think his heart is very much in the right place and has a good eye (sometimes) for what works. Sure, I could wish for a better messenger, but I’m (metaphorically) paying him to be an advocate, not Driver of the Year.
Robertson, on the other hand, strikes me as personally sleazy, politically manipulating people through their faith, AND willing to advocate world-altering vicious events. That does not give him a leg up in my book. (And it’s not like Kennedy intentionally murdered someone, unless you know something I don’t.)
As for DeLay — look, I now live and grew up in New Jersey. I understand corruption. 🙂 DeLay puts everybody else in amateur hour.
And while I do hope he spends a good long time in prison, I’d much prefer to keep him around and in the public eye until about, oh, Thanksgiving. After that, since he seems so fond of “perpetuating a Biblical worldview”, a good old-fashioned stoning would not be amiss…
TWL
Actually, I said he “killed” someone, not murdered. A subtle distinction and one probably of minor interest to the Kopechne family.
I’ve been wondering why the Democrats have been doing what they’ve been doing. Alito was no slam dunk but it’s becoming hard to see how he won’t win confirmation now, less from anything he’s done but just from the behavior of his opposition. When they weren’t incompetent they were obnoxious. Yet I generally believe that the guys in Washington are smarter than they seem. My best guess is that one should follow the money (always good advice). The various special interest groups have been raising a lot of money for a fight. They have power and influence. If Biden and crew don’t at least put up a good fight they can kiss the nomination goodbye (the exception, as always, is Hillary. She will quietly vote against him, placating the base while saying nothing that will move her too far to the left.).
But blood lust is seldom sated. The Kos Crowd is livid, ready to string up the Democrats for not winning. Rome is the mob and he who controls the mob controls Rome. Yeah, but it’s very very hard to control a mob. Biden is probably my favorite pick for the Democratic nomination for the 2008 election but I think he seriously hurt himself this week.
Yes, I know you said “killed” rather than “murdered”. (That’s why I said “it’s not like he murdered someone” when you said he’d killed someone.) I didn’t disagree — I was pointing out that the distinction is important. Let’s put it this way — Kennedy did kill someone, but by accident. Robertson has intentionally advocated deliberate murder. That makes for a clear-cut hierarchy in my mind.
(And Biden has no chance. People have long memories, and the ’88 debacle is part of those memories. I think he’d be a valuable member of some administration, of either party, but he’d never be a viable candidate.)
TWL
Well now, you can’t complain about intentionally advocating deliberate murder aftyer suggesting a good old fashioned stoning just a few posts above…
(I know, I know–nobody has less right to bìŧçh about dark humor than I do. Just busting your chops.).
Yeah, you may be right about Biden. People do have long memories these days and the late night comedians will have a field day. It’s probably impossible for a politician to get through a speach without lifting some platitude or phrase without proper attribution and it will be doubly impossible for Biden because he WON’T SHUT UP!
That said, he comes across as a genuinely decent guy and from a few reports I’ve heard from people who have met him, he is.
This whole “executive privilege” argument by partisan Democrats seems hypocritical to me. It smacks more of “Bush-is-not-our-guy-so-everything-he-does-is-evil” then a real, open-minded examination of the issue.
Where’s the uproar by these same partisans when a Democrat stretches the limit on privacy issues? I’ll tell you where: In a corner with a hand over their mouth.
Such reactive, loyal lapdog reactions are one-sided, in my opinion, and ignore some even more potentially invasive privacy issues perpetrated by officials from their own party.
Here in the Chicago area, officials can’t put neighborhood and intersection surveillance cameras (with full audio capabilities) up fast enough. The date/time data collected by the Illinois Tollway I-Pass system can now be used in court to verify a person’s whereabouts, and my guess is that eventually, it will be used to ticket speeders as well (If toll booth “A” is 10 miles from toll booth “B,” and the speed limit between both booths is 60 mph, if you make the trip in less than 10 minutes, you were speeding, Bubba. Where’s the Democratic uproar about these issues? Clue: There isn’t one, because Chicago has had Democratic leadership for 70-odd years, and the current governor is a Democrat. Then there is the widespread availability of GPS and cell phone tracking, RFID technology, and who knows what else?
And yet, some partisan Democrats are only worried that someone can monitor which library books some people take out? Or Democrats are incensed that the justice department under a Republican administration bypassed a legally debatable “rubber stamp” warrant to monitor calls from known/suspected terrorists to the U.S.? How dumb is that?
Aren’t ALL issues above cause for thoughtful examination?
To be honest, I think we are already at a point now where there is little or no privacy, so I am pretty much resigned to that fact with everything I say and do. As far as I’m concerned, the genie’s out of the bottle, and there ain’t no putting it back — regardless of one’s political stripe.
Where’s the uproar by these same partisans when a Democrat stretches the limit on privacy issues? I’ll tell you where: In a corner with a hand over their mouth.
If you’re referring to the Democratic “leadership” that gets all the press, you’ve probably got at least a partial case. If you’re referring to the partisan Democrats who post here, I would prefer that you submit some actual evidence first.
To be honest, I think we are already at a point now where there is little or no privacy, so I am pretty much resigned to that fact with everything I say and do. As far as I’m concerned, the genie’s out of the bottle, and there ain’t no putting it back — regardless of one’s political stripe.
That, however, I’ll pretty much agree with. The main thing to really argue for now is transparency — give us the same ability to eavesdrop on government officials that they have to do for us. That’ll make it a lot less likely that systematic abuses will occur, IMO, because the abusers will themselves get caught awfully quickly.
TWL
Dear Lord…. this is stupid. You mean someone buried a wierd, stupid, and possibly nasty thing inside of an over-long bill that declares violence against women to be wrong and people have the stamina and odd sense of focus to single out the President of the United States to sign into law H.R. 3402, the “Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005”.
Maybe the problem is a Congress (doesn’t matter what Party controls it) that spends too much time in session and a bunch of bill-writers who refuse to make these stupid things concise with language clear to the layman.
and if anyone ever accuses me of actually using anonymity here and there and everywhere…. for crying out loud I GIVE everyone a link to discover my real name. Furthermore… my real name has no more real meaning on the internet than my fancy-pants comic-themed handle. The only thing that means anything is an ISP… and some other pieces of information that come in the form of numbers. Those things could be used to track the real me down so you could say the exact same things to me in person that you could online.
Now you could blame the POTUS for not reading the bill… but first I want to know how many Congressmen read the entire bill and understood the entire bill. Then I want to know what high-paid scumbag lawyer (regardless of party) wrote this thing.
give us the same ability to eavesdrop on government officials that they have to do for us.
Oh come on that’s…that’s…Tim, you’re a genius.
One other point about the genie being out of the bottle regarding privacy. Two recent news stories highlight this. The first is an apparent CIA-ordered kidnapping in Italy that was methodically and excruciatingly accurately reproduced by European law enforcement agencies who later tracked records of the cell phone “here I am” pings on dozens of CIA operatives cell phones (Source: Chicago Tribune). The second is the recently reported business of selling cell phone records (along with all called numbers) of anyone for a hundred bucks or so. This included the records of police officers and thus, potentially, all of their sources and informants (Source: Chicago Sun-Times).
In both cases, technology has moved far faster than even intelligence and law enforcement people recognized.
These types of electronic records are everywhere, and someone with foresight and some dough can easily tap into them without all that much trouble.
Another chilling invention just now available for “law enforcement officials and the military” for about $1,000 is a device that can actually tell if anyone is inside a house or not. It can “see” through up to 12 inches of concrete and 50 feet beyond. The device was developed to combat urban terrorists, but how long before criminals get there hands on the device and use it to rob unoccupied homes? Here’s more: http://www.edefenseonline.com/default.asp?func=article&aref=01_04_2006_WI_O1
This stuff is just a drop in the technological bucket.
So when I read about people getting their knickers in a knot over the release of library book records, I just have to shake my head and laugh. I guess ignorance IS bliss.
Thanks, Bill, but ’tain’t my idea originally. I’ll take credit for helping spread it, though. 🙂
TWL
At least one pro-liberal website offered to pay the cost of anyone who obtained the phone records of Republican congressmen. they were supposed to look for contacts with Abramhov and associates.
On the one hand, it’s not illegal and in keeping with Tim’s idea for transparency. On the other hand, nobody who thinks it’s a fine idea has much moral authority to complain about the erosion of privacy rights. then again…
Moral- I knew there was a reason I hated cell phones and am the only person I know without one!
Sorry, but intersection cameras are NOT an invasion of privacy, since when you’re on the street, you are, by definition, in public. And if they manage to get the tech worked out to nail speeders, tough šhìŧ. You breaks the law and you pays the price.
-Rex Hondo-
Rex wrote: “Sorry, but intersection cameras are NOT an invasion of privacy, since when you’re on the street, you are, by definition, in public. And if they manage to get the tech worked out to nail speeders, tough šhìŧ. You breaks the law and you pays the price.”
Those cameras don’t discriminate whether a person is on their private property or not when they capture an image. Nor do they only detect sounds from the public street and sidewalks.
But let’s just say, for the moment, I agree with your assertion above. One could use the same argument that records in a public library paid for with taxpayer money are as public as, say, a police blotter, court records, etc., could they not?
“But let’s just say, for the moment, I agree with your assertion above. One could use the same argument that records in a public library paid for with taxpayer money are as public as, say, a police blotter, court records, etc., could they not?”
Well, yeah, they could. But I think they’d be hard-pressed to explain how the scrutiny that results from breaking the law justifies a similar scrutiny just for taking a book out of the library.
PAD
It’s not just taxpayer-funded institution records regarding lawbreakers that are public. The same goes for real estate transactions, marriages, census information, death records, etc.
For example, although census data is masked for 70 years, eventually it becomes completely public. I’ve spent hours going through the 1930 and 1920 Census information, for example. Also, World War II enlistment records from 1941-46 are now public (for example, Jack Kirby’s enlistment record is available on line, as is Stanley Lieber’s, Steve Ditko’s and those of eight million other enlistees). And if one is so inclined, one can go to any local city hall or federal NARA branch and review birth, death and marriage information, and lots of other stuff as well. One can also request all sorts of taxpayer-funded government information through the Freedom of Information Act. The list goes on and on. All this certainly weakens the argument that, somehow, taxpayer-funded library records are sacrosanct. And as I said in a previous post, public access to public library records are such an insignificant issue compared to all the other privacy issues bubbling around out there, that the whole (mostly partisan-driven) flap seems absolutely silly to me.