Well...I would just refer all of us back to the "Talk to me like a Redneck" thread.
In today's San Jose Mercury News, there's an article headed "Patriot Act used broadly, US says." The essense of the article is that the Bush administration is using the Patriot Act in "many criminal investigations that have little or nothing to do with terrorism." The San Jose City Council just passed a resolution last week to ignore the Patriot Act from city government. Gets more interesting by the week. I wonder if the Justice Department is going to start jailing the members of the San Jose city government.
cicerone imposter wrote: I wonder if the Justice Department is going to start jailing the members of the San Jose city government.
With Arse-croft one can never be certain!
erudite.....that's one of them big words like mayonnaise ain't it?
Yeah, them 1,000 dollar words kind'a gets messy in the sanwich.
There's a piece in sunday's ny times re the misuses of the patriot act as well. Police, understandably, want to go get the bad guys. But they did in Chile too. All sorts of constraints are placed on law enforcement for the very good reason that they can, and have (as in the precinct in LA several years ago) tended towards activities which result in injustice.
On the issue of environmental rules/safeguards and what they cost...
Quote:WASHINGTON, Sept. 27 ?- The White House office in charge of reviewing federal regulations has reported that the benefits of some major environmental rules appear to exceed the costs by several times and that the net benefits may be even larger than previously acknowledged.
In its annual review of the costs and benefits of regulations, the Office of Management and Budget examined a sampling of major rules and found that the total benefits, to the extent they can be measured, were at least triple the costs.
In this report, which was described on Saturday in The Washington Post, the Environmental Protection Agency was found to have produced significantly greater net benefits than last year's report acknowledged. But the change was mainly due to accounting technicalities.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/28/politics/28COST.html
All in all, the furor over the potential, and occasional real, abuses of the Patriot Act are a good thing ... much of it is being questioned, revisions and safeguards are being considered and proposed. Like a lot of "Quick Fixes", it could have been thought out a lot better than it was before it was tossed into the mix. I figure it'll undergo a period of adjustment, just as it seems to be doing. I would be most surprised not to see a dispute or two over the act's application or some aspect of its provisions go all the way to The Supremes. A word on The Supremes might be appropriate here, too; regardless who appointed them, they tend to be a rather independent lot, not noted for any particular partisan loyalty. Any number of Chief Executives have been most startled to discover this.
There is a discussion of the PATRIOT act going on
here.
Nice redirect, bob ... good job. Just to belabor the erudition digression, here's some Vancouver Erudition for ya, blatham:
The Vancouver Museum Current Featured Exhibits
Sex, Drugs, and Rock & Roll get culture ... whooda thunk?
(stumbled across that in what was actually a more or less futile, unrelated websearch for something else, but it was too good to waste)
damn! Missed seeing the show. Guess I'll just have to keep living it.
Blatham, considering your avatar, I was picturing you and Barbie and Skipper wandering stiffly down the streets of Vancouver,
hello, anybody home?
An entire bottle of Sanserre ...................and a pleasant evening it is too......... politicians, what's that?
politicians? are they coaches in the ways of poise and manners?
hobit
Actually, what with our liberalized coupling laws, it would be me and gi joe
I see Mr. Blatham has not the wit to answer. I thought not.
One more body bag and four more injured SO FAR in Iraq today, as the human cost of enriching friends of the Administration continues to rise.
Italgato wrote:I see Mr. Blatham has not the wit to answer. I thought not.
Now there is a DIRECT, PURPOSEFULLY MEAN SPIRITED insult. Clear violation of the TOS.
Someone please inform the bouncer. :wink:
