Does this scare the holy living hell out of anyone else?
I don't go in for conspiracy theories, and I'm not a big fan of fear-mongering either, but this terrifies me. Our legal system has given the office of the President the authority to detain ANYONE in the U.S. - including legal citizens - indefinitely and without bringing charges against them. I for one will not be sleeping very well for a long time.
All of the Founding Fathers of this country are rolling in their graves right now, and I believe if you listen closely you can hear Thomas Jefferson screaming in anguish as we allow the 4th Circuit Court to strangle the Bill of Rights and then rape its corpse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, China's experiencing the coldest winter in a century, and we've had one of the coldest winters in recent memory so far throughout much of the U.S. (and other parts of the world).
I blame global warming.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wisconsin is now considering authorizing the use of red-light cameras.
This is one of the sneakier bad ideas our legislature has had in a while. While there is sincere, soundly-reasoned opposition to installing these cameras, it's easy to brush off the opposition (even if it includes people like the National Motorists' Association); after all, who could be opposed to traffic cameras? They make the streets safer, right? Who in their right mind would be opposed to safety?
Well, as it turns out, quite a few people. And it's not that people like me are opposed to safety; it's that we don't trust the cameras, based either on inherent mistrust of government (especially with regards to surveillance) or on solid reasoning. Either way, both are supported by historical precedents and research.
There is a much greater problem with cameras that have been proven to be unreliable at best than our legislators want to admit. Places from Virginia to Australia have found that red light cameras do not achieve the intended goal of preventing more accidents. They do, however, increase revenue for the city, which is the real reason they're being installed. And hey, the ends justify the means, right? What's a little invasion of privacy in exchange for a feeling of safety?
Orwell would be proud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
It snowed in Baghdad yesterday.
I blame gay marriage.
(And yes, I know the title doesn't make sense - it was an attempt at humor.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
We're at it again.
The last time this happened, the mayor, the alders, and the governor himself were bemoaning the fact that the governor was "forced" to sign the bill limiting government's ability to use eminent domain to seize property they wanted for their own projects; now they're supporting the Arbor Gate project as a back door to get what they were legally unable to steal take before. Note the mayor's quote at the end:
"It will bring jobs, vitality and is just the start of what we 're going to be able to do (in the area). "
Emphasis mine.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: They won't be happy until they've shut down the dirty porno store for good. This isn't entirely about driving out "unsavory" business, but that's a significant portion of what's driving this initiative. There are enough people in Madison who are opposed to adult establishments, because they're somehow "dirty" and need to be driven out of our otherwise vestal and pure town city, that there is support for projects like this. The irony here is that the same people who oppose Bush because of the damage he's done to civil liberties are also big supporters of taking away a legal business's right to operate in the way they choose because they don't like the business. (See also: porn stores, strip clubs, bars that allow smoking, etc.)
And the worst part about this: It's all supposedly for the "neighborhood," or for the "community." I don't know how many people out there have spent much time in the Todd Drive neighborhood, but exactly how many poor people and/or minorities (of which there are quite a few in the Todd Drive area) do you think they'll hire for the car dealerships and other upscale businesses they want to put in the newly-renovated business park? Chances are, none. Like so many other projects, this is (directly or indirectly) another way Madison is becoming more and more gentrified. Another reason to vote out our City Council in the next elections.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The mayor has said he is no longer considering trolleys for Madison. (Note that there was nothing mentioned about removing the trolley wording from the RTA bill.)
Somehow, I don't believe it. One of his pet projects, part of his vision for Madison, just disappears without a fight? Color me skeptical. I'll be a step closer to believing when the trolleys are no longer part of the RTA proposal, because last I knew, they were still written into the proposal for funding.
If we don't use the federal funding for trolleys, but it's still in the bill, where does the money go? And isn't it fraud if we don't remove it from the proposal as soon as possible? (Not that I think there are very many people in power here in Madison who would care about a little fraud, as long as it helps them in the end.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like I'm not the only one opposed to the creation of the RTA.
I'm not opposed to it because I hate mass transit, or because I hate trains, or because I love the oil companies, or anything like that. I'm opposed to it because the whole thing stinks to high heaven. Let's run down the list of complaints:
1. The feasibility study ignored the fact that improving the bus system (in any way - increased routes, upgrading buses, etc.) would be cheaper and provide more ridership.
2. Madison Mayor Dave Cieslewicz and Kathleen Falk met in private to hammer out the details of this, after warring over whose proposal (the mayor's trolleys vs. Falk's commuter rail) would get government funding. They didn't even tell anybody that they had met, much less why, until it came out in the news, and they were forced to. I disapprove of shady tactics.
3. The construction on this will take years, and will go straight through downtown. What do you suppose that will do to congestion?
4. The entire county will be taxed to pay for it, but it only goes from Sun Prairie to Middleton (via the isthmus). Are you surprised that places like Waunakee, Cross Plains, Dane, and others are opposed to paying for something they'll likely never use?
5. Rather than paying for just the commuter rail or just the trolley, the proposal is for both. My loathing for the trolley idea aside, this is completely underhanded - not only does most of the public not know that the trolleys are included in the proposal, but if it passes, it means that the extra 0.5% tax increase will have the entire county paying for a Madison-only mode of transportation.
For all of these reasons and more, this proposal should be done away with, the sooner the better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that terminally ill patients have no right to experimental drugs that might benefit them.
This is sad on so many levels. Aren't we supposed to be looking after the lowliest members of our society? Shouldn't we be doing all we can for terminally ill patients (with their consent), even if we don't have the highest degree of certainty what the outcome will be? (What's the worst that could happen? They're already going to die.) Isn't the Ninth Amendment supposed to protect a person's right to privacy? If the Ninth doesn't cover this, then what exactly does it cover? What kind of privacies are left to us?
I'm a big advocate for freedom of privacy, but even without that, this is absolutely appalling. How can you tell terminally ill people that the one alternative they thought they had can't be used? How do you look a cancer patient in the eye and tell them that you're condemning them to death, because an option that might have been able to slow or even halt the disease they're dying from isn't approved by the FDA, despite the fact that it has shown promising results in clinical trials? I think each and every justice who ruled in the majority should have to tell at least one terminally ill person, face to face, that they are going to have to die because it might infringe on the government's war on illegal drugs. I don't think it would change anything about the court as it stands now, but it would at least give us a measure of the humanity of the current justices. (I guess since decency isn't written into the Constitution, they don't have to abide by it, either.) And quoting Raich in the decision was absolutely spineless - marijuana (a substance the federal government has declared illegal) has nothing to do with prescription medications (which have legal sanction).
This immediately reminded me of a conversation I had with one of my co-workers a couple of weeks ago. He used to work for a pharmaceutical company that was developing a medication to combat Alzheimer's disease. The clinical trials had shown amazing results, and they already had warehouse space set aside for the product release. At the last minute, the FDA told them they weren't allowed to release the drug. Why? Because approximately 1 in 1000 patients developed lethal liver damage, and died within 2 or 3 years. Keep in mind, I'm not talking about people with early-stage Alzheimer's; the study volunteers had severe, advanced Alzheimer's - to the point where they couldn't remember their families, or their friends, or virtually anything at all. He said that the return these people made was nothing short of miraculous. As he put it, "People who had lost so much of their mental faculties now had them returned - they were able to remember things they thought were gone forever. They were people their families recognized again."
I told him that I was fairly sure that if patients and their families were told of the possibility of catastrophic liver failure, that they would probably still volunteer to take the medication; at least, most of them would prefer a couple of short, but normal, years to many more years spent in the state they had so recently been in. He looked me in the eyes with one of the saddest expressions I have ever seen and said, "All of them."
That's what we're taking away from people: Not just hope, but the ability to make decisions about your personal health. The implications of this decision terrify me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Back to the grind. Bus has decided that he can use "executive privilege" to conceal the reasons 8 U.S. attorneys were fired last year.
Not that this is a surprise - George W. Bush seems to believe that the presidency allows him to do whatever he wants, that has been plain for a long time; although I do think the media is being a little naive in acting like he's the first president since Nixon to use the power. Every president has used it, to greater or lesser degrees - Bush is just being more flagrant about it than most.
Not that I believe this power is completely undeserved - there are certain cases where the president absolutely should not release information to the general public, but those almost invariably have to deal with national security, and that's not a concern here. By any measure, these firings were politically motivated, and politicking is no reason to keep information from the public, especially when good people were fired - in the middle of a president's second term - for no real reason. There is no logical excuse for the exercise of executive privilege in this instance, and the president should be ashamed. (Not that that will stop him, either.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
A little good news, for a change - the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a key part of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act earlier this week.
The portion of the bill restricting free speech campaign ads has been determined to be un-Constitutional. This is the biggest objection I've had to the bill, and the one so many people fail to understand. Here's the gist of a conversation I've had several times:
Me: "I think the McCain-Feingold Act should be repealed."
Them: "Why?"
M: "Because it restricts people's free speech."
T: "No, it doesn't."
M: "How would you classify stifling political ads prior to an election, then?"
T: "Well, they're attack ads. And that's bad."
M: "Why? Political speech is free speech. In fact, it's our most precious form of free speech - the right to speak about the government, positively or negatively."
T: "But attack ads are bad, so they should be banned."
This is usually followed by the sound of my head repeatedly hitting the wall - a physical manifestation of my perception of the discussion.
I don't like attack ads. I think they are some of the stupidest, most transparently biased, uninformed, worthless things I've ever seen. That being said, I also believe people have a perfect right to say whatever they want (you know, based on silly things like that "free speech" portion of the First Amendment). If they're willing to pay to say it, good for them; let them waste their money. I'm also willing to change the channel when it comes on.
I'm not about to trample on someone's free speech rights just because I don't agree with them; I outgrew that desire a long time ago. Sadly, much of Madison has not, and the "Them" position above seems to be the norm, and i hear it all the time in conversation, whether I'm involved in it or simply overhearing it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
