Posted by Anthony Martin Sun, 03 Feb 2008 05:22:00 GMT
We don’t have pipes, so we didn’t have any place to “stuff it.”
Posted by Anthony Martin Fri, 07 Dec 2007 21:46:00 GMT
This may seem like review, but this is actually new material. We talked about this subject back in Episode 002, and this is a response (mostly by Aaron (what else is new?)), to Fellowship and Frivolity. But it’s been so long, likely nobody remembers even what was even said.
Aaron, start your rant!
Posted by Anthony Martin Sun, 18 Nov 2007 04:07:00 GMT
Well, I guess the answer is yes.
Among other mistakes, I mixed up aerobically and anaerobically, which is sad because I used to terminate fiber optic cable using an anaerobic glue similar to Loctite™.
Posted by Anthony Martin Fri, 09 Nov 2007 14:02:00 GMT
Imagine what the public reaction might be, if one day the House of Representatives approved legislation that required citizens to register their religious affiliation with a new federal department called the Religious Registry Council, also amending the REAL ID Act of 2005.
Upon registration with the RRC, everyone’s religious affiliation would be categorized and recorded in a central database. Then, when each citizen receives his or her standardized, federal ID, a corresponding religious symbol is added to the front of the card, right beside the photo.
Those who do not elect to associate with a religious affiliation would not have a symbol. Those who want to associate with a new religion not part of the registry can fill out paper-work to add a new religion to the registry. Some people may have their own unique religion. Others might be part of an established religion. It doesn’t matter to the government.
You can register Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Latter Day Saints, Jedi, whatever.
What harm would it do? Congress isn’t making a law establishing religion, right? It’s just a centralized database. It’s just being collected for security measures. It will save lives.
Because we all know some religions are more violent than others, and having data ahead of time, before those who are part of those violent religions become radicalized, would represent another tool for law enforcement to prevent terrorist attacks. It would also prevent some forms of racial profiling, since people who register with certain affiliations give hints in the form of rich demographic data that the government can use in one way or the other. Some people would be hassled more based on their RVPI (Religious/Violence Probability Index), not their skin color.
Ok, maybe I didn’t sell the idea very well, but the truth is, I didn’t intend to.
Here’s the point I intended to illustrate with the above nonsense. Somehow, we all know this is absolutely wrong. Somehow, we know intrinsically that this is no different than what Nazi Germany did to their Jewish population. We can all plainly see how this added “security” is itself a violation. Asking for citizens to identify their religious affiliation so that data can be collected for security measures is wrong, even if there is objective documentation that guarantees it can save lives. Somehow, there’s a line, and we know it cannot be crossed.
This week, President Pervez Musharraf defended his military dictatorship and subsequent crackdown on dissidents, comparing it to U.S. actions after 9/11. Pakistani (state approved) television reported that Musharraf announced elections will be held in Pakistan before February 15. The announcement comes following former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto’s statement that she will not delay major protests scheduled for today.
Pakistan is following the lead that the U.S. demonstrated and continues to demonstrate for the world. The Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, REAL ID Act, and HR 1955 represent an obvious erosion of our rights. It doesn’t matter if the “wave of abuses” has or has not been observed. The mere existence of these legislative monstrosities as signed by President Bush are themselves a violation.
We know that my fictitious Religious Registry Council idea would be a violation even before the “wave of abuses.” We know it is a violation even if we all stipulate that it would save lives. There are lines we won’t cross. Yet, we have crossed them before.
Posted by Anthony Martin Tue, 06 Nov 2007 18:34:00 GMT
Eric Margolis says that the democracy movement and the Islamic militants are fighting the dictatorship. The key point made in this interview was the statement, when Margolis continued:
What we call Islamic Terrorism, or this so-called Faux War on Terror, that’s used as a justification by “right-wingers” everywhere, to undermine democratic systems, the main impetus behind Islamic militancy is against dictatorial governments in the Muslim world. They’re not fighting against the west, they’re fighting against western imposed governments in their areas.
Posted by Anthony Martin Sun, 04 Nov 2007 05:23:00 GMT
Posted by Anthony Martin Thu, 18 Oct 2007 20:47:00 GMT
If you are a one-issue voter, and your “one issue” is Abortion, you will not like Ron Paul. Neither hard-core-pro-lifers nor hard-core-pro-choicers like him. Here’s proof:
When comparing this record with others, one can certainly understand why one-issue-voters would be turned off by him. He wants to do away with Roe vs. Wade, as NARLA points out, but what they ignore is that he thinks it’s a state issue.
Even though he thinks it’s a state issue, he’s also behind H. R. 300 which would block any futher judicial activism:
Allows the Supreme Court and the federal courts to determine the constitutionality of federal statutes, administrative rules, or procedures in considering cases arising under the Constitution. Prohibits the Supreme Court and the federal courts from issuing any ruling that appropriates or expends money, imposes taxes, or otherwise interferes with the legislative functions or administrative discretion of the states.
He’s also authored H. R. 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.”
Yet hard-core-pro-choicers will likely focus on the one 0% rating he got from NARLA and ignore the fact that he has never had 100%. Hard-core-pro-lifers will focus on the fact that he’s not always 0% like Representative Tom Tancredo.
It’s easy to understand why Ron Paul is neither 0% or 100%. We’re talking about the voting record of a representative who’s focus is on understanding all problems from the standpoint of what The Constitution is allowed to dictate.
By the way, what is hard-core-pro-choice, anyway? I can imagine someone who is hard-core-pro-life, but someone who is hard-core-pro-choice must actually loath their own birth, yes?
Posted by Anthony Martin Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:24:00 GMT
Let’s just get this overwith and move on, ok?
Posted by Anthony Martin Wed, 17 Oct 2007 04:29:00 GMT
It looks like Aaron had a few of pent up words for the last Fellowship and Frivolity (the last one he listened to, anyway). Good times … good times.
Download
