Rev. Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A., M.Div.

His name is 'Bush'.

On-line privacy is a myth. There are very few ways to remain truly anonymous on the web. I'd rather the government stay out of this, though. Then again, I'd rather Google (and all the others) quit collecting all the information that they collect, too.
 

Right on rem870, it is not just "on-line" privacy that is a myth, it is all privacy.
All NSA has to do to collect everything on all the internet world wide including all of the activity in the USA is go outside our borders and do it from there and it is perfectly leagal. NSA is a GIANT electronic vaccum cleaner sucking in every electronic signal and communication in the world and beyond (yes they have had a deep space project since 1964). If they want to they can park one of their little vans outside you house or busines and pick up the key strokes from your key board or even hundreds of key boards, say at a newspaper office, and know exactly what you are typing. They can even analyse you typing "fist" and thus recognize that it is you that is typing. If they want to listen to your conversations they just drop a laser on your window, or put microphones on the steel frame of your office building. No wire taping warrent needed for that. Shit, I can see my picnic table in my back yard just by looking on Google Earth, a free public sattelite feed. What do you think the Feds can watch?
What Justice is after is legal precidence not data.
We should be pleased that this administration is bringing all of this out into the open by overreaching their authority. This Orwellian intrusion has been creeping up on us for half a century now and no one had paid any attention. Now it is beginning to sink in, we are being had. Thank you President Bush for your timely mistakes.
But, does anyone really believe that we can put the toothpaste back in the tube?
Oh, by the way if you use Google Earth, don't look up White House.
 

Bush .. Shrub ,, eastern red cedar, mesquite -- whatever.

My inner columnist od Molly Ivins.
 

ER, you do dis-service to Mesquite.
 

Yer right, Anon. Mesquite has some uses.

Delete "mesquite"

Add "broomweed"


Re, "What Justice is after is legal precidence not data."

That's what has me so pissed off! No shit, they can GET the information already, I'm sure. It's the GALL of pretending to give a shit about what any court thinks.

How many in the U.S. Marshall Service now??
 

He may have deleted it, but I called him on what he wrote as soon as I saw it. And you are correct. He drew first blood. But, two wrongs don't make a right, as they say.
 

sorry to have earned your ire, er, as that was not my intention. and sorry to post my response here, but mark is moderating my comments into the waste bin.

does this not constitute the same degree of libel of which i was accused:

Mark Maness said...
Sorry about the deletion, friends. Kevron, who we have discovered is synpathetic to child molestors and other perverts, forgot the rules for commenting on my blog, and poated an obscene comment, so he is deleted.

He possibly is a child molestor himself, since links he provides from his own website lead you to the NAMBLA website.

January 19, 2006 9:03 AM

mark made some other comments elsewhere (i can provide the link, if you like), to the same effect, all the while knowing that he was promulgating a filthy lie.

i appreciate that you came to the defense of your friend, but if i deserve an ass-kicking, then surely he must, too.

funny: he finds coarse language to be offensive, but has compunction in spewing filthy lies. what kind of whacked moral compass is that?!
 

uh, "no compunction"....

KEvron
 

ER asked:
"How many in the U.S. Marshall Service now??"

According to the U.S. Marshal's Home Page, there are 3350 Federal Deputy Marshals at the command of the Court.
 

By the way, due to the Ft. Smith Federal Court jurisdiction over Indian Territory and the Federal Building bombing in 1995, over half of all the U.S. Marshals killed in the line of duty have died in Oklahoma. Wierd huh?
 

Conservatives have long since tilted away from privacy in search of criminals.

Kind of curious about the contadiction

here

where all three of the most conservative judges lined up against the state of Oregon. Whatsamatta boy - only believe in Federalism when you agree with the laws they passed? You don't think your position doesn't stretch the commerce clause in a way that would have you screaming bloody murder if the other wing of the court overturned a law you LIKED?

Man, for a little consistency in this world...
 

Off topic - how long will O'Connor be on the Court? I mean, is she staying on until a new justice is confirmed or does she have 'set date' for when she will leave?

Tstockman, I think you have your terms confused. A federalist is for a strong federal government. From Wikipedia: Historically in the United States the term "federalist" describes those who generally favor a more powerful federal government and weaker state governments where as the term "anti-federalists" refers to those who generally favor a weaker federal government and stronger state governments.

Me, I'm an anti-federalist.
 

You're correct in eighteenth century terms, but that's not how the term is used now. I'm more of a dictionary.com kind of guy than Wikipedia:

"the idea of a federal organization of more or less self-governing units"

The idea of state sovereignity has been do degraded that being a federalist is about as states-rightsy as anyone gets. Describing yourself as an antifederalist would be like Pat Robertson describing himself as a Know-Nothing.

Oops, nevermind.

In any case, question still stands, though, about the conservative opinion.
 

You have a point. I see Federalism used both ways in my readings - for and against states rights. I stick to the 'traditional' definition and point it out whenever I can. Unless you see the word used in context, it is often hard to be sure which side the writer (or orator) is supporting. To avoid confusion, I generally spell it out expilicitly as either pro- or con- States Rights.

By the way, what question still stands? All I see in your post are what looks like rhetoricals?
 

Oh, sorry - I realize the questions are snotty enough to sound rhetorical rather than an tonal version of the real question:

I know the Dexter Three don't like assisted suicide, but what happened to their inclination to limit the power of the federal gov't vis-a-vis the states, one of the alleged goals in pushing the court rightward?
 

I'm going to have to agree that all privacy, on-line or off-line is pretty much a myth these days. If the government's not tracking you, then corporations are. And they are slicing and dicing every piece of information they can gather about you in order to target you for more and more specific services, goods, etc. Personally, I resent that. I am the consumer, it's my money, and I want to decide what to buy and when to buy it, without having some big data mining company sift through and determine what my next preference should be. Every credit card purchase gives them more information. Every check card purchase. Every purchase at the grocery store or drug store where you have to use your "club" card to get the "sale" price. Now we see that your cell phone records can be purchased for $100. For me, I would say that it is more frightening when it's the government doing the trolling, but that doesn't mean I like the private snooping any better.

I'm beginning to think the Amish and Mennonites are onto something.
 

I got some anabaps in my line ...
 

A couple of years ago I did a lot of trips to Washington D.C.. On one trip I played a game with myself, I called it find the camera.
So from the time I got off the plane, till I got to my hotel room by riding on the Metro, I spent effort in locating every camera that was recording my presence.
I think I counted 12 of them. I was on camera ALL THE TIME from the time I embarked the plane at Reagan National until I closed the door to my room at the Mayflower Hotel.
Privacy? An ancient word used to describe a conditon of personal solitude that ceased to exsit in the latter half of the 20th century. Look up they are watching.
 

I don't like what they are doing either.
We had the good sense to set up a 24/7 court to get approval for this from a judge/second opinion.

I hope the court rules they are wrong on this one.

I will say I do believe "shrub" had good intentions, our safety, but you know what they say about good intentions.....There are lots of roads paved with it.....I just don't like where this road could lead.