So, it seems that our beloved Attorney General is on a one-man whirlwind show-and-tell, out to promote the USA PATRIOT Act as a necessity and to tout its successes. I'm sure there have been successes under the PATRIOT act, but they come at such a high price that now even the conservatives are starting to question the legtimacy of Ashcroft's mission. According to section 215, for example, the FBI can request any personal records the FBI deems "relevant to a terrorist investigation" without the need to produce a warrant or a subpeona.
Maybe we shouldn't be surprised that while Ashcroft tours Middle America and tells the good citizens that if they're good citizens they have nothing to fear from the FBI, his buddy Orrin Hatch has introduced the VICTORY act, which would further diminish our civil rights with such requirements as: eliminate the regional requirement on wiretapping of cell phones on the grounds that users could "be anywhere," allowing the FBI to shop the nation for a tolerant court; futher ease restrictions on accessing medical and other personal records; strengthen the gag order on librarians and archivists when such "sneak and peek" jobs are performed; put the burden of proof on the defendant when trying to prove that a wiretap request was illicit; and so on.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
omahas might want to read carefully this article. It's a strong condemnation of the food section of that venerable magazine, Consumer Reports. CR apparently reports correctly that the introduction of irradiated meats would eliminate 8,500 hospital visits, 6,000 serious illnesses, and 350 deaths per year in the US, touts the economic benefits such changes would have, and then spends the rest of the article convincing Americans not to buy the stuff.
In terms of risk analysis, irradiated meat presents a lower overall risk to the consumer than non-irradiated meat, yet CR, guided by its parent company Consumer's Union, recommends against it. The author of this scathing review correctly points out that, when it comes to things that matter, such as food and water and health care, Consumer's Union has become strongly informed by an ideology many of us would find foreign.
This is sad. It would seem that, after some high school kids cleaned up a creek that had become filled with abandoned tires, the local Service Employees Union is suing to get paid for the clean-up. They claim that they should have been given a first shot at "volunteering" for the work, would have accepted and been paid for it, and so should be paid for it anyway.
As it is, the matter is in arbitration and the county has to pay for the arbiter.
It's amusing to see the Christian Right whine about how the "liberal" press is constatly trying to lump "Fundamentalist Christians" with "Fundamentalist Muslims" and "Fundamentalist Hindus." Apparently, Pat Robertson wants to point out that his people are "different" in their blind devotion to a literal and tribal interpretation of their beliefs. I'm not sure how that works.
What's frightening, however, is their adoption of the strategy of "individual rights" and "consumer rights" in pursuit of their cause. The 700 Club is apparently gearing up to portray such things as the Internet Child Protection Act and so forth as "protecting the rights of consumers to not see what they would not wish to see," and their fight against gays and the Boy Scouts as "helping parents get the services they pay for" with their Boy Scout dues.
Whoof!
Maybe we shouldn't be surprised that while Ashcroft tours Middle America and tells the good citizens that if they're good citizens they have nothing to fear from the FBI, his buddy Orrin Hatch has introduced the VICTORY act, which would further diminish our civil rights with such requirements as: eliminate the regional requirement on wiretapping of cell phones on the grounds that users could "be anywhere," allowing the FBI to shop the nation for a tolerant court; futher ease restrictions on accessing medical and other personal records; strengthen the gag order on librarians and archivists when such "sneak and peek" jobs are performed; put the burden of proof on the defendant when trying to prove that a wiretap request was illicit; and so on.
omahas might want to read carefully this article. It's a strong condemnation of the food section of that venerable magazine, Consumer Reports. CR apparently reports correctly that the introduction of irradiated meats would eliminate 8,500 hospital visits, 6,000 serious illnesses, and 350 deaths per year in the US, touts the economic benefits such changes would have, and then spends the rest of the article convincing Americans not to buy the stuff.In terms of risk analysis, irradiated meat presents a lower overall risk to the consumer than non-irradiated meat, yet CR, guided by its parent company Consumer's Union, recommends against it. The author of this scathing review correctly points out that, when it comes to things that matter, such as food and water and health care, Consumer's Union has become strongly informed by an ideology many of us would find foreign.
This is sad. It would seem that, after some high school kids cleaned up a creek that had become filled with abandoned tires, the local Service Employees Union is suing to get paid for the clean-up. They claim that they should have been given a first shot at "volunteering" for the work, would have accepted and been paid for it, and so should be paid for it anyway.
As it is, the matter is in arbitration and the county has to pay for the arbiter.
It's amusing to see the Christian Right whine about how the "liberal" press is constatly trying to lump "Fundamentalist Christians" with "Fundamentalist Muslims" and "Fundamentalist Hindus." Apparently, Pat Robertson wants to point out that his people are "different" in their blind devotion to a literal and tribal interpretation of their beliefs. I'm not sure how that works.
What's frightening, however, is their adoption of the strategy of "individual rights" and "consumer rights" in pursuit of their cause. The 700 Club is apparently gearing up to portray such things as the Internet Child Protection Act and so forth as "protecting the rights of consumers to not see what they would not wish to see," and their fight against gays and the Boy Scouts as "helping parents get the services they pay for" with their Boy Scout dues.
Whoof!
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}