Who are these "privacy" advocates anyway? You know, the folks who bristle at the possibility that the government...charged with keeping us safe and protecting our borders....might store and use that information in future investigations.
Did anyone crossing one of our borders since 9-11 really think that the swipe of a passport didn't create data for future use? Stories like this are what give libertarians a bad name.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
15 comments:
I thought the point of having a border checkpoint was so that they could keep track of when you come and go. Certainly it's not just for the stamp collectors, right?
The issue that really gets me is the complete lack of legislative mandate directing a process for holding laptops for inspection by TSA. We'll hold onto it for any reasonable amount of time, without bothering to define reasonable? You might not think that matters, but consider that most international travelers' point of entry into the US--especially American citizens traveling on US passports--is not their final destination. You want to hold me and my laptop to see what's on it for six hours when my connecting flight leaves in two hours, and you have no process for getting me to my final destination after my delay? Yeah, that's not going to work.
I agree; this laptop issue needs to get sorted out.
Serious question.
How much is too much government? Where do you draw the line? As the founding fathers thought, just before anarchy (the best government is the least government)or ....? I would like your thoughts, thanks.
Well, I have libertarian leanings, but I'm not a libertarian. I believe folks who go too far in that camp are ultimately left without productive programs to govern people.
To your question, I can't give you a good answer, but I can paraphrase the answer once given by a Supreme Court justice about pornography; I know it when I see it.
Government intervention in textbook markets? Too much. Keeping databases on who enters and leaves the country and when? Not too much.
Establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, and promote the general welfare. Huge playing field there, I'll grant that.
If every American read the consitution and the bill of rights at least once (and I expect that a good many have not) and then read the Federalist Papers the playing field would actually be small. Based on what I have read so far I don't expect CW and his readers to fall in the have not category but still am a bit surprised at a politician like answer.
for those who don't feel like trying to digest the whole constitution and its amendments in one sitting, iGoogle has a handy daily "gadget" called "read the constitution" that meters it out in bite-sized snacks. go to iGoogle and click on "add stuff". you'll see a list of gadgets to add to your iGoogle home page. it is also handy for those who have already read the constitution but could use periodic refreshers. for some fascinating background on howthe constitution came to be, i recommend "founding brothers--the revolutionary generation" by joseph j. ellis. also, to go even more into its foundational depth, i strongly recommend "the rights of man" by thomas paine. finally, a great reference document for every interested american, "a documentary history of the united states" by richard d. heffner. this compiles all the great documents and speeches of our national history which i believe the author routinely updates. my copy ends with the clinton administration but it, for some reason, left out the famous clinton address to the nation: "i did not have sex with...that woman." seriously, these are all great reads and all are available in paperback. -mudge
Aaaaah, I hate the bite-sizing of the Constitution so much. It's like the tiny little Snickers bars they sell during Halloween; sure in one sense you're having a Snickers, but in a very real sense you're just getting less candy.
Also, no one should read "Rigths of Man" without reading Edmund Burke's "Reflections on the Revolution in France" first. Furthermore, no one should be allowed to read "Reflections" without reading "Rights" afterwards. I don't care whether you ultimately agree with Burke or Paine--or if, like me, you discover that you see value in both arguments and common ground between them and discover that you are, in fact, a moderate. But anyone who wants to discuss political philosophy should at the very least try and understand all of it from as many perspetives as possible.
Anon - Thanks for the recommendation on Burke's "Reflections...", I haven't read it yet but will be sure to add it to my must read list. Actually, it was one of my God-given rights to read it out of the sequence you would mandate (tongue in cheek) but I do agree it can only improve "Rights..." to read "Reflections..." as a complement. As for the bite size Constitution snippets, I too preferred reading the whole document at once (even have a copy of it on my bedstand) but I suggest it for those who would otherwise not read it at all or, for those who have read it but find a periodic refresher to be convenient in keeping what they read before in the forefront of their minds. I don't really care how people read it, just feel that we all benefit when more of us do read it. I'm neither a Constitutional scholar nor a Constitutional elitist, rather, I just really appreciate the genius behind it and the protections (of our God-given rights) that it codifies for our fellow citizens to follow when they aspire to take on the civic responsibility of governing in this country. It's perhaps the most comforting sense of freedom to know that this document absolutely dictates the limits to which those citizens (governing)can exert state authority over their fellow citizens (governed). True, it is not always a rapid process by which we restore Constitutional equilibrium in the wake of a governmental transgression, but it generally seems to stand the test of time in guiding the governance of this amazing nation. PS, I've never read the Magna Carta either and doubt I will.
Mudge - might I suggest you re-read Paine after reading Burke, at least? I "mandated" that particular order because Paine specifically wrote "Rights" as a response to "Reflections." One informs the other, but it's not necessarily an inverse relationship.
Awesome back and forth in this thread...great recommendations for our political bookshelves.
Thsntht--are you REALLY surprised to get a politicians answer back from me?
CW: yes very. But I am glad that the mere mention of the preamble made for a library of thought.
I expect that soon the mask will have to come off; if that isn't to happen call me.
But Thsntht....do you remember very many officers on active duty who were as politically minded as I was?
Yes actually most of your generation at the pentagon.
As someone who works in politics, I'm curious about whether I should be insulted by the last few comments are not. :)
Anon - No, you are in politics and should not be insulted. The military members accused of being in politics should be insulted. Now you should be insulted. You had to see this coming :-)
Post a Comment