Fucking hell. You know, I thought I was more jaded than this.

( The thing that really gets me about prop 8... )

Ok, I have to say it.

I've been trying my best not to pay attention to the presidential race, because it all makes my stomach turn. And therefore it seems a terrible idea to post about it, therefore stirring up conversation. But I feel that this must be said. So, I am cowardly turning comments off.

( offensive words within. seriously. )

This article explains why many people feel that gay marriage is a threat to the "institute of marriage", in spite of the lack of any conceivable effect on actual heterosexual marriages.

"But the objection snaps into focus when you look at marriage as a form of intellectual property (as my colleague Carol Rose, an expert in property law, encouraged me to do). The law of trademark, particularly the doctrine of tarnishment, is particularly illuminating here. A trademark is a mark a person or business uses to brand its products or services. A 'tarnishment' claim arises when a competitor uses that mark in a way that diminishes its cachet.
...
To people like Henry Hyde, the idea that same-sex marriage demeans or assaults the institution of marriage is a tarnishment claim. It doesn't matter that he can still marry a woman. If a woman can also get married to a woman, he feels the value of his trademark has gone down."

Sounds like the title an Onion article, doesn't it? Sadly, it's not.

"[In the event of a catastrophic attack, Bush] entrusts himself with leading the entire federal government, not just the Executive Branch. And he gives himself the responsibility 'for ensuring constitutional government.'

...

The document waves at the need to work closely with the other two branches, saying there will be 'a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government.' But this effort will be 'coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers.'

Here is the text of the directive, called the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive.

Can anyone explain to me what a "directive" is? As I understand it, the office of the presidency does not actually have the power to declare himself Supreme Ultimate Ruler as Bush seems to be doing here, for which we can thank the wisdom of the framers.

As John Stewart says in America the Book, "The president can not make laws. The president can shake his head and say, 'There oughtta be a law,' but he can not make that law."

Junkfood Science reports that nationwide health departments will begin mandatory tracking of HIV positive individuals, using their full names.

"The names of people infected with HIV will be tracked in all 50 states by the end of 2007....The states are bowing to federal pressure so they won't lose money for medications and health services for patients. This is the first year federal funding has been tied to names-based surveillance of HIV. More than $1.4 billion in federal money will be distributed this fiscal year based on new formulas that include numbers of people with HIV counted by states using names. In some states, including Illinois, millions of dollars are at stake.

[Advocates] still worry that collecting names will deter some people from getting tested and seeking treatment, and about the possibility of names being released due to security breaches."

Apparently it has been effect in California for some time.

"And last spring in California, with more than $50 million annually in federal funding for HIV/AIDS care at stake, the Governor signed into law its HIV reporting law. In it, the “California Department of Health advises that health care providers, laboratories, and LHDs report cases of HIV infection by name if an HIV-related laboratory test has been performed on or after April 17, 2006.”"

I feel ill.

The bill, H. R. 393 which was introduced January 10th, opens with:

"To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, to authorize the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services..."

Don't like the idea?

Tell your representatives.

A long time ago I posed the question, "What is the purpose of government?" Then I promptly forgot to follow up.

The reason that I asked is that I heard a profound point made on a CATO Audio cd that I was listening to on the way home from burningman. The speaker put forth the theory that at the root of many of the political problems we have today is a fundamental disagreement on the purpose of government. Some, he stated, believe that the purpose of government is to protect our rights. Others believe that the purpose of government is to create the kind of society we as a people agree we would like to have, and that our rights are granted by the government only as they adhere to this goal.

Regardless of your political beliefs, I think it is an important question to answer individually and consider the implications in terms of the government's prerogative over our rights.

Logically speaking, the answer to this question should be the guiding post for your feelings on the limits of government, approval or disapproval of its actions and the rights of its citizens. However, I think many people have not given it the consideration it deserves.

What is the purpose of government?

[Edit]

To rephrase: What do you think the purpose of government should be? (It doesn't matter if it is actually achieving this purpose or not.)

[/Edit]

The case of Josh Wolf raises a lot of interesting questions for me as a libertarian. Those of you on my list, I'm curious to hear your thoughts.

For those of you who are not aware, Josh Wolf is a well known video blogger. Recently, he taped footage of a protest in San Francisco. The protest turned violent and resulted in a federal court case, and the feds subpoenaed him for his unedited footage. (Their excuse for making it federal is pretty flimsy - they argue that the tapes /may/ contain footage of vandalism to a cop car, and since cop cars are _partially_ federally funded it's a federal offense. Josh maintains that his tapes contain no such footage, and refuses to hand them over.)

Now in California there are "shield laws" which protect journalists from revealing their sources. There is no such federal protection. So, when Josh refused to hand over the tapes, he was sent to jail where he is currently serving his sentance.

( So, first among the questions this raises is... )

Being signed up for action alerts from the American Family Association is usually an unpleasant, albeit informative experience. However, today's action alert was both amusing and delightful.

( AFA Action Alert - 'You Will Absolutely Not Believe What Ford Has Done Now' )

It would appear there is a bill in congress which could have a great impact on the internet.

( cut for length, but don't let that stop you from clicking! )

I don't understand how it is that I can be signed up for newsletters of both GLAD and HRC, and somehow not find out until nearly a year after the fact that Spain legalized gay marriage.

Is there anyone other than Spain and Canada?

[Edit: I guess I forgot to paste the article the first time, and just found another one. This one says that Spain is the third country. Who's #3?]

( Want to eliminate the White House drug czar's office for good? )

Click here to take action!

There is a bill in congress which would, if adopted, mandate more stringent tracking of released sex offenders. Among other things, the bill requires sex offenders to wear gps tracking devises after they are released.

For someone with the extreme lack of trust in government as myself, this bill is deeply creepy. What are your thoughts?

Jessica's Law on Wikipedia
Text of the bill

Law students make a stand during a televised speech by Alberto Gonzales in which he justifies illegal, unauthorized surveillance of US citizens

via wolflady26

nix_nevermind writes:

"And on this occasion I want to point out a problem with the whole "free speech" argument. ... We shouldn't feel as though we need to invoke "rights" in order to protect ourselves. We shouldn't be reacting to the government as though it's a legitimate authority which, under ordinary circumstances, unless we're protected by specific rights, is justified in telling us what to do, or what not to do. I do not want for we American people to feel as though we're the ones who need rights in order to be able to do what we want. I want for us to see the government as a very provisional entity that has to work hard to justify itself to us."

Fuck yeah.

On October 7, Steven Tuck, a California medical marijuana patient who fled to Canada to avoid going to jail after being raided for growing his own marijuana, was snatched from a hospital by Canadian authorities, driven to the border with a urinary catheter still attached, and turned over to U.S. authorities for prosecution. He was held in jail for five days without medical treatment and without having his catheter removed.

Read More.

The attorney fees for Mr. Tuck's case are being funded by MPP. They also work continuously to lobby against the very cruel and unjust laws that caused this sickening chain of events. If you are outraged and want to do something about it, consider making a donation to MPP to help in the fight.

TOMORROW, Thursday, October 20th, Senator Brownback (R-KS) will preside over the second Senate subcommittee hearing this year to address marriage between same-sex couples.

Click here to tell your Senator to vote NO on any legislation that will discriminate against same-sex couples and add discrimination to our constitution.

P.S. You can watch tomorrow's Senate Committee Hearing via live webcast by visiting http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/.

Via nix_nevermind

"On Tuesday, the Washington Post reported that the FBI was seeking agents to constitute a new "anti-obscenity" squad.

'The new squad will divert eight agents, a supervisor and assorted support staff to gather evidence against 'manufacturers and purveyors' of pornography -- not the kind exploiting children, but the kind that depicts, and is marketed to, consenting adults.'"

Is that mars shuttle ready yet?

I would like to explain something about libertarian philosophy that I think people tend to misunderstand. Take the following statement as an example:

"The government should not provide universal health care."

For many people, they read this as "The government should not take money from my paycheck to pay for universal health care because it is not a cause I wish to contribute to." Usually also, "Because I don't care." The first part is probably true, the second part may or may not be.

The part that is left out here is the very important second - or possibly first - half. That is this:

"The government should not provide universal health care because health care is too important, and if the government is involved they will make a mess of it."


I was prompted to post this by this article about FEMA.