Should There Be a National Ban on Cell Phone Use While Driving?
Thanksgiving Day -- The Myths, Memories, and Mayhem
Feast Days are more than just "so last century".
Feast Days are a multi-thousand year old human experience that are an affirmation of the human family structure and our culture(s).
In the current day lifestyle of 2 parent working households and "run till you drop working lifestyles", periodic feast days, wherein the the family slows down and builds community over a table of food, are some of the remaining glue that hold us together.
Shall we now substitute an event in which we add a social construct to run some more?
Read the article WASHINGTONPOST/Some Americans rethink food-centered Thanksgiving
<>
Now they are trying to put the pox on Thanksgiving?
I don't think so. It is the perfect day to be with friends & family, giving thanks and enjoying a special meal.
Perhaps if the 63 percent paid attention to the hints in the article [exercising & portion control/smaller plates] the other 364 days a year this one day wouldn't be about over indulgence and this would've been a non story.
We spent the usual amount [40 dollars] for turkey and all the trimmings for our traditional meal - with the added bonus that we'll have leftovers for three more days. I have been thinking about all the appetizers, turkey, gravy, oyster dressing, cranberry sauce, mashed potatoes, sweet potato casserole, salads/vegs and my choice of a piece of pie, knowing none of us will wake up on Monday overweight or requiring by pass surgery.
After 25 years of hosting this day - it simply remains our favorite holiday.
Hope everyone has a great day!
Read the article WASHINGTONPOST/Some Americans rethink food-centered Thanksgiving
<>
Oh, please. Eating a fattening Thanksgiving dinner isn't going to cause me to have a quadruple bypass. Nor is pigging out at Christmas or any other food related holiday. However eating like that 365 days of the year probably will.
So the answer isn't to give up feast days which bring friends and family together to eat it's to eat sensibly the rest of the time.
But I guess that message isn't as fashionable as publicly giving up those feasts as loudly as possible so you can look virtuous.
One last thing. Lots of people have quietly spent their Thanksgivings not having the traditional feast, working in soup kitchens or generally letting the day pass unmarked.
Read the article WASHINGTONPOST/Some Americans rethink food-centered Thanksgiving
<>
I teach high school in the Northeast, but I'm originally from the Great Lakes area. Apparently it is a tradition all over the New England area to have a "Turkey Day" football game, in which every high school plays its rival ON THANKSGIVING. Every kid who plays football, is a cheerleader, is in the marching band, or any in any other supportive activity, and their parents who probably come watch them, have to give up going any kind of distance to see family, and their Thanksgiving morning / early afternoon, to go to a football game.
I realize that New Englanders who have grown up with this see absolutely nothing wrong with it, and I don't mean to be a curmudgeon, but I really think it's awful. Regardless of how some people feel about Thanksgiving and having to see family, can't there be one special day a year that's just for families?
Read the article SLATE/Which Thanksgiving Tradition would You get rid of?
<>
I would like to propose that Thanksgiving doesn't always have to be celebrated the same way (same exact day, same group of people, same cooks, same hosts, exact same dishes).
It's okay to change things up every once in a while. Have a turkey dinner on another day of Thanksgiving weekend, if it works out for better scheduling for those that want to be together. Or go celebrate with another branch of the family that you might not typically see for Thanksgiving dinner. Maybe do Thanksgiving with friends only, or friends and family. Try making a new side dish, dessert, or change the way you cook the turkey. Or just stay home and feast with your immediate household members.
Thanksgiving should be more of an outline, not rigidly set in stone. Plan a get-together that everyone actually really wants to attend (rather than feels like they have to attend). Thanksgiving is best with delicious food you can't wait to eat, a place you can't wait to get to, and with the cherished company of a few (or many!) loved ones that you can't wait to spend the day with.
[Oh, and so many people insist on brining their turkeys. So overdone. My favorite is method is to use a fresh, homemade marinade instead (use a plastic roasting bag tied shut and set in a bowl, at least overnight). A fresh, free range turkey from an old-fashioned neighborhood butcher is most worthy of this treatment. Soooooo good (and I've seen turkey made to disappear quickly this way with the help of even non-meat eaters and turkey haters).]
Read the article SLATE/Which Thanksgiving Tradition would You get rid of?
<>
In my family I would vote to do away with the notion that if you aren't the hostess you're a lazy moocher. Nearly every woman in our family wants to host our Thanksgiving. Instead of taking turns these various hostesses have their own dinner and everyone is expected to attend. We all wind up eating "dinner" several times in one day, going from house to house and feeling sick from eating so much. The result is that most of the family except the hostesses dread Thanksgiving Day. Mind you I do cook my own Thanksgiving dinner because my children request it. They say they like my cooking better. So they go to different houses and push food around on their plates acting like they are eating but then come to my house where they know there is food they like.
There is way too much work involved for me to enjoy Thanksgiving. I not only cook I also have to rush from house to house trying to act like I'm gorging myself at each one. There is much time left over to actually give thanks. I would much rather have a nice meal with my husband and my kids and phone all the other relatives and wish them a happy holiday. That would probably get me burned at the stake though.
Read the article SLATE/Which Thanksgiving Tradition would You get rid of?
I like tradition as much as the next person, but agree on updating the menu and/or who's in charge of preparing.
It's nice that Grandma has been cooking the same dinner -- dry Butterball with gravy out of a jar, green beans out of a can, stuffing from the Stove Top box, etc -- for the past 25 years, but come on, give someone/something else a chance!
One year I made and brought cranberry sauce. Nothing exotic, took about 15 minutes on the stove. But because it didn't have the little ridges in it from the can, my mother in law (the designated hostess/cook since pilgrim times) looked it like it was a bowl of fried cockroaches and refused to even try it.
Read the article SLATE/Which Thanksgiving Tradition wouldYou get rid of?
<>
Thanksgiving is not about what we do not have. This holiday is about being grateful
for whatever you DO have: friends, family, health, shelter, life. It does not
all have to be good and certainly does not have to be "traditional". If you can
see a sunrise and sunset, be grateful you can see. If you can walk across the
room on your own, be grateful for that. We need to stop dwelling on what we do
NOT have and start respecting every little thing we DO have.
Read the article CBS NEWS/For many, turkey without all the trimmings
<>
I had Ancestors at Plymouth Rock, my relatives weren't Puritans for those who don't know, many of the passengers weren't religious fugitives. Another of my Ancestors sat on the Indian side of the table. The important idea behind the picture of sharing a Thanksgiving Dinner together is that under those circumstances Equality assured survival. There was no choice other than cooperation if you wanted to live.
America must do something about the problem of income disparity. We can live with a few Robber Barons but the situation as it is now is unsustainable. I doubt our Politicians can rise to the challenge that should be evident to all. My grandfather said about the Depression that "poverty is the great equalizer" When every one was poor in our little Panhandle town they didn’t have any choice other than cooperation. We may have to collapse this thing called America so we can start over with some equality.
I do agree that living your life with Gratitude would be a good start toward equity.
Read the article CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR/Plymouth Rock: more than a homely boulder
Zuccotti Park Eviction: Crossroads for Occupy Wall Street Protestors
Law enforcement -- The NYPD, N.Y. State Attorney General’s Office, The U.S. Dept. of Justice . . .
As far as “cleaning up”, the Wall Street area, you couldn’t really blame someone for thinking the police have the easiest job – just physically kick certain people out of the area, and if they don’t leave on their own accord, ‘cuff ‘em up and drag them out . . . . Not only are they bugging adjoining shopowners, but for God’s sake, they’re making the Mayor look like a wimp.
But what about the other law enforcement agencies? What are they doing about cleaning up Wall Street? What is the U.S. Justice Dept. doing about removing the criminals from the offices towering above Zuccotti Park who’ve been camped out in those towers for years, creating a total mess of the lives of people all over the world? The evidence is overwhelming and the individuals who can be held accountable are very, very easy to find. Logistically, it may be a little more difficult to remove these guys (most are guys . . .) from the area for good – lawyers’ time costs more than policemens’ time . . . But the fines alone would easily cover the costs . . .
Mr. Mayor, what about these other guys? Sure, you’re dragging the people out of the park, but don’t you still feel like a wimp for just staying silent about the others – the other billionaires? How are you using your power and influence as the Mayor of New York City to make sure that law enforcement agencies other than the riot police are doing their jobs in cleaning up Wall Street?
Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/
Police Clear Zuccotti Park of Protester
s
<>
Disgraceful. The OWS movement is messy because there are no outlets for the voice of the people that are listened to anymore. The media has ignored or denigrated the protesters if not downplayed the significance of the occupations. We are not served by our politicians or the our media outlets. Money has bought our nation out from under our feet and it belongs to who knows, certainly not the 99% and we know it. They may have peace and quiet and empty parks but the bottle is just stoppered and the pressure will build until the voiceless have had enough of being misled. If there are riots in our cities this summer blame those who took on the mantle of civic leadership and did nothing to stand up for the voiceless, one way or another we will be listened to.
Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/
Police Clear Zuccotti Park of Protester
s
<>
Pardon me, but what exactly were the protestors thinking the end-game was going to be? World revolution? A Marxist free state established in a land-locked park in the middle of the US?
You camped out for 8 weeks violating city ordinances. You claimed to be knowingly doing so ("civil disobedience") because of... I don't know, something. The police came in, said to start following the law or you'd be arrested. You didn't follow the law, so you were arrested. Congratulations.
Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/
Police Clear Zuccotti Park of Protester
s
<>
As a downtown resident, I am happy to see that this day has arrived. What is disheartening is to read so many of the ill-informed, emotionally-charged comments here that are more typical of Fox News (albeit on the opposite end of the spectrum) than NYTimes.
Free speech: Since when does freedom of speech mean freedom to camp out indefinitely in a city park, defecate on the sidewalks and force local businesses to lay off their employees? Removing trespassers from property that is not lawfully theirs does not diminish in any way the freedom of those trespassers to continue to speak out.
99% vs 1%: This little mantra certainly has been effective in inflating the protestors’ already bloated sense of entitlement but the truth is that (1) the median person in the 99% has an annual salary and purchasing power that is largely unrivaled the world over; (2) those in the upper echelon of the 99% make upwards of 500k/year; and (3) less than 50% pay one cent or more of Federal income taxes.
Bank bailouts: The constant droning on by protestors about the enormous weight of bank bailouts they are carrying as taxpayers is particularly tiresome as there is almost no truth to it. The TARP program was temporary and avoided a systemic crisis. The vast majority of the funds that were injected into a number of companies (not all banks) have been repaid with interest. The cost of the program was a little over 130 per taxpayer. Again, statistically less than half of the protestors are taxpayers and I would suspect that ratio is actually much lower. Yes, banks managed risk poorly. But it's easy to point fingers. Were people questioning 15-25% annual growth in real estate in a 2-3% GDP growth environment while they were buying a home theater with a home equity loan? If we're entitled to the upside, we're responsible for the downside.
Evil corporations: Decrying the evil of corporations while tweeting from one’s iPhone in a NorthFace tent and a Starbucks in hand is pure hypocrisy.
Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/
Police Clear Zuccotti Park of Protester
s
<>
Attacking Peaceful protestors? With no warning or provocation? In the middle of the night? Not allowing the press in to cover it? This is a very sad day in American history.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - John F. Kennedy
Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/
Police Clear Zuccotti Park of Protester
s
<>
If corporations are people, and if money is free speech, then I don't see why tents aren't free speech, too. When you first declare an inanimate object to be free speech, you open up the flood gates.
Read the article DAILY BEAST/N.Y. judge rules protestor can stay
<>
They came like thieves in the night... Bloomberg's Blue Shirts...and robbed us of our rights. Bloomberg, the self-proclaimed number one defender of free speech (pause for gagging) has said in no uncertain terms: "yes, you have the right...the right to remain silent. So just shut up and obey".
This is only the beginning, Mayor.0001%. It will be your legacy- of repression. But you will not succeed. These mayors,, governors, city councils, police chiefs, and street cops of America need to realize that it is NOT UP TO THEM whether or not Americans peaceably gather, protest, discuss, or demonstrate. It's up to a document called the US CONSTITUTION. You can beat us and arrest us and tear-gas us, you can try to "permit" us to death....but you can't kill an idea. You can't keep down a people’s hopes and dreams for a better life....for us, and for our kids. America USED to work. The people had work. The system worked (sort of). Hey, EVEN the Congress used to work (sometimes). God knows, it was far, far, far from perfect -but at least we all had some share in the struggles AND the rewards. But somewhere along the way, we lost our way. Because now we have an economy and a political system that seems to work only for the rich.
With OWS America has found it’s voice, and that voice demands fairness and justice - for ALL. This land IS our land! AND WE WANT IT BACK! We want our LIVES back! We want our FUTURE back! But it’s much more than just words.... it’s much more than politics..... it’s your freakin’ LIFE, and how you want to live it, and how you WILL live it. Find a quiet place somewhere, and consider this: Each of us has only one brief life....one chance....one roll of the dice....and many choices. The time has come to choose....to risk...and to act. If not now...then when? If not you, then....who? You DO have the power my friend....and the choice IS yours. Don’t let your dreams die....
Read the article: POLITICO/Occupy Wall Street protestors evicted from Zuccotti Park
<>
LOL police state?
Dramatic much?
The protesters were told that they needed to vacate since conditions have made health and safety IMPOSSIBLE to maintain. The park needs to be cleaned up.
IF the city did not do this, and people started getting sick from eating contaminated food and drinking contaminated water, ya'll would be pitching a fit that no one did anything to help.
Now you whine about your rights being taken away. You have the right to assemble. You do NOT have the right to disobey the orders of the city, and the owners of the park.
They wanted the protestors cleared so they could clean it. The protestors refused to obey.
That makes them trespassers, and in violation of the law. Deal with it sparky.
You can have your protest. But the owners of the park have stated you cannot live there.
Isn't America great where the rights of property owners are FINALLY being respected?
Read the article: POLITICO/Occupy Wall Street protestors evicted from Zuccotti Park
This is not just a bunch of "dirty hippies" banging drums.
This is your mothers, brothers, sisters, children, grandparents, the cute checkout girl where you by your groceries, the kid from next door that just came back from Iraq, the family across the street,
the firemen that just saved that family of 4 last night, the ER doctor that stitched up the gash on your leg when you were 17, etc. etc.
And they're not going away anytime soon.
Read the article HUFFINGTON POST/Occupy Wall Street: New York Police Department Evicts Protesters, Clears Zuccotti Park
<>
It's interesting to see all the posts here blaming the "youth" for being lazy. Yes. It's their fault.
It is their fault that their parents decided that trade agreements would better serve their own selfish economic interests, even if it meant substantial job losses in the future.
It is their fault that their parents ran up an unpayable national debt because they were drunk
on power after the collapse of the Berlin Wall.
It is their fault that the country turned away from valuing science and education and instead placed their value in the financial sector.
It is their fault that their parents decided that, in order to offset declining wages, they would increase the availability of credit in order to maintain GDP.
It is their fault that their parents decided that, instead of raising wages, they would squash labor and put their faith in capital.
It is their fault that their parents abandoned basic Constitutional and free market principals because they got in the way of profit.
It is their fault that their parents enacted policies that have kept wages stagnant for 30 years.
It is their fault that their parents decided to go all-in with the Military and Prison Industrial Complexes.
It is their fault that their parents became ruled by fear.
If there is one generation that will be blamed for America's downfall, it certainly won't be the youth
Read the article HUFFINGTON POST/Occupy Wall Street: New York Police Department Evicts Protesters, Clears Zuccotti Park
<>
Blathering insults from tr0liz aside, there is a reason that so many people agree with this movement - and it has not gone unnoticed that over the last 30 years the policies enacted (or dismantled) by our leaders have put the largest concentration of wealth into the hands of the fewest in our history.
You can dismiss this movement by saying it's about "the poor" being envious of "the rich" all you want, when it is really about how the people who make the rules are owned by the people who can afford to buy them off. Until this fundamental problem is solved, the policies will continue to serve the highest bidder.
It's only blindly partisan people who are unable to recognize this fact and demand to frame it as a 'right vs. left' or 'rich vs. poor' struggle.
Read the article HUFFINGTON POST/Occupy Wall Street: New York Police Department Evicts Protesters, Clears Zuccotti Park
<>
We’re all aware that comment sections allow one to spew the most awful
vitriol from behind the mask of anonymity, but I must say I think the comments
here are quite illuminating. The sheer hatred that some Americans seem to
possess for people who are putting their livelihoods on the line for the
betterment of the whole society shows how indoctrinated we are in the cult of
selfish materialism. Whether one agrees with the message or not, these people
have a right to voice their grievances in this country, and those who wish for
the state to stamp out these “vermin” are nothing more than modern incarnations
of the most brutish fascist traits. I would love to see any of the cowards here
put their hands behind their back and take the blows of heavily armed riot cops
all while turning the other cheek. For actual coverage of the movement, check
out Democracy Now!’s archive of reporting: http://www.democracynow.org/tags/occupy_wall_street Read the article
Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/Thousands mass near Wall Street to protest
<>
Capitalism is only as good for all levels of participants as our democracy
allows with the playing field it creates. This outcry about unequal opportunity
or unequal condition which may have merit should be instead directed at the
people in charge of the playing field. And that is the congress of this country
which over regulates and over taxes in the wrong area and under taxes in the
right area. The ruling elite of our legislature is the problem– move the
demonstration to the steps of the capital.! And get the heck out of the way of
people trying to make a living and provide for their families.
Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/Thousands mass near Wall Street to protest
Penn State Scandal: "Good men do nothing and evil triumphs."
Sigh and cry.
I read the Grand Jury report and could not stop weeping. Weep
for the boys, weep for the failed men at the institution that failed and weep
for the monster.
I live and work in central Pennsylvania and I am a Penn
State grad both bachelors and masters. I feel crushed.
I have sensed that
Graham Spanier has not been good for the university and he will go. Joe Paterno
has been great for the university, reached the milestone for most wins and will
now go. Jerry Sandusky, Paterno's heir apparent, was suddenly gone in '98 yet
did not go.
Centre County seems to have kept Sandusky's offenses well-hid
and even their Attorney General disappeared in '05. When Sandusky volunteered
for Central Mountain HS' football team in neighboring Clinton County, coach
Turchetta reported the first incident immediately to the police and the
investigation finally began in earnest in '09.
This is bigger than Penn
State. This is a glimpse that our culture is spiinning out of control. Good men
do nothing and evil triumphs.
Sigh and cry.
Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/The Paterno Question
<>
Early today I read the grand jury report and got ill. It is a sad reminder to us all that humans and institutions fail us. I am sure over the last few days many of us thought how we would have reacted, and like most, I believed I would have done something different.
What is so hard for most to understand is the institutionalized callousness that is a byproduct of status, position, prestige and money that you would turn a blind eye to such abuse. It happens. It is a central weakness of man. Paterno and his cohort were ruled by fear. Fear of losing prestige, fame and, yes, money. They rationalized not acting because acting would have risked the loss of what they falsely believe was theirs.
Doing the right thing is never easy. It takes courage and strength of character that too few of us have. When there is wrong in the world, it is our duty to do what is right.
I am saddened today to see a decent man succumb to false pride and fear, and to ultimately fail as a person. Please, people of Penn State do not rally to Joe Paterno, recognize his failures and perhaps learn to forgive him, but do not celebrate him.
Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/
Paterno Is Finished at Penn State, and President Is Out
This is just a terrible situation for all concerned. While I sadly agree that Coach Paterno needed to be relieved of his position (and I'm a huge fan), he has done so much for that university that he earned the right to resign. They didn't even have the nerve to fire him to his face; they did it over the phone. Now that he no longer works for them, I look forward to hearing what he has to say before I formulate a final opinion.
But speaking of firing, has Mike McQueary been fired? He's the one who actually witnessed what happened. And it took him a day to go home to his father? Why didn't he rescue that boy, call the cops, scream bloody murder? He wasn't a graduate assistant, he was a 28 year old grown man for crying out loud! He should be arrested for walking away and doing nothing. Isn't that aiding and abetting?
Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/
Paterno Is Finished at Penn State, and President Is Out
<>
Joe Paterno is of a rare breed. He is one of very few living legends. It truly is a shame that a man of his reputation, was caught up in this scandal. Although, I believe it was indirectly, at the direction of the Athletic Director, and others at the executive level. Still, Paterno should have and could have not complied with this cover up, and reported what he had been made aware of to authorities immediately.
These are children that were being sexually abused. It is digusting to see a scandal like this play over the time frame that it did. These individuals put their own self serving concerns first, before the welfare of these innocent children.
I am sorry to see you go out like this Joe. However, you knew what you did, and what occured was beyond wrong. To say the least
Read the article DAILY NEWS/Joe Paterno fired as Penn State football coach after fallout from sex abuse scandal
<>
And there ends a great football coaching career, perhaps the greatest football coaching career in history.
And yet, there's not a parent on the planet who would hesitate for an instant to trade those 45 years of wins for a guarantee that their child wasn't the victim Paterno ignored.
Goodbye, Joe Paterno. For all your talk of doing the right thing, you failed when it mattered most. Some may miss you. Many won't.
Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/
Paterno Is Finished at Penn State, and President Is Out
<>
I am a Pennsylvania native and can attest to how much "JoePa" is worshipped by
many back home. I love Penn State football and loved the fact that we had Joe. I
am saddened that this has happened on several levels, but the most important
level is the horrific assaults on the victims of Jerry Sandusky.
Joe
Paterno had to go. Immediately. I was disappointed this morning that he
announced his retirement because I thought it sent the wrong message. Football
is ultimately a game and form of recreation and entertainment -- but to stand by
and knowingly allow a child predator to continue that evil cannot and should not
be countenanced. To allow Joe to stay on as coach given his admitted involvement
leaves a bad taste and sets a poor example at an institution that should be
teaching its students more than its lectures in thermodynamics or agricultural
science.
This entire situation saddens me, but removing Joe Paterno
immediately was the right thing to do, and demonstrates that no one is too big
to be absolved from the moral responsibility to step up and do all they can to
protect children from monsters
Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/The Paterno Question
<>
Supreme Court Looks at Legality of Warrantless GPS Tracking
"Is GPS Tracking An Unreasonable Search"? - YES
If it comes to the point that anyone at any time can legally have a gps tracker attached to his/her car without their knowledge and with no warrant then we can honestly call this country a police state.
It's bad enough that anyone using a cell phone, debit/credit card or the internet is tracked. Let not add it to every aspect of our lives.
On a simialr note....do police need a warrant to tap into something like OnStar to locate someone? A co worker's son had a car stolen from his driveway and that is how they found them. Obviously in that case a crime was committed but could cops do that any time they want legally? Just curious.
Read the article NPR/TOM ASHBROOK/Is GPS Tracking An “Unreasonable Search”?
Read the article WIRED/ Feds Seek Unfettered GPS Surveillance Power as Location-Tracking Flourishes
<>
There are people who don't break the law but who do actively attempt to do
things which are not in the best interest of people in political power.
Consider for instance if GPS devices had been used by the Nixon
Administration to track the location of newspaper reporters (if that had been
technically feasible in that era). Officials within an administration could have
used unlawful search and seizure to prevent the truth of Watergate from ever
coming to light. Administrations can use such technology to cover up their dirty
deeds which needs to be represented to the public in order for officials within
any government to be held accountable to "The People."
It is "The
People" on whom a democratic society must depend to make good elective
judgments. If the process that informs the public of facts which are relevant
and important to the society is aborted then the informed judgments of a whole
society are aborted.
Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/Justices weigh privacy vs. GPS Bugs
<>
Frightening comment - "If you're not doing anything wrong then why worry"? By
that logic we don't need the 4th Amendment at all, because if you have nothing
to hide then why worry about warrantless searches?
If a cop comes to your door
and wants to search your house (or person, or car) for no reason other than to
make sure you're not "doing something you shouldn't" that wouldn't be a problem
for you? It would for me, and I suspect just about every other thoughtful person
who doesn't wish to live in a police state.
The Bill of Rights is about placing
limits on government power - not about making life easy for cops or catching
every bad guy. There are far broader long-term implications associated with the
further erosion of our civil rights than there are for not catching the
occasional random druggie. Does anyone really believe that the government needs
more power than it already has?
Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/Justices weigh privacy vs. GPS Bugs
Lets break this down into something a third-grader could understand. A Warrant
is essentially evidence to a judge or other official that there is a good reason
for doing something. Warrants aren't hard to get. However, they do take some
forethought on the part of police.
Citizens do have rights against
"unlawful" or "unwarranted" search. The reasons these rights exist is to protect
citizens from people within government or law enforcement who might undertake to
use their ability to enforce law to prevent civil society and government from
representing the people.
Lets look at a case which might help clarify
the situation. In the era of civil rights, if such a technology had existed
without the need for warrants, could prejudiced elements of law enforcement (and
those within government who were actively breaking Federal law) have used GPS
technology to prevent the legal and lawful public or private assembly of
individuals who undertook to better the society? Yes. Would that have harmed
society? Likely.
Does law enforcement really need this additional power
without having to prove why it needs it? Not really. If getting a warrant were
extremely hard I could see reason why law-enforcement might have a need for such
a technology without warrants; however, because warrants are so easy to obtain
that the potential for law enforcers to abuse this technology outweighs the
benefits which they might offer to the overall society. Law-enforcement could
conceivably use such technologies in ways which might actively abort the ability
of our society to function properly.
Consider if this power were used to
place GPS devices on representatives of government, agents in competing
organizations, members of the military, or civilian members of government,
members of competing intelligence organizations, heads of political parties,
etc. The potential for abuse could be extreme. That is why warrants are
necessary.
Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/Justices weigh privacy vs. GPS Bugs
<>
The problem with a surveillance society doesn't stem from, "I'm not doing anything wrong so why should I care if anyone is watching me." When we allow our government or our corporations to oversee every
aspect of our lives, foibles included, we leave our entire society open to
attacks by whomever is in power at the moment to find a reason to imprison and
or silence us if we espouse a position that is counter to their agenda regardless
of their goals.
Whether or not you feel you are living and upright life; an
entity that can peruse your existence on nearly a 24/7 basis can present a case that can land you in Guantánamo even if you're a Mennonite that never left the farm.
Read the article NPR/TOM ASHBROOK/Is GPS Tracking An “Unreasonable Search”?
<>
What happens if the alleged 'suspect' happens to drive past a location known to be occupied by criminals? Does that count as 'evidence'? What if the alleged 'suspect' parks near the vehicle of another suspect, can the state tie them to the occupants of that vehicle? Where is the line drawn? If police need that one element in order to try to get a conviction it seems logical that coincidence could matter. There is of course the opening of the door to police orchestration of such a coincidence, and we have seen such things happen throughout our history.
I'll have to view the new movie about J. Edgar Hoover to get more ideas on where the state could go wrong if the courts grant this GPS option... But the same question too for coincidentally driving past someone on the street whose criminal activity might be viewed as 'evidence' of a connection to the alleged 'suspect'. There appears to be a high potential for wrongful arrest and detention and one could study recent examples of innocent people who were tear gassed, detained and charged, after merely walking in close proximity to a protest.
Read the article NPR/TOM ASHBROOK/Is GPS Tracking An “Unreasonable Search”?
Oakland Protests Raise Stakes for Occupy Movement
If only a small number of protesters fought with police, then the protest didn't turn violent. Do we say that the entire New York City police force "turned violent" when white shirted members of management attacked Occupy Wall Street protesters in September?
The significance of the event is that it is a general strike which hasn't been seen since the 1940s in the USA.
Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/
Protest in Oakland Turns Violent
<>
Our political leadership had better wake up and start paying attention to what American people want...a government that takes care of their needs, not just the needs of bankers and financiers.
A lot of people predicted that this movement would fizzle out quickly. It's still alive, it's growing, and it just shut down a major shipping port.
No wonder it's come to civil unrest. Look at what they are busying themselves with Washington - "The House on Tuesday passed a non-binding resolution reaffirming “In God We Trust” as the national motto". They're fiddling while Rome burns.
Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/
Protest in Oakland Turns Violent
<>
Shut down the 1% Are you kidding me? Do you think the 1% are out there unloading ships? Or trying to keep their deli open? Or hoping that some idiot doesn't break their windows, steal the televisions and burn the block down? Or standing in front of you with a riot shield, trying to do their job?
The only thing OWS is doing by shutting anything down is putting the 99% out of work.
You want change? Work for it, vote for it--and not just because your candidate has a nice poster, a great facebook page or good hair. Find out what the candidate really stands for, what kind of REAL experience they have, then hold their feet to the fire when they try to squirm out of their campaign promises.
But don't put your own people out of work.
Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/
Protest in Oakland Turns Violent
<>
I don't have a concrete stand on the specific issues of the OWS. But I am
tremendously impressed with the commitment of those involved in the protests.
Rather than sit on the couch/chair and complain, they are braving the elements,
the police and narrow minded insults for what they believe. Somehow I believe
that their efforts will benefit us that do nothing. Brings to mind the anti-war
and civil rights protests in which all of the world benefits from the efforts of
a few...
Read the article NPR/Occupy
Oakland Strike Turns 'Chaotic'
<>
This violence was regrettably inevitable and hopefully, for the movements sake, will not gain momentum and will be condemned by all concerned. Violence begets violence and the heavy handed arm of the law is what brought this about along with justified frustration with a society run amuck by self serving politicians, corporate malfeasance, and a corrupt banking system. Add to that the comfortably complacent and the willfully ignorant and you have a recipe for disaster.
Recently this country has witnessed, cultivated, and applauded significant change overseas. For the most part the change that we have collectively supported started with the use of peaceful protest. Almost exclusively government reaction to these efforts has been oppressive, a reaction that has found footing in this country as well. We hold ourselves to a higher standard, and yet, are we not woven from the same fabric as people throughout the world who seek beneficial change and then resort to extreme measures when despair and anger becomes so pervasive?
The OWS movement or one similar to it was inevitable and will not fade away before this country collectively gains clarity and focus on an end goal of economic and social equality for all. Not one of exclusion because of ones faith, gender, sexual identity, or race. One rooted in the principles of democracy and not socialism. One where true democracy can flourish in a way yet to be realized anywhere on this planet.
Read the article HUFFINGTON POST/Occupy Oakland Violence: Peaceful Occupy Protests Degenerate Into Chaos
<>
The Oakland protests show the absurdity of their movement. They are distupting business from operating. They are trying to block the major economic force, the port, from operating. How will this create jobs. It is amazing that the longshoremen union leader supports the blocking of the port. I wonder if his members who mignt not be able to work agree.
The large sign that calls for the destruction of capitalism is a symbol of what this is all about. How Americans support the collapse of capitalism? If the media would show signs like this on the frount page maybe people would know that this movement is really about! As for jobs.
There are jobs out there for those willing to go to where they are. The protesters can travel to cause disruptions but can not go to North Dakota where the HP just reported there are many $100,000 and more jobs that can not be filled. HP also reported that Seimens has 3000 well paying manufacturing jobs that are open. Of course these jobs are a result of capitalism and must be evil.
Read the article HUFFINGTON POST/Occupy Oakland Violence: Peaceful Occupy Protests Degenerate Into Chaos
<>
After reading the all of the quotes in all of the various articles and the
absolutely crazy comments that follow, I have to blame the education system. If
our schools taught more practical ideas like personal finance, basic economics
and actual history, we wouldn't have these idiots running around spouting
Marxist ideas (while calling them progressive ideas) and demanding hand outs.
Blaming a corporation for wanting to make a profit is STUPID. The goal
of every FOR PROFIT corporation is PROFIT. It's not their fault the liberals
made it difficult for them to make a profit in the U.S. Be mad at the
politicians who either don't care or understand the rule of unintended
consequences.
Blaming the current economic mess on corporation is the
same as blaming a lion for eating a gazelle. The lion eats the gazelle to
survive, corporations earn a profit to survive
Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/Oakland Protesters Shut Down Port
<>
Interesting you state: If our schools taught more practical ideas like personal
finance, basic economics and actual history, we wouldn't have these idiots
running around spouting Marxist ideas (while calling them progressive ideas) and
demanding hand outs." You do realize that everything you bring up IS taught in
school. History is taught from K-12. Of course it is age appropriate as a 1st
grader does not learn about personal finance but every 12th grader does in their
Economics/Government class. Students in 10the grade learn about all the "isms"
as in Marxism, Capitalism, various forms of government from dictatorships to
democratic republics as in the USA. Student's also learn that business is in
business to make a profit. They learn about corporations and how they haven't
always done business in an upstanding way. They learn about Teddy Roosevelt and
his Trust Busting.
I think you mis-understand why the protesters are
exercising their rights to free speech just as corproations have that right. It
is Not because they are opposed to capitalism or people having a lot of money.
They are opposed to the greed, graft, and gambling with American's lives,
liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Corporations have used power and influence to
eliminate our representative government. Our representatives no longer represent
constituents but corporate power. It's called graft. The protesters are hoping
to save our democratic republic just as Sam Adams or Patrick Henry fought for.
Corporations do earn a profit to survive but they didn't "earn" that money they
gambled with your tax dollars, failed, and then took bailout $$. That's not
earning it that is criminal.
Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/Oakland Protesters Shut Down Port
<>
The protests at the Port of Oakland were peaceful and orderly. The Traveler's
Aid building is nowhere near there. The article seems to conflate the two. The
few idiot anarchists are trying to give the entire movement a bad name and, as
one previous commenter mentioned above, force a revolution by getting people
hurt or killed. The DO NOT represent the vast majority of very peaceful and
articulate protesters involved in the Occupy Movement. The anarchists - dressed
in black and hiding their faces like cowards - had rocks, M-80s and molotov
cocktails. Any Occupy protesters that went along with them must have been caught
up in the stupidity. However, on the streets all day long, thousands of peaceful
people marched on Oakland and effectively shut the city down. In a free society,
we must honor civil disobedience but we must NEVER condone destruction or
property, private or public WALL STREET JOURNAL/Peaceful Occupy protests degenerate into chaos
Shopping LIst: What $1 Trillion Bought for the Military in 10 Years
WHAT WE BOUGHT - Stimson Report
Samuelson argues that we could afford to spend 40-50% of the federal budget on defense in the 1950s and 60s, so why can't we now afford to keep spending colossal amounts now? He forgets that we were confronted by a Soviet Union that was maintaining a huge army in Eastern Europe and was building nuclear bombers and rockets hand over fist.
Or so we were told. Then we found out that the so-called gap in rocketry was non-existent. Later, when the Soviet Union imploded, we were able to talk to many decision makers and see documents that indicated they were always far behind us and we were spending hugely excessive amounts to counter relatively minimal threats. Now, we don't even have a Soviet Union as an excuse to maintain such a huge military.
The real reason for our massive "defense" expenditures was always to maintain a world-wide economic empire. We spend more now that every other country in the world combined. It is mostly about keeping the military-industrical complex fed and watered with tax money desperately needed to rebuild our own country. That's where our real national security lies, not in feeding the "defense" beast and periodically engaging in wars or choice like Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.
Perhaps if we no longer had such a massive military, we wouldn't be so often tempted to thrust our young men in harm's way on some politician's whim, only to have them return dead, mangled, or psychologically damaged. Even if they make it back relatively unscathed, they find themselves unemployed and even homeless in the country they went off to serve.
Robert Samuelson you should be ashamed of yourself for making such arguments.
P.S. I served my country as a US Air Force officer during the Vietnam era, so don't try to blow me off as some kind of pacifist hippy
Read the article WASHINGTON POST/Robert Samuelson - The dangerous debate over cutting military spending
<>
Samuelson is right: these cuts have already occurred. Reducing the size of our military below 1.4 million people seems like an unnecessary risk. After all, if we don't have over a million people in the Armed Forces, how will we ever protect ourselves against people like the Taliban and Saddam Hussein? Dangerous fellows, those, and there's no way that the alternative in Iraq could be worse...right?
To debunk his other argument: the day that China decides to start invading other nations, it's basically all over already, isn't it? Life as we know it begins to blink out. The world is at war, and it might go nuclear. That's the reality of the matter.
The job of our military is to provide a deterrent, not a cause. The danger of a gigantic military is the desire to use said military to justify its presence, and I feel that a meager million people might just be enough to serve as a deterrent for most nations. That would be a cut of 28% - good enough for me.
Read the article WASHINGTON POST/Robert Samuelson - The dangerous debate over cutting military spending
Samuelson has revealed himself to be a rather doctrinaire Republican. Let's take his arguments, one by one:
Of course, how much we spend on defense is a political decision. Then again, how much we tax the wealthy and how much we spend on social programs are a political decision, too. Saying that we can't afford higher taxes or to meet our obligations on Social Security and Medicare are political decisions as well. Yet, Samuelson and his fellow Republicans seem to think it's okay to say we can't afford those and expect us to buy it while rejecting the same argument for defense.
How much do we spend on defense? Nearly as much as the rest of the world combined. While it's reasonable to say that a dollar of defense spending goes farther in China, it doesn't go that much farther, and it also ignores the force multipliers that he even acknowledges are built into the US military. Because of a different philosophy and training, one US soldier probably equals three of any Chinese soldier. Further, we do spend more than the next ten countries in rank combined, and most of that 10 are our allies. It's a perfectly rational argument to say we can afford to cut defense spending because we spend so much more than everybody else.
Third, the Department of Defense is by far the most bloated and inefficient federal agency. Why? Because no politician wants to be labeled "soft on defense", so nobody ever gives DoD the kind of fiscal scrutiny that other agencies get. President Obama is cutting $50B per year from the budget. We can afford to cut another $50B.
So, one should recognize that Samuelson is no unbiased economist. He's just another Republican flack pretending to be an economist.
Read the article WASHINGTON POST/Robert Samuelson - The dangerous debate over cutting military spending
<>
To give you an idea of how out of control our defense, security forces and intel is .....our navy has 11 carrier attacke groups with approx. 20 support vessels in each group....all rest of world combined has four carrier attack groups- one each for russia, great britain, frnace and china ( bought russias second carrier and refurb'd it) and NOT ONE of these can hold a candle to the firepower of one of ours and none has 20 support vessels....
And as if that isn't bad enough- our navy presently has under construction THREE NEW AIRCRAFT CARRIERS and many support vessels ........
End these endless and sensleess wars and the killing and maiming of over 500,000 since 9/11 and helping to ruin our economy- STOP THE MILITARY MADNESS NOW!
Read the article WASHINGTON POST/Robert Samuelson - The dangerous debate over cutting military spending
<>
To really understand this you need to recognize that many of today's military top brass leave the service to go into extremely highly paid "private sector" (though sucking at the govt teat) jobs at weapons manufacturers. They are essentially lobbying from within the military for their future employers.
General serving in military: "We need more tanks and modern weapons!" Two years later, that general is working for Raytheon or Northrop advising them on US military contracts for tanks and other weapons. Happens all... the... time...
Read the article MOTHER JONES/Report: Military Blew $1 Trillion on Weapons Since 9/11
<>
Once we end our military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, we will begin saving a lot of money. And I think our military does need to be downsized, but not for the reason that you believe.
We need to retire old military equipment and begin to invest in new. We need a smaller, yet more capable military. This requires investment. This does create jobs and new technologies which do have a spinoff effect. We can do better with less, but we can't afford Draconian cuts to the Defense Department.
You really don't understand the military buildup that is going on in countries like China, Russia, and India. The first and foremost job of the federal government is to provide for the common defense. Promote the general welfare is second.
Read the article HUFFINGTON POST/The wars are over -- now cut defense spending
<>
The issue isn't whether to cut defense spending, but how much and in what areas. There are thousands of civilian jobs that exist to support the military both in the government and in the private sector, Many towns also depend on the the wages and spending of the military employees to support their local businesses..What happens to these people if we cut military spending.
A long time ago, I went to a 3-way debate. The was one person each with the positions of cutting or increasing military spending and their arguments were primarily political. The third person was Larry Klein, who got a Nobel prize for his work in econometrics. When the discussion came to him, he explained that he had no political position either way, but that his models of the economy showed that each 1% cut results in a more than %1 cut in GDP. This is a far more complex situation than you make it out to be.
Read the article HUFFINGTON POST/The wars are over -- now cut defense spending
READ MORE TOP COMMENTS -- OCTOBER 2011
The NTSB has conducted studies of how talking on a cellphone (hands-free or not) distracts the driver because he or she tends to visualize the person on the other end of phone. It's a question of how 'divided interest' impacts reaction time and alertness. Talking to someone inside the car doesn't create this kind of distraction. Besides that, passengers in the car have a vested interest in the driver's focus on traffic.
Statistics which the NTSB developed show a significant increase in the likelihood of an accident when one driver is talking on his or her cellphone. The percentage of accidents where a cellphone was being used is shockingly high. I think it's well over 30%. The only issue with a law like this is how effectively it can be enforced. The fines have to be much higher, and auto manufacturers have to stop installing phone systems in cars
Read the article CNN/NTSB recommends full ban on use of cell phones while driving
<>
If it doesn't apply to hands-free devices, then what is the freaking point? It's not the only-one-hand-on-the-wheel bit that causes problems...it's the fact that your brain is focused on your gabbing and not your driving.
Read the article CNN/NTSB recommends full ban on use of cell phones while driving
<>
"If you're speeding at 90mph, and not smart enough to get off the phone, you're just clearing the gene pool."
Until the person going 90 mph slams into your car, and maybe your child is in your car. What if your child dies? Are we still just cleaning the gene pool? I'm as guilty as the next person for talking on the phone while driving. But I have also realized sometimes when I have been on the phone and driving, I have missed my exit on more than one occasion, and there have been times when I don't even remember how I got to where I was at.
Scared me enough to make sure I got a hands free bluetooth stereo in my car, and I do notice that it I am much safer than I was trying to hold a phone and talk. I refuse to respond to texts while driving. If it's so important, the person can call me. Otherwise they can wait until I reach my destination, or I come to a traffic light. At least at a light I'm sitting still and the worst I'm going to do is tick off the driver behind me if I don't see the green light quick enough. Certainly not going to kill anyone that way.
Read the article CNN/NTSB recommends full ban on use of cell phones while driving
<>
For those of you whining about your freedom to choose to text and drive answer me this. Why should you have that freedom to take away my rights to be safe on the road? Why is your right to most likely cause an accident and kill my family greater than my right to safely get home?
Do you not get why drinking and driving is not allowed? Do you not comprehend that when your freedoms infringe on the safety of others that in the best public interest we should ban certain behaviors?
It isn't about your "rights", it is about our lives and I for one think that trumps your need to text your friends
Read the article CNN/NTSB recommends full ban on use of cell phones while driving
<>
I absolutely agree with this one. My car got totaled this summer by a young lady chatting away on her cell phone. We all have done it to some degree but I do try to pull over before dialing anyone anymore. Besides, since when is it such a great idea to be available 24/7 for incoming calls?
Read the article CNN/NTSB recommends full ban on use of cell phones while driving
<>
It is needed as people do not seem to use common sense for their own safety and the safety of others. Nothing is that necessary by the majority to send or receive. One mistake costs lives or the life one had hoped for. Having lived through a highway speed head on wreck as a passenger, nothing is worth the pain, continuing disability, loss of ability to work in profession studied for, lack of independence and self sufficiency. Common tasks such as driving, reading, walking, writing we're taken from me through no fault of my own (passenger) due to another driver's lack of common sense and consideration for himself and others.
Read the article CNN/NTSB recommends full ban on use of cell phones while driving
<>
Finally! Every day I see dangerous situations on the road as a result of distracted driving. I wholeheartedly support the ban on cellphone use by drivers.
The best enforcement measure would be a complementary rule requiring accident report forms to include the mandatory question "Were you using a cellphone when the accident occurred?", paired with the legal right for insurance companies and accident investigators to see usage logs for the period in question and assign blame accordingly. If everyone knew that personal liability was at stake and transgressions would be revealed, then I believe most would comply.
Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/ U.S. Safety Board Urges Cellphone Ban for Drivers
<>
To those saying that conversing with passengers is the same as using a hands-free cell phone, repeated research studies have shown that it is not. Passengers in the car can tell when the driver needs to concentrate to change lanes, avoid a pedestrian, make a left turn. They also talk louder or more clearly if the driver has trouble hearing them. Cell phone conversants have no such cues to adjusting their speech, and the driver instinctively concentrates on the conversation instead of on driving. This is not made up, it's the (unexpected) result of scientists testing drivers behind the wheel under various conditions.
Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/U.S. Safety Board Urges Cellphone Ban for Drivers
<>
This is a wonderful development. As a motorist , and especially as a frequent pedestrian and cyclist, I find the epidemic of distracted driving terrifying. While the use of mobile phones can make our commutes far more productive, nothing is worth the risks it presents. And make no mistake, ALL of us more dangerous with a phone and steering wheel in each hand. I see other posters here who seem to think they have the ability to multitask effectively, while it's "others" whose driving abilities are compromised when using a mobile phone. Frankly, that's nonsense and all the research says so. This isn't a liberal or conservative issue -- it's a safety issue. Those trying to make it a partisan issue do everyone, including themselves and their loved ones, a terrible disservice.
Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/U.S. Safety Board Urges Cellphone Ban for Drivers