Jesse Ventura, when not talking about 9/11 conspiracy theories, is pretty right on.
Posts Tagged ‘civil liberties’
From The Onion: Typo In Proposition 8 Defines Marriage As Between ‘One Man And One Wolfman’
December 18, 2008
December 17, 2008 | Issue 44•51
SACRAMENTO, CA—Activists on both sides of the gay marriage debate were shocked this November, when a typographical error in California’s Proposition 8 changed the state constitution to restrict marriage to a union between “one man and one wolfman,” instantly nullifying every marriage except those comprised of an adult male and his lycanthrope partner. “The people of California made their voices heard today, and reaffirmed our age-old belief that the only union sanctioned in God’s eyes is the union between a man and another man possessed by an ungodly lupine curse,” state Sen. Tim McClintock said at a hastily organized rally celebrating passage of the new law. But opponents, including Bakersfield resident Patricia Millard—who is now legally banned from marrying her boyfriend, a human, non-wolfman male—claim it infringes on their civil liberties. “I love James just as much as a wolfman loves his husband,” Millard said. “We deserve the same rights as any horrifying mythical abomination.” On the heels of the historic typo, voters in Utah passed a similar referendum a week later, defining marriage as between one man and 23 wolfmen.
Courtesy of Jon via The Onion
New Hampshire police DUI “crackdown”-480 cars pulled over in one night: a whooping 7 arrested for alcohol-related charges
November 10, 2008
New Hampshire’s new DUI “mobile command post,” managed to pull over 480 cars in one night Friday night and early Sat. morning. The purpose was to “crack down” on people driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Of the 480 cars pulled over, police racked up a whooping 7 arrests for alcohol-related charges. For some perspective, for every 68 cars pulled over, police arrested 1 person. That’s some fine police work, Lou.
The sad thing is that this waste of money will be explained away as a success for the initiative. Some talking head from the state will stand in front of a podium touting the arrest numbers and making a case for how “police presence” kept impaired drivers off the road which=safety, which=keep funding our agencies. Of course, had police arrested more drivers, they would then make a case for increased funding levels. That’s the business of government for you.
Via Seacoastonline
LOLcats for freedom
August 6, 2008Bureaucrash, a kick arse website that strives to remind us all of how we’ve been surrendering our liberties to the government for decades, posted some very funny LOLcats. Here’s but a sample below.
See more here.
U.S. govt now given power to seize anyone’s laptops upon entering the country
August 3, 2008
U.S. citizens and foreign travelers can have their laptops seized without warrant “or without suspicion of wrongdoing” for an unspecified amount of time. Wasn’t there something in the news lately about China censoring foreign journalists’ access to the internet while at the Beijing Olympics? Ask your local patriot about how these policies differ……
Agents are empowered to share the contents of seized computers with other agencies and private entities for data decryption and other reasons, the newspaper said.
DHS officials said the policies applied to anyone entering the country, including U.S. citizens, and were needed to prevent terrorism.
Read the rest of this bullshit very necessary security policy. We thank you government for keeping us safe!
More here.
ACLU to file suit against FISA
July 13, 2008
Wired’s Threat Level blog reports that the American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit contesting the constitutionality of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Recently passed by both the House and Senate, FISA was signed into law on Thursday by President Bush. The ACLU has fought aspects of FISA in the past. The new complaint (PDF) alleges the following: “The law challenged here supplies none of the safeguards that the Constitution demands. It permits the government to monitor the communications of U.S. Citizens and residents without identifying the people to be surveilled; without specifying the facilities, places, premises, or property to be monitored; without observing meaningful limitations on the retention, analysis, and dissemination of acquired information; without obtaining individualized warrants based on criminal or foreign intelligence probable cause; and, indeed, without even making prior administrative determinations that the targets of surveillance are foreign agents or connected in any way, however tenuously, to terrorism.”
