Asymmetrical Information

Have a nice and safe flight and congratulations to your sister.

Maybe not socialism... That's an economic system. But you can't be too "fond" of Rumsfeld. I believe we made some strong points in the Rumsfeld debate and you didn't indicate to anyone that your mind is changed on that one.

Have a good trip.

Come Jane....Come to the Dark Side. Kisses to you-know-who (I don't want to name her in case that's a problem). I'm sure you're very proud. Tell her I send her my best.

First, as one who loves Chapel Thrill (and all things Jordanesque), and therefore hates Durham, I feel obliged to point out that Duke sucks. Go Heels!

Second, despite the dyspeptic glasses with which Ms. Rand apparently fitted you, there are spots between the rampant mindlessness of this Administration and the socialist collectivism that scarred you lo-those-many-years-ago. Welcome to the DLC.

I'm sure that "Road-to-Damascus experience " is quite a story. Usually, the shift from Left to Right is a gradual, yet inevitable, result of maturation. Of course, some people never grow up - which would explain Ramsey Clark, Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky, Ted Rall, etc, etc, etc.

It's a tough one. I'm a libertarian who is probably going to (reluctantly) vote for Kerry. Sometimes economics takes a back seat to civil liberties. Our individual freedoms are going to get slaughtered with a supreme court change.

I'm just trying to figure out what I think is best for the country.

Let's flip that argument over: what would be best for our enemies, the people who want to kill us, who have killed thousands of us already? Would they rather have four more years of Bush and Rummy (i.e. four more years of getting their sorry asses kicked), or four years of Kerry and whatever dufus he hires as SecDef?

Thought so.

I've never noticed that Democrats are all that solicitous of civil liberties. There's certainly no reason to think that the new JFK will be so.

The only thing that's going to "slaughter" civil liberties is another mass-casualty attack on the US, maybe an order of magnitude or so bigger than 9/11.

Your mission: to figure out who's more likely to prevent that.

But surely this is the most depressing news of the week. "Inevitable"? Oy.

You have no idea how relieved I am...

Now you are headed into my world. Durham in the springtime is a spectacular experience. Looks like you're having great weather for your adventure, too. I'm breathing the same air that you're breathing, Jane, as I look out my window towards the Duke campus.

Have a ball!

Dan G,

What civil liberty have you lost because of Bush?

Libertarian's believe in a government that is 1/5th the size it is now. It is unbelieveable that any libertarian would vote Democrat based on that reason alone.

What do you think "Political Correctness" is all about? It is every "group" that makes up the Democrat party telling the rest of America what is "correct" language to use when discussing that particular "group".

I agree with the poster named "someone" who said that the only thing that'll slaughter civil liberties more is having another big attack on our soil. The more big attacks we endure, the more our "civil liberties" will suffer. Yet will they really suffer?....
... Besides waiting an hour longer and taking off our shoes at the airport, what has Bush done to remove your civil liberties? Be truthful.....

Once you give up your integrity, the rest is a piece of cake.

I'm sorry, but I don't see why Bush and Rummy are any better at preventing terrorism on our soil than New JFK will be. If anything we've seen that both before and after 9/11 the current administration has not done what it should to protect our country. To some extent it has been dumb, blind luck that nothing more has happened to us.

Similar to "no child left behind" the administration has sweeping ideas and goals and then refuses to fund them or train people to act on those goals in an appropriate manor. I feel the Iraq war was fought at a wholely inappropriate time without the overall backing of the international community. The actions this administration has taken has put us in a far worse possition.

I know, you disagree. But blanket statements like, "Let's flip that argument over: what would be best for our enemies, the people who want to kill us, who have killed thousands of us already? Would they rather have four more years of Bush and Rummy (i.e. four more years of getting their sorry asses kicked), or four years of Kerry and whatever dufus he hires as SecDef?" are not likely to convince me that the conservative way is right. After all, I think the current SecDef has shown himself to be pretty much of a dufus. I suspect that whomever Kerry gets as SecDef will be extremely competent.

On top of that, the issues Bush has taken a stance on that don't involve terrorism, national security or war have been opposite to my views and beliefs as an American.

No stem-cell research funding, partial birth abortion bans, amendments attached to the consitution that LIMIT rights. The Patriot Act.

And on top of all of this we have a tenuous recovery (at best) which is build on a house of cards at the base of which is an unfunded deficit growing faster than any defecit has ever grown.

I just can't support any of that. And I can't fathum why this race is even close.

> amendments attached to the consitution that LIMIT rights.

What amendment was that? Note - only actual amendments qualify. Proposals that haven't even made it out of subcommittee don't.

> The Patriot Act.

Name a provision that wasn't pushed by Clinton[1] or that you opposed when he pushed it.Or, explain why things are different now. For extra credit, name three provisions that are actually new law. (The vast majority of PAI was actually law before. The same is true of PAII. Yup, you don't get re-elected by pointing out that people have what they want.)

[1] Trick question - the Patriot Act was cobbled together from various Clinton-era proposals.

Andy,

Let's go through this section by section, shall we...

SEC. 106. PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY.
Section 203 of the International Emergency Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1702) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1)--
`(C) when the United States is engaged in armed hostilities or has been attacked by a foreign country or foreign nationals, confiscate any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, of any foreign person, foreign organization, or foreign country that he determines has planned, authorized, aided, or engaged in such hostilities or attacks against the United States; and all right, title, and interest in any property so confiscated shall vest, when, as, and upon the terms directed by the President, in such agency or person as the President may designate from time to time, and upon such terms and conditions as the President may prescribe, such interest or property shall be held, used, administered, liquidated, sold, or otherwise dealt with in the interest of and for the benefit of the United States, and such designated agency or person may perform any and all acts incident to the accomplishment or furtherance of these purposes.'; and

SEC. 207. DURATION OF FISA SURVEILLANCE OF NON-UNITED STATES PERSONS WHO ARE AGENTS OF A FOREIGN POWER.
(a) DURATION -

(2) PHYSICAL SEARCH- Section 304(d)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1824(d)(1)) is amended by--

(A) striking `forty-five' and inserting `90';

and

SEC. 212. EMERGENCY DISCLOSURE OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS TO PROTECT LIFE AND LIMB.
(a) DISCLOSURE OF CONTENTS-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 2702 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(A) by striking the section heading and inserting the following:
`Sec. 2702. Voluntary disclosure of customer communications or records';
(B) in subsection (a)--
(i) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking `and' at the end;
(ii) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking the period and inserting `; and'; and
(iii) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
`(3) a provider of remote computing service or electronic communication service to the public shall not knowingly divulge a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service (not including the contents of communications covered by paragraph (1) or (2)) to any governmental entity.';
(C) in subsection (b), by striking `EXCEPTIONS- A person or entity' and inserting `EXCEPTIONS FOR DISCLOSURE OF COMMUNICATIONS- A provider described in subsection (a)';
(D) in subsection (b)(6)--
(i) in subparagraph (A)(ii), by striking `or';
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period and inserting `; or'; and
(iii) by adding after subparagraph (B) the following:
`(C) if the provider reasonably believes that an emergency involving immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to any person requires disclosure of the information without delay.'; and
(E) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
`(c) EXCEPTIONS FOR DISCLOSURE OF CUSTOMER RECORDS- A provider described in subsection (a) may divulge a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service (not including the contents of communications covered by subsection (a)(1) or (a)(2))--

`(1) as otherwise authorized in section 2703;
`(2) with the lawful consent of the customer or subscriber;
`(3) as may be necessarily incident to the rendition of the service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service;
`(4) to a governmental entity, if the provider reasonably believes that an emergency involving immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to any person justifies disclosure of the information; or
`(5) to any person other than a governmental entity.'.
(2) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT- The table of sections for chapter 121 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking the item relating to section 2702 and inserting the following:
`2702. Voluntary disclosure of customer communications or records.'.
(b) REQUIREMENTS FOR GOVERNMENT ACCESS-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 2703 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(A) by striking the section heading and inserting the following:
`Sec. 2703. Required disclosure of customer communications or records';
(B) in subsection (c) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3);
(C) in subsection (c)(1)--
(i) by striking `(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service may' and inserting `A governmental entity may require a provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service to';
(ii) by striking `covered by subsection (a) or (b) of this section) to any person other than a governmental entity.
`(B) A provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service shall disclose a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service (not including the contents of communications covered by subsection (a) or (b) of this section) to a governmental entity' and inserting `)';
(iii) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as paragraph (2);
(iv) by redesignating clauses (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv) as subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), and (D), respectively;
(v) in subparagraph (D) (as redesignated) by striking the period and inserting `; or'; and
(vi) by inserting after subparagraph (D) (as redesignated) the following:
`(E) seeks information under paragraph (2).'; and
(D) in paragraph (2) (as redesignated) by striking `subparagraph (B)' and insert `paragraph (1)'.
(2) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT- The table of sections for chapter 121 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking the item relating to section 2703 and inserting the following:
`2703. Required disclosure of customer communications or records.'.

and

SEC. 216. MODIFICATION OF AUTHORITIES RELATING TO USE OF PEN REGISTERS AND TRAP AND TRACE DEVICES.
`(a) IN GENERAL-

`(1) ATTORNEY FOR THE GOVERNMENT- Upon an application made under section 3122(a)(1), the court shall enter an ex parte order authorizing the installation and use of a pen register or trap and trace device anywhere within the United States, if the court finds that the attorney for the Government has certified to the court that the information likely to be obtained by such installation and use is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation. The order, upon service of that order, shall apply to any person or entity providing wire or electronic communication service in the United States whose assistance may facilitate the execution of the order. Whenever such an order is served on any person or entity not specifically named in the order, upon request of such person or entity, the attorney for the Government or law enforcement or investigative officer that is serving the order shall provide written or electronic certification that the order applies to the person or entity being served...

Oh, heck, I don't have time for this. But you get the point. Oh, and is this the height of your political debate? "Well Clinton approved most of these things too and you didn't have a problem with that."

Um, yes I did, but at least Clinton didn't even suggest amending the costitution to limit rights (don't be a jerk, you knew what I meant and it most certainly does count...it tells me what Bush thinks the value of the constitution is) nor did Clinton decide not to fund stem-cell research because he didn't like the way the research materials were procurred. Nor did he have an unfunded deficit.

But we're not discussing why Clinton sucked, and it's certainly not as if this is a powerful arguement to change my mind. Oh, gee, Clinton sucked, therefore all dems suck and therefore I should vote for Bush.

Really. If someone can give me a good arguement as to why I should not vote for Kerry, I'd be willing to listen, but scaring me into it because "he could be worse" (although I don't see how) or "he could be like Clinton" (which I doubt)is not going to do it.

Really. If someone can give me a good arguement as to why I should not vote for Kerry, I'd be willing to listen

No, you wouldn't. Your "Bush/Rummy/Cheney are just plain eeeevil, damn it!" rantings have pretty much disqualified you from any serious discussion on the subject.

OK, here's one: if John Kerry were president on 9/11, he would still be consulting with Maureen Dowd over what to do next: a stern reprimand, or tersely worded letter to Kofi Annan and a stern reprimand.

Oh, heck, I don't have time for this.

Neither do I. Next!

Kate,

I too disagree with Bush on stem-cell research and abortion (in the Roe v. Wade sense), but you can't lay the partial birth abortion ban at his feet--it's clearly supported by a majority of Congress and a majority of Americans.

And a proposal to amend the Constitution is just that, a proposal, which has to pass a lot of hurdles before it happens. And Bush was not the first to call for such an amendment. Even Kerry doesn't support so-called gay marriages.

And most of the changes incorporated in the Patriot Act already applied to fighting the war on drugs; the act just applied the same considerations to the war on terror. Breaking down the wall between intel gathering and criminal investigations should have been done a long time ago.

And all deficits are unfunded. What's so different about this one? Looked at as a percentage of GDP, this deficit is not really any different from any of the others. I hear people say that if we weren't fighting in Iraq that the money could be used at home, but that ignores the fact that the money used in fighting the terrorist-enablers is borrowed money (part of the deficit) and that uses at home would not have been "important" enough to justify increasing the deficit for. (And please don't talk about tax breaks for the rich--the tax breaks are for everyone and are the engine driving the economic recovery.)

So what's left?

Bush does what he says he will do--there are no surprises there. I happen to think that the war on terror is a bold move, one that is in keeping with our best traditions as Americans supposedly on the side of right and justice. Bush's actions actually make me proud to be an American. I don't think that any president has the power to make abortion illegal, so that is very much a non-issue for me. My main complaint about Bush is the way he agrees to so much of Congress's spending and even proposes more of his own, but I can't argue that what the money is spent for goes to bad causes. Aids. Senior citizens. But I can quibble over the way that we as a country do not live within our means, and we have to set priorities, with the lowest priorities falling by the wayside no matter how painful. (Which is what politicians in legislatures and executive branches do: they quarrel over competing priorities.)

Kerry flip-flops on many issues, and I have no clue how he will behave in the future. With Bush, what you see is what you get, and what we see is fine by a majority of us. I don't have any idea what Kerry will do, and that makes me nervous, and so far, what I see is not something that I am comfortable with.

I guess that's it in a nutshell.

Bush may not be perfect Kate, but at least I know he has a clear vision of what he wants to do and acts on it. I have absolutely, positively, NO idea what Kerry wants to do/plans to do/dreams of doing with Iraq, the war on terror, etc. And the scary thing is, I really don't believe he knows either. Kerry is purely poll-driven creature. He tries to have to all ways ("I voted for the $87 billion, before I voted against it")and instead of carving out clear principles and standing his ground, he tries to morph into whatever that day's special interest group wants him to be. Today, it's the far left ("I'm against this war!). Tomorrow it's veterans and Middle America ("Look at my war service!")

I'm not fond of the Bush administrations follow through in Iraq, I hate the new Medicare drug plan and I hate large deficits. But at least with Bush, I know he has a vision to reshape the Middle East and will doggedly pursue that vision. I'm wary of their follow-through ability, but I'll take that over a man, who in my opinion, has NO vision other than "I want to be president" and "I want to tax you a lot and spend a lot". Oh, and let's not forget, "I'm going to accuse my fellow soldiers in Vietnam of unverifiable, and probably false, war crimes just so my political position on Vietnam gets traction."

No thanks.

Kate,

Please explain to me how stopping federal funding for stem cell research limits rights. Private stem cell research was not banned. Please tell me how a right to federal funding is derived, because I'd like some myself.

Keith

Kate:

When you site the changes the Patriot Act made to already existing law for the purposes of allowing extended sureveilence, you neglect to mention that the Patriot Act also increases the number of judges who have to agree that there is probable cause before a warrant/permission is issued. My understanding of what I read also lead me to believe that the judges also had to be in multiple jurisdictions, i.e. the jusrisdiction where the surveilence is to take place a well as Washington DC. I take this to mean that, our government was trying to enact wider ability to investigate ANYONE (including fellow Americans) suspected of trying to harm Americans (as most of us were clamoring for our government to do after 9/11), they also were quite aware of the need to prevent any one person, agency or jurisdiction from abusing the additional powers.

Also, the Patriot Act paid much attention to adding provisions for searching and monitoring electronic means of communication. As reliance on the Internet and cell phones grew in the '90's, many arms of federal and local governments were complaining that our laws were too far behind the technology. My interpretaion of the Patriot Act is that many of the "changed to read", additions and deletions it added to, again, already existing law covering wired telephones and other communications devices, were to catch up to the technologies. This was something already in the discussion and planning stages during the Clinton Era.

Comments are Closed.