backtop

Internet Binary Heroes: The End is Near
Rob Mach (Blog) - January 15, 2008 9:47 AM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 173 comment(s) - last by rcc.. on Jan 18 at 5:08 PM
'


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Disagree
By NullSubroutine on 1/15/2008 9:51:44 AM , Rating: 4
It is not the end, but every end has a beginning. This could very well be another devise the federal government uses to enhance its power.

How many people have died from terrorism? How many people die from health ailments? How much of our federal budget is spent on 'terrorism' and drugs vs that of health care? How many of our liberties have been lost to health care?

Hmm...




RE: Disagree
By Frallan on 1/15/2008 9:53:37 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed...


RE: Disagree
By qwertyz on 1/15/08, Rating: 0
RE: Disagree
By ImSpartacus on 1/15/2008 7:47:47 PM , Rating: 2
...smartass


RE: Disagree
By TomZ on 1/15/2008 10:04:23 AM , Rating: 1
I agree, and in addition to what you mention approximately 44,000 people die in traffic accidents each year in the US, and many more are injured. Maybe the government needs to wage a "war" on traffic accidents?


RE: Disagree
By Micronite on 1/15/2008 10:24:25 AM , Rating: 4
I guess the difference is that the innocents targeted by terrorists are entirely innocent.
Though many people who die in traffic accidents each year are innocent, there are more who die because they were doing something stupid/risky.

Although, I do think you made an ironic comparison. A national ID card isn't too different than a driver's license. One is issued by a State Government and is already used for more than just stating your ability to drive. The other would be issued by the Federal Government and would eventually be used for everything except stating your ability to drive.


RE: Disagree
By NullSubroutine on 1/15/2008 10:47:21 AM , Rating: 2
A death is a death. You mean to tell me a person who is killed by terrorism has more right to life than 100 killed by traffic accidents?


RE: Disagree
By therealnickdanger on 1/15/2008 2:03:17 PM , Rating: 3
I doubt that was his point and you know it. Terrorists don't accidentally kill people. They specifically target easy targets that will strike FUD into the hearts of an established society. With terrorism, there are very clear methods of prevention that we already have established: military strikes.

As long as humans are allowed to drive vehicles for themselves, mistakes will be made and deaths will result. The time and cost involved with building an automated, reliable infastructure is overwhelming at this point - not to mention the public opposition.


RE: Disagree
By mdogs444 on 1/15/2008 10:13:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You mean to tell me a person who is killed by terrorism has more right to life than 100 killed by traffic accidents?

Well, I find it hard to compare 1 life to 100 lives. Not really a fair, or logical at that, comparison at all.

But if you want to dig deep into this, I would say that someone killed in a terrorist attack would get my backing over someone who died by driving drunk. And by that, I do not mean an innocent person who was killed by a drunk driver.


RE: Disagree
By FITCamaro on 1/15/08, Rating: 0
RE: Disagree
By JackBeQuick on 1/15/2008 10:37:17 AM , Rating: 5
Are you sure the government could stop terrorism? Short of breeding people into docile walking zombies?

That's Hollywood's job dude.


RE: Disagree
By Ringold on 1/15/2008 10:47:04 AM , Rating: 1
I must've missed the multiple 9-11 scale attacks in the US since 2001!

It's done a good job at preventing one here, and it's not for lack of them trying, probably much more often than we're aware of. How it stops it overseas, though.. I dont know. "Delenda est Carthago!" I know what the Roman's would do, but that's not a politically correct option 2000 years later. :)

Worth pointing out though that the police-state United Kingdom has in fact been the one getting its ass kicked. I find that strange.. I'd think the invasive systems they'd have in place would help them be more effective than we are, but apparently its not that easy.


RE: Disagree
By JackBeQuick on 1/15/2008 11:02:10 AM , Rating: 3
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence?

I think the reason we don't get bombed into oblivion daily is because the countries that share a border with us need us more than we need them. Let's face it, it was still pretty hard to get in this country even before 9/11.

And its not like there wasn't terrorist attacks, they've just picked softer targets.


RE: Disagree
By Polynikes on 1/15/08, Rating: -1
RE: Disagree
By andrinoaa on 1/15/2008 4:41:22 PM , Rating: 5
Are you another 15yr old wanna be? Are you serious or just parroting neo-cons?
AMERICA CREATED OSAMA, AMERICA CREATED SADDAM. Check your recent history, read about the CIA!!!!
Get your house in order. Your foreign policies created the mess, not your counter terrorism stopped it!
You are thinking " cart before the horse"


RE: Disagree
By rcc on 1/15/2008 5:55:18 PM , Rating: 2
As with most countries, the US has had it's ups and downs in foreign policy. However, no, we didn't create the worlds terrorists, lunatics, and religous zealots; their own culture did that. We have, however, provided them a large target, for which "you" should be grateful, at least they aren't pissing in your pond quite so much.

The horse is very much before the cart, although it does try to pass on the downhills occasionally.


RE: Disagree
By andrinoaa on 1/15/2008 6:20:10 PM , Rating: 4
Ok , Can you please explain to me how Bin laden got CIA training yet it has nothing to do with your country?
Can you explain to me how Saddam was armed by your country, yet your country had nothing to do with it?


RE: Disagree
By mdogs444 on 1/15/2008 8:43:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ok , Can you please explain to me how Bin laden got CIA training yet it has nothing to do with your country?

Osama Bin Laden was party of roughly 40,000 muslim's who teamed up with Afghanistan during the late 70's pushback against the Soviet Union. He wasn't a known figure at the time, and him, along with all the others, were given less training than todays Iraqi & Pakistani armys are. Dont make it sound like the CIA created a monster, all they did was help the middle eastern countries defy the Soviet Unions pressure that was migrating to the middle east.
quote:
Can you explain to me how Saddam was armed by your country, yet your country had nothing to do with it?

The United States supported Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War as a counterbalance to post-revolutionary Iran. The support took the form of technological aid, intelligence, the sale of dual-use and military equipment, and direct involvement and warfare against Iran and was refered to as "Operation Staunch".

Other countries that supported Iraq during the war included Britain, France, the Soviet Union, and West Germany.

Of those arms that were provided, none were WMD/Chemical/Biological weapons (like the gas used on the Kurds). Those were purchased from other countries. In fact, the basis of providing any weaponry to Iraq was due to the thought that Saddam's regime would be the lesser of two evils when compared to Iran.

I am going to assume this is not the false information that is being portrayed to you by the liberal left thinkers, but the facts are the facts.


RE: Disagree
By rcc on 1/18/2008 5:08:32 PM , Rating: 2
What I said, if you would care to read it, was the US did not "create" any of the nutcases you named.

For the rest, See mdog's response, I don't need to retype it.


RE: Disagree
By mdogs444 on 1/15/2008 10:31:57 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
AMERICA CREATED OSAMA, AMERICA CREATED SADDAM.

No they didn't, so stop being an idiot. American CIA trained 40,000+ middle easterners when they were revolting against the Soviet Union in the late 70's. Osama just happened to be one fo the 40,000+, and at the time, was not a threat or a known terrorist. What he evolved into 30+ years later was of his own doing, not the United States. Saddam already had a ruthless regime - but it was considered the lesser of two evils between Saddam and Iran - so the US chose. They needed to choose in order to try to get the least threatening side to win to bring stability (even if temporary) to the region. I dont think there was any right choice - especially when Saddam was ruthless to his own people, and Iran still plays a major threat to the region. I call it a lose-lose situation.
quote:
Check your recent history, read about the CIA!!!!

Perhaps you should reflect on your own statements. Reading the first and last sentence of a paragraph does not mean you read the entire article andrinoaa.
quote:
Your foreign policies created the mess, not your counter terrorism stopped it!

False. More far left propaganda. I've elaborated so many times its becoming a waist of time.
quote:
You are thinking " cart before the horse"

Ahh, but "THINKING" is actually the point.


RE: Disagree
By Polynikes on 1/16/2008 12:08:05 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, where exactly did I say "WE CREATED OSAMA?" My point, which you clearly missed, was that maybe, because of our current distraction in the middle east, those who would travel over here to cause us harm decided to stay home, where it's easier to kill Americans.


RE: Disagree
By Pythias on 1/15/2008 12:01:30 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Let's face it, it was still pretty hard to get in this country even before 9/11.


You're joking right? Everybody and his dog sneaks across our borders every day.


RE: Disagree
By JackBeQuick on 1/15/2008 1:03:13 PM , Rating: 2
Compared to other countries, the US is and was prohibitively harder to get into. This is not really something people in the international sphere debate about.

Of course, why the hell would you want to sneak into Colombia or Libya or Norway ...


RE: Disagree
By johnsonx on 1/15/2008 1:07:22 PM , Rating: 6
quote:
Everybody and his dog

Correction: todos y los perros


RE: Disagree
By Yawgm0th on 1/15/2008 3:23:13 PM , Rating: 2
I believe it would be todos y sus perros or todos y su perro, but I still laughed my ass off to this. This should have a 6.


RE: Disagree
By DeepBlue1975 on 1/16/2008 1:35:15 PM , Rating: 2
"Todos y sus perros" would be the right way.
But that little technical detail won't ruin his post at all :D


RE: Disagree
By johnsonx on 1/17/2008 2:10:01 PM , Rating: 2
wow, my first 6! Thanks KK, I'm touched...


RE: Disagree
By JustTom on 1/15/2008 12:24:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Let's face it, it was still pretty hard to get in this country even before 9/11.


Um, there are 12-20 Million people who in the US illegally, most of whom are not trained in the secret arts of the ninja. Basically it is as simple as over staying your visa or walking across the desert.


RE: Disagree
By Pythias on 1/15/2008 12:28:34 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Basically it is as simple as over staying your visa or walking across the desert.


lets not forget our neighbors to the north.


RE: Disagree
By JackBeQuick on 1/15/2008 12:35:02 PM , Rating: 2
OK, but compared to Israel / Jordan or places in Africa and Malaysia. Where someone can walk from his local Terrorism Depot into a bus full of people.

Also, keep in mind the people who are in the U.S. generally want to be here for some job or family or something along those lines.

It's an insane amount of motivation to travel thousands of miles, at risk of execution, just to blow up a building or a few people. Try thinking about the process in reverse. What force would posses you to travel halfway across the world just to blow something up?

Take into account you'd have to learn the language just to get by, find a job just to not look suspicious, learn the lay of the land enough to find arms. These aren't trivial tasks, but we, in the US, are already at a significant advantage over terrorism because of the geographical and cultural differences when compared to Asia.


RE: Disagree
By masher2 (blog) on 1/15/2008 1:22:30 PM , Rating: 2
> "It's an insane amount of motivation to travel thousands of miles, at risk of execution, just to blow up a building..."

It's an even more insane amount of motivation to blow yourself up, just to take out a building, no?


RE: Disagree
By JackBeQuick on 1/15/2008 1:46:58 PM , Rating: 3
Are you sure about that? Do you know how easy it is to brainwash people?

I'd call it insane to run into a battlefield guns blazing regardless of who its for or why.

Nah, finding people willing to kill themselves is easy. Finding people willing to spend 3-4 months of prep time, learning local culture and traversing nations just to do it is another thing. That's probably why it doesn't occur as often.


RE: Disagree
By masher2 (blog) on 1/15/2008 2:22:50 PM , Rating: 1
> "Nah, finding people willing to kill themselves is easy. "

While your other posts have been extremely intelligent, you're contradicting yourself here. First you argue that its insanely difficult to find someone willing to fly to the US and only "risk" death....then you turn around and say its easy to find suicide bombers.

So which is it?


RE: Disagree
By JackBeQuick on 1/15/2008 2:44:44 PM , Rating: 2
It's easy to MAKE suicide bombers. I didn't convey the sarcasm well.

My point remains the same. It's easy to get people to die for something. It's very hard to get them to think about it for months on end and then still pull it off.


RE: Disagree
By DeSade on 1/15/2008 1:33:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What force would posses you to travel halfway across the world just to blow something up?


God/Allah/Prophet/Aliens told me to?


RE: Disagree
By JackBeQuick on 1/15/2008 1:49:29 PM , Rating: 3
More like, my local militia told me God told me to do it. Few people, terrorists included, wake up one day and decide it's their life's mission to go off themselves in a very public way.

It's just not built into the human psyche to kill yourself. There's always some prodding.


RE: Disagree
By theapparition on 1/16/2008 7:22:10 AM , Rating: 2
You forgot "Family Guy" told me to do it....


RE: Disagree
By xsilver on 1/15/2008 11:05:39 AM , Rating: 2
a post below shows the spending on health and defence budgets. Theoretically if the entire defence budget was moved over to health, how many more lives would that save?
what about vice vera?

The budget is out of whack.


RE: Disagree
By masher2 (blog) on 1/15/2008 11:28:22 AM , Rating: 4
Luckily, the founding fathers saw the need for a strong defense, even going so far as to write it into the preamble of the Constitution as one of the primary goals of the government.

A military is like a home insurance policy. It's expensive...until there's a fire or a flood, then its dirt cheap. The US has been free from the threat of serious attack so long most citizens believe its a normal state of being. It's not.


RE: Disagree
By MatthiasF on 1/15/2008 12:06:01 PM , Rating: 2
That's one interpretation of a "common defense", but to "insure domestic tranquility" comes first on the list and I doubt fearmongering an entire nation with the threat of terrorist attacks would pass this goal.


RE: Disagree
By nidomus on 1/15/2008 12:34:38 PM , Rating: 2
Didn't the founding fathers oppose a standing army and throw their support to a strong Navy? I was always under the impression that the Right to Bear Arms Amendment was for two things. One was to maintain a strong militia so the US would not need a standing army, the other was to keep weapons in the hands of the people in case the government became a tyrannical entity. Then again, it's been years since my history classes, and of course my teacher could have interpreted it in his own way.


RE: Disagree
By masher2 (blog) on 1/15/2008 1:43:15 PM , Rating: 2
The Constitution specifically authorizes an army, but whether it authorizes a standing army is a bit open to debate. As for intentions, Madison didn't want one, Hamilton did...that much we know.

In regards to the Second Amendment, yes it was intended as a check against the threat of a federal standing army.


RE: Disagree
By JackBeQuick on 1/15/2008 1:52:35 PM , Rating: 2
I think Madison and Hamilton were both in favor of an army as a deterrence. I think both would even be in favor of nukes as a deterrence.

However, from what I've read both of their definitions of an army were more that of a militia. An army ready to rise to threats as they developed. You could argue that's still how the US military operates. You could argue the other way though too.


RE: Disagree
By masher2 (blog) on 1/15/2008 2:27:45 PM , Rating: 2
Hamilton was for a standing army; Madison against. This was one of the standing disputes between the Federalists and anti-Federalists.

They were both in favor of an "army", but Madison et. al. defined it as one called up from local militias as required.

Hamilton and crew preferred a professional, permanently funded force.


RE: Disagree
By xsilver on 1/15/2008 8:39:29 PM , Rating: 2
I was originally just trying to conceptualize if there such thing as "too much insurance"?

Are other areas are being neglected at the cost of this insurance?
Some will also argue that a good part of that defence budget is not insurance at all but rather a form of colonialism.


RE: Disagree
By retrospooty on 1/15/2008 10:43:05 AM , Rating: 4
"The government cannot stop traffic accidents. The government can stop terrorism."

Agreed. Its just the the Bush admin is going about it the wrong way entirely. It is our intrusive foreign policy that is creating hatred toward us in the middle east which is why the psycho fundamentalists are out to terrorize us. Our govt. needs to fix that, not by war, but by butting the hell out of the middle east. Only then will the terrorism stop. The middle east will never be peaceful, it is almost a hell on earth. Lets stay out of it.


RE: Disagree
By Ringold on 1/15/08, Rating: 0
RE: Disagree
By JackBeQuick on 1/15/2008 11:03:29 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah but maybe if we didn't throw Iran into the Axis of Evil we could have had their help with the whole thing. Maybe with Iraq too.

Look it up, we were weeks away from installing a puppet government over there.


RE: Disagree
By mdogs444 on 1/15/2008 11:12:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yeah but maybe if we didn't throw Iran into the Axis of Evil we could have had their help with the whole thing. Maybe with Iraq too.

Yeah, right after we help them build nuclear facilities, and they joyously shake hands with Israel.

Pfffft.


RE: Disagree
By JackBeQuick on 1/15/2008 11:20:54 AM , Rating: 4
Don't confuse the rhetoric Ahmadinejad spouts with the sentiment of the people in the country (or the ayatollas who are actually in control of the whole nation anyway). He's pretty much just as nuts and just as much of a puppet as Bush.

Our media loves to show Iran as this weird backwards farm country, but it's sort of like when Al Jezeria comes over here and "documents" America as some backwater redneck growth.

And you know what, it's been 60 years. It's time to let Israel start figuring some of this shit out for themselves. I'm getting really tired about hearing how US aide to Israel ends up in China or Iraq or India.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=isra...


RE: Disagree
By retrospooty on 1/15/2008 11:23:47 AM , Rating: 5
Yup. both Ahmadinejad and Bush are equally religious psychos.


RE: Disagree
By cochy on 1/15/2008 11:29:13 AM , Rating: 2
Israel can figure it all out for themselves. The only problem with that is the outcome might not be exactly to America's liking which is the only reason why America is involved in the first place. Israel didn't retaliate against Iraq during 2nd Gulf War because America asked them not to. Israel getting involved in a war with another middle-east nation destabilizes the region. In the 50s and 60s when America didn't get so involved and Israel got weapons from France etc. they had no problems going to war with Egypt, Jordan and Syria and wiping out their respective armies and annexing some land as security buffers.


RE: Disagree
By Pythias on 1/15/2008 12:03:03 PM , Rating: 2
We didn't throw them , they jumped.


RE: Disagree
By JackBeQuick on 1/15/2008 12:24:12 PM , Rating: 3
Clever, but I seriously hope you look into this with more detail. I was involved in a very successful US-Iranian startup that went bellyup on January 31, 2002.

Iraq could have been over 3 years ago. The Iranians were more than willing to help us take care of Afghanistan. Iran was just pulling itself out of religious fervor in the same way China began to pull itself out of the Cultural Revolution.

Instead, we have extremely powerful people playing politics with each other over events still in their memories from the 1970s.

I'm totally disgusted by the way this country and other countries behave when it comes to international doctrine. The temporary feel-good tit-for-tat bullshit that breeds and encourages psychopaths like Ahmadinejad can be entirely avoided when a superpower like the US just emphasizes some self control.


RE: Disagree
By cochy on 1/15/2008 10:56:28 AM , Rating: 1
Sure. Once there's no more need for it's oil you'll notice the foreign policy shift to something more to your liking.


RE: Disagree
By JackBeQuick on 1/15/2008 11:04:21 AM , Rating: 3
Give it a rest with the oil. If that was really the focal point of the last 4 years we would have just invaded Canada. There's a hell of a lot more oil there and it's a lot closer.


RE: Disagree
By cochy on 1/15/2008 11:15:23 AM , Rating: 1
Why would I give it a rest? Why would you invade Canada? Canada is America's largest trading partner and largest exporter of oil. Your source of oil is secure here.

The oil in the middle-east is not secure as that part of the world is very unstable. The result of much of your foreign policy is to ensure stability in the middle-east to secure the oil. Man you don't need a Masters in Poli-Sci to figure this out. Other than oil the middle-east's next biggest export is sand.


RE: Disagree
By JackBeQuick on 1/15/2008 11:21:55 AM , Rating: 2
Please don't confuse "my" trading policies with that of my government.


RE: Disagree
By jeff834 on 1/16/2008 3:21:21 AM , Rating: 2
But without that sand, where would we get all the silicon for the computer chips from?


RE: Disagree
By mdogs444 on 1/15/08, Rating: -1
RE: Disagree
By cochy on 1/15/2008 11:22:09 AM , Rating: 3
I'm not a left loon. I just can understand simple international relations. Take over Mexico or Canada? That comment is utter silliness. There's no stability problems here in North America. The United States is concerned with global stability. They are concerned with it because you can not guarantee much in an unstable environment. Whether it be guaranteeing an energy source or security or trade.


RE: Disagree
By retrospooty on 1/15/2008 4:18:59 PM , Rating: 2
Its easier for Mdogs to call anyone and everyone a leftist than it is to come up with a rational statement. Anything you dont like = left wing radical mentality, therefore its dismissed as irrelevant.


RE: Disagree
By mdogs444 on 1/15/2008 8:46:56 PM , Rating: 2
Nope, just calling them like I see it.

Its much easier for the liberal left to make up conspiracies for everything that happens - Iraq war was about oil, California fires are due to global warming, Katrina victims who died did so because of Bush's cleanup efforts (or lack there of).

You guys just make excuses for everything in an effort to take away "personal responsibility" - much like your wanted efforts of Universal Healthcare, social welfare policy, and increasing taxes on the middle and upper classes. The sense of entitlement, class warfare, and government blame gets old after a while Retro...


RE: Disagree
By retrospooty on 1/15/2008 8:55:41 PM , Rating: 2
The issue is that you lump everyone into that "you guys" category. Not everyone that is liberal is a conspiriacy driven/greenpeace loving/anti nuclear/flag burning freakbag that you make them out to be. Most make a lot more sense than that. You are using a few examples of some extreme radicals and lumping everyone into that category. Its as if I accuse you of thinking everything that Ann coulter thinks, just because you are conservative.


RE: Disagree
By mdogs444 on 1/15/2008 9:06:10 PM , Rating: 2
Although I do understand what you are saying, my statements are not of the "personal attack" type - unless I'm referring to one person by responding to the post. By lumping people and saying "liberal left" doesn't necessarily mean that everyone who is a liberal believes the same for every issue. But when you are referring to the left or right political parties - you speak in terms of the issues that they support as a majority, not on a person by person basis.

And although Ann Coulter can be a cold hearted person, I do agree with a lot of things that she says, just not in the same context as she puts them in.


RE: Disagree
By retrospooty on 1/15/2008 9:24:04 PM , Rating: 2
"although Ann Coulter can be a cold hearted person, I do agree with a lot of things that she says"

Nevermind then... ick.


RE: Disagree
By mdogs444 on 1/15/2008 9:39:38 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget Oreilly and Limbaugh. They must be liars too?


RE: Disagree
By retrospooty on 1/15/2008 9:50:36 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't say liars, just terribly predjudiced and misguided, and more than anything both are hippocrites.


RE: Disagree
By mdogs444 on 1/15/2008 9:56:38 PM , Rating: 1
Fair enough. Thats your opinion, but I think differently. However, I don't believe that prejudice (if you are referring to racism) is portrayed by either of them. I also do not find Oreilly to be a hypocrite at all - perhaps you can elaborate on that claim a bit. As for Rush, I dont really listen to him much, so I don't have much of an opinion on him either way except to say that hes the most popular political figure on radio (and perhaps all media combined).


RE: Disagree
By retrospooty on 1/15/2008 4:16:09 PM , Rating: 2
That is exactly why we need to aggressively explore other alternatives to get us off foreign oil.


RE: Disagree
By themadmilkman on 1/15/2008 10:43:10 AM , Rating: 4
Tell me, Fit, is it the local government's job to handle trash collection or should it be handled by private companies? That question was asked in my Constitutional Law class last semester. The class was split, and the split occurred based on the personal experiences of the individuals in the class. I've always had my trash collection handled by the local government. Other people haven't.

So what's the point? The government's purpose is a matter of perception, to a large degree. While you don't think that the federal government should handle health care, I would imagine that most of Europe would disagree with you. It's certainly not unconstitutional for the federal government to regulate health care (the interstate commerce clause certainly covers this).

As for being nobody's fault but the individual if they can't afford health insurance? What about individuals with birth defects and conditions of such a nature that private insurance companies won't cover them, because they present too large a liability? Should they simply be SOL simply because they were born?


RE: Disagree
By dreddly on 1/15/2008 10:53:41 AM , Rating: 5
No, the idea behind resource pooling is that it provides for everyone, regardless of their specific situation and contribution, because there is an inherent good in making sure my neighbor's house doesn't end up being a trash heap because he can't afford to participate.

The problem is that there is no interest in the 'public' anymore. Your question begins from a faulty premise that assumes public and private are equal. Think about the way that governance has followed us into a 'me first' culture.

Politicians are beholden to their contributors, their religious supporters, their local voters and rarely do you see politicians or elected officials argue there is a need for action because it is in all of our interests. Public is not the sum of private interests, it is an effort to act in the best interests of everyone. The public is needed because it doesn't discriminate; it sees the public as a good end in itself, rather than an means of bolstering the welfare of your supporters and yourself.


RE: Disagree
By gramboh on 1/15/2008 5:55:26 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, this is one of the best posts I have ever read on DT. Someone should 6 this, and people should think about it.


RE: Disagree
By Ringold on 1/15/08, Rating: 0
RE: Disagree
By JustTom on 1/15/2008 11:02:20 AM , Rating: 2
He did say local government, not federal.


RE: Disagree
By Ringold on 1/15/2008 12:11:26 PM , Rating: 2
I must've misunderstood/misread, then. What does local government have to do with a constitutional law class, then?

My statement on perception also stands.


RE: Disagree
By masher2 (blog) on 1/15/2008 11:08:59 AM , Rating: 2
> "The government's purpose is a matter of perception"

I hope they weren't teaching you that in Constitutional Law. The public's opinion on the government's purpose may vary...but that purpose is rather clearly defined, and independent of perception.

> "It's certainly not unconstitutional for the federal government to regulate health care (the interstate commerce clause certainly covers this)."

Only by a severe stretch. If you interpret the interstate commerce law as applying not only to trade between states, but all economic activity within those states-- then you've given the federal power to regulate anything and everything. And that, the Framers most assuredly did not intend.


RE: Disagree
By JustTom on 1/15/2008 12:20:41 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you, however it is a sad fact that the commerce clause has been stretched to cover damn near every facet of life the federal government wants to regulate.


RE: Disagree
By themadmilkman on 1/15/2008 2:28:38 PM , Rating: 2
Given that I don't know of a single insurance company that exists within a single state (most are national offices), I think that the Commerce Clause stands on its own grounds without any further interpretation. And given the Court's interpretation of the Commerce Clause, even an insurance company that did only support individuals in one state, using funds that remained within that state, only investing in that state, etc., would still fall under the commerce clause since the activities of that company affect interstate commerce.

As for whether the government's purpose is clearly defined? It's not, to be honest. The Constitution enumerates certain federal powers, yes, but it also gives the federal government the means by which to use certain UNENUMERATED means to fulfill their enumerated powers and responsibilities.

The Constitution is also subject to interpretation by the Court, who's authority to bind the government based on those interpretations is in itself an interpretation and not enumerated in the constitution.


RE: Disagree
By rninneman on 1/15/2008 1:04:06 PM , Rating: 3
The brilliance of the constitution is that it left most governance to state and local governments because the founding fathers knew the federal government could never effectively operate at the micro level. (Ever heard of states' rights?) So if you have a community of communists, they can elect to have lots of public programs funded by local taxes including public trash collection. It also enables a community to elect to have few social services with lower taxes. Then we all have the freedom to live in which ever community we choose.


RE: Disagree
By TomZ on 1/15/2008 10:59:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The government cannot stop traffic accidents. The government can stop terrorism.

The government has the same ability to control traffic accidents as it does to prevent terrorism: it can work to reduce them both.

All accidents are in theory preventable. We may not ever reach that goal, but the real problem is that people don't seem to be aware of the traffic fatality issue and about their role in traffic safety. People these days are more concerns about getting there faster and multitasking than safety. Whenever someone gets behind the wheel, their #1 priority should be safey; otherwise, the consequences can be fatal. I think most of us lose sight of that in our daily lives.

The role of the government in helping prevent traffic accidents is through education, safety regulations, and investement in development and maintenance of our transportation infrastructure.


RE: Disagree
By Polynikes on 1/15/2008 11:24:22 AM , Rating: 2
<sarcasm>
The government should do more to stop accidents. Your hands should be locked in clamps to the wheel; manual transmissions will be banned from production. All vehicles will have an electronic speed limit of 55 MPH, and none of them will be able to accelerate to 55 MPH in less than 10 seconds. We'll be VERY safe that way.
</sarcasm>

Seriously, you can argue the government CAN help reduce accidents, but they won't be effective doing it in any way that won't seriously reduce our freedom. I seriously doubt "education, safety regulations, and investement in development and maintenance of our transportation infrastructure" are going to make a serious difference. People KNOW not to talk on their cell phone, break the speed limit, etc, yet they still do it. You can make it a crime to talk on your cell phone while driving, but everyone still does it. Traffic accidents are an unfortunate side effect of having millions of cars on our roads, and for the most part, the only way to prevent them is for people to be more careful. I really don't feel any pity for anyone who causes an accident, as in 99% of cases, it could've been prevented with more alertness. The government has much bigger problems to deal with. People can take care of themselves.

<sarcasm>
Actually, come to think of it, banning AUTOMATIC transmissions would be better, as people need to think just a tad bit more when driving a stick; they're automatically a bit more alert.
</sarcasm


RE: Disagree
By masher2 (blog) on 1/15/2008 11:43:25 AM , Rating: 6
> "the government CAN help reduce accidents, but they won't be effective doing it in any way that won't seriously reduce our freedom"

I think the government can reduce traffic accidents without infringing upon civil liberties much easier than they can prevent terrorism without doing the same. Additional driver education, better roads and road markers, higher safety standards...none of these have the constitutional impediments that warrantless searches and suspension of habeas corpus do.

Are our priorities straight? I am reminded of a comparison drawn for Calfornia, which once spent over $2B on an environmental cleanup that was expected to save 1 life in excess cancer rates....yet the state couldn't afford a guard rail for a dangerous curve that had claimed six lives in a single year.


RE: Disagree
By andrinoaa on 1/15/2008 4:50:11 PM , Rating: 2
Careful masher2, you might be labeled a socialist for thinking outside the box! lol


RE: Disagree
By rcc on 1/15/2008 5:17:32 PM , Rating: 2
Lol, socialists don't think outside the box! They want everyone in the same box. Except themselves, generally.


RE: Disagree
By Visual on 1/16/2008 5:17:40 AM , Rating: 2
never been in the usa myself
but from what i've heard, the tests are extremely easy, and everyone gets a license. driving licenses are, like, a substitute to an id card - even blind people have them.

what do you propose to be done? "additional driver education"? well no one would go to such classes just for the fun of it, they have to be a requirement for getting a license. effectively, the current exam must be tightened up...

but that would mean people need more effort to get a license, and less people are able to do it, and so everyone would object and view this as another "the government is after me" thing.