i'm still not clear why we need more laws when the gov't seems to be in opposition to the constitution currently. how will an imperfect law which addresses only a portion of the problem be a help? is it only because there isn't any recourse against agencies transgressing the limits of the constitution?
this excerpt from the US Declaration of Independence might be a good test measuring today's true Freedom of Speech:
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"
seems as though from the beginning of our nation we have made provision for 'firing' our government and 'hiring' new.
did it make things much worse when we completed removed the existing gov't back in 1776? i agree that it certainly made things much more tenuous in the short term, but since then we have enjoyed over 200 years of unequaled civil liberty because of that action. only recently (past 20 years?) has a serious erosion of those liberties taken place.
i remember an old comic picturing a puppy dog sitting on a bench crying huge tears. another asked him why he was crying, he replied "because i'm sitting on a nail." when asked why he didn't move off of it, the puppy dog said "because it doesn't hurt bad enough yet." this seems fairly analogous our nation's situation.
are more concerned with bolstering their positions and circles of influence than they are with doing the job they were elected to do. it's a natural consequence of the huge benefits (both social and economic) and kickbacks they receive in those elected positions.
the current trend is not good at all, but shouldn't be surprising, considering that our populace (in general) becomes increasingly self-serving and insular with each generation. remember, these elected positions are filled from our own populace. they are a true representation of our integrity and willingness to serve.
hmmm, looks like i'm hanging out amongst the trolls here...as an american, i don't have a problem with other nations taking a shot at USA, since it seems to be common practice already. i do have a problem with double standards, like nations in trouble asking for and receiving help from us, only later to denigrate us for "interfering". the USA is far from perfect, or even close to good at times, but we are very generous in the amount of foreign aid we scatter around the globe.
from a research and development view, oil is a liability for the USA. we've pretty much reached the end of exciting hydrocarbon development, but the powerful oil lobby in our gov't tends to displace a distressing amount of potentially viable energy research and development.
i love my internal combustion car (VW Jetta TDI, go diesel!), but am impatient to see some of the other techs emphasized...ie: gen 3 and 4 fission reactors.
and so far neither politicians nor journalists have done much to earn my trust. politicians (in general) have always been swayed by lobbyists, and journalists (in general) have always been tempted more by recognition and personal/corporate gain than altruism. lesser of two evils...likely journalists, since they will be scrutinized by their competitors very closely.
liquid metal cooled reactors, and breeder reactors are feasible, safe, and used together create a nearly closed fuel cycle. ie. very little spent fuel to handle at the end of the cycle. france also has a vitrification process (that they stole from us, good on them) operating which further simplifies storage of spent fuel.
we've had these technologies for decades now, but scare-mongering by the media and political weakness has mothballed it, so france stole the technology and has been using it. again, good on them.
so, if in fact police are not required "constitutionally" to protect persons, one of two things must happen. either police departments are required to write their own requirements for officers' conduct, or we must get rid of a LOT of police.
here's a quote from a Thomas Jefferson letter to John Adams:
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. The functionaries of every government have propensities to command at will the liberty & property of their constituents. There is no safe deposit for these but with the people themselves; nor can they be safe with them without information.Where the press is free and every man able to read, all is safe.
Because the government holds your items, whatever they may be, has always meant that those items are not safe nor secure.
your argument is proof positive that we don't deserve individual rights anymore. the "cornerstone" of a living, thriving civilization isn't "order". a civilization that is founded completely on "order" is a stagnant civilization that is at the end of the life cycle. which seems to describe us, sadly.
the cornerstone of civilization is an ebbing and flowing balance between order and random change (chaos). from a long range view of public best interest, there has to be chaos involved to cultivate growth and development of a civilization. what we're offered under the disguise of "safety" is a slow death of decay. it's unattractive.
it's interesting how often this phrase is used as a disguise for the real intent of government intervention which is; control the public.
our juggernaut government's main purpose is to control public interest and focus so that the government may continue to grow and thrive. the people are the fuel source, the government is the feeding organism. -_-
i'm glad someone finally mentioned that word. it seems like a reasonable thing to think that people who value individual rights (ie. anti-copyrightists) could see past their own individual agendas to value all individual rights, not just their own pet issues. if that COULD happen, then the libertarian party might get enough traction to actually make an impact.