Rick Santelli's Chicago Tea Party |
- The Legislation That Could Kill Internet Privacy for Good
- Suits Push For Greater Gun Rights in Public
- Facing Criticism, Perry Steps Back on Gay Marriage, States’ Rights
- Man’s divorce blog starts free speech dispute
- Will the planned fiscal committee increase taxes?
- Tea Party leader: ‘We have compromised our way into disaster’
- Internet Explorer users ‘have below-average IQ’
- Insurers must cover birth control with no copays
- 4 New Congresspersons Sign On As Co-sponsors To The Frank/Paul End Cannabis Prohibition Act
- Congress out to spy on your ‘puter
| The Legislation That Could Kill Internet Privacy for Good Posted: 01 Aug 2011 04:39 PM PDT By: CONOR FRIEDERSDORF, TheAtlantic.com Every right-thinking person abhors child pornography. To combat it, legislators have brought through committee a poorly conceived, over-broad Congressional bill, The Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act of 2011. It is arguably the biggest threat to civil liberties now under consideration in the United States. The potential victims: everyone who uses the Internet. The good news? It hasn’t gone before the full House yet. The bad news: it already made it through committee. And history shows that in times of moral panic, overly broad legislation has a way of becoming law. In fact, a particular moment comes to mind. In the early 20th Century, a different moral panic gripped the United States: a rural nation was rapidly moving to anonymous cities, sexual mores were changing, and Americans became convinced that an epidemic of white female slavery was sweeping the land. Thus a 1910 law that made it illegal to transport any person across state lines for prostitution “or for any other immoral purpose.” Suddenly premarital sex and adultery had been criminalized, as scam artists would quickly figure out. “Women would lure male conventioneers across a state line, say from New York to Atlantic City, New Jersey,” David Langum* explains, “and then threaten to expose them to the prosecutors for violation” unless paid off. Inveighing against the law, the New York Times noted that, though it was officially called the White Slave Traffic Act (aka The Mann Act), a more apt name would’ve been “the Encouragement of Blackmail Act.” That name is what brought the anecdote back to me. A better name for the child pornography bill would be The Encouragement of Blackmail by Law Enforcement Act. At issue is how to catch child pornographers. It’s too hard now, say the bill’s backers, and I can sympathize. It’s their solution that appalls me: under language approved 19 to 10 by a House committee, the firm that sells you Internet access would be required to track all of your Internet activity and save it for 18 months, along with your name, the address where you live, your bank account numbers, your credit card numbers, and IP addresses you’ve been assigned. Tracking the private daily behavior of everyone in order to help catch a small number of child criminals is itself the noxious practice of police states. Said an attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation: “The data retention mandate in this bill would treat every Internet user like a criminal and threaten the online privacy and free speech rights of every American.” Even more troubling is what the government would need to do in order to access this trove of private information: ask for it. To read more, visit: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/08/the-legislation-that-could-kill-internet-privacy-for-good/242853/ |
| Suits Push For Greater Gun Rights in Public Posted: 01 Aug 2011 04:35 PM PDT By Nathan Koppel, WSJ.com We have to imagine that a time will come (maybe, let's say, around the year 2150) when gun rights will be a settled legal issue in our country and there will be little to fight over. Until then, suits will continue to fly. WSJ's Ashby Jones takes a look at the latest front in gun litigation: the extent to which people have a constitutional right to carry guns in public. Two recently filed Illinois suits are among a handful that could give rise to the next big Supreme Court decision, Jones writes. The suits challenge Illinois' gun-control laws, which ban nearly everyone from carrying firearms outside their homes. The litigation has been spurred by the fact that the Supreme Court, in its recent rulings on the 2nd Amendment, did not clearly spell out what types of gun-control regulations outside the home are permissible. "That's why we're filing so many cases," said Alan Gottlieb, the founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, which filed one of the Illinois cases and has 18 other suits pending. A spokeswoman for Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, the named defendant in the Illinois suits, told WSJ that the Supreme Court "has never interpreted the Second Amendment to include an unrestricted right to carry a concealed gun in public." To read more, visit: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/08/01/suits-push-for-greater-gun-rights-in-public/ |
| Facing Criticism, Perry Steps Back on Gay Marriage, States’ Rights Posted: 01 Aug 2011 04:31 PM PDT By: Jay Root, Texastribune.org Gov. Rick Perry, taking flak from social conservatives and a potential rival in the GOP presidential contest, took a step back from his laissez-faire approach to New York's gay marriage law on Thursday. In now-famous remarks in Aspen last week, Perry said he had no problem with New York passing a law legalizing same sex marriages. "Our friends in New York, six weeks ago, passed a statute that said marriage can be between two people of the same sex," Perry said. "Well you know what, that's New York and that's their business, and that's fine with me." The remarks fit well with Perry's strong states' rights view, as he advocates in his book Fed Up! Perry has also said states should decide whether to legalize marijuana or abortion. But the comments on gay marriage have sparked criticism from social conservatives, including declared GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum, a former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania. Now, in an interview Thursday with the Family Research Council, Perry is dialing back his comments. "I probably needed to add a few words after that 'it's fine with me,' " Perry said in the interview, broadcast on the group's blogging website. "Obviously, gay marriage is not fine with me." While he said he still supported a state's right to pass its own laws on marriage, Perry described New York's law as a threat to other states — a threat that needs to be addressed by changing the U.S. Constitution. Perry has consistently supported a constitutional amendment making it clear marriage can only be between one man and one woman. But in his book and in recent comments to the media, the Texas governor has emphasized a hands-off federalist view that states should determine their own fate — as envisioned by the 10th Amendment — without the heavy hand of a centralized government telling them what to do. To read more, visit: http://www.texastribune.org/texas-politics/2012-presidential-election/rick-perry-changes-tune-gay-marriage/ |
| Man’s divorce blog starts free speech dispute Posted: 01 Aug 2011 04:27 PM PDT From: UPI.com DOYLESTOWN, Pa., Aug. 1 (UPI) — A bitter, divorced Pennsylvania man’s blog has triggered a free-speech debate, officials say. Doylestown resident Anthony Morelli created his blog, ThePsychoExWife.com, in 2007 as a way to blow off steam about his ex-wife, The Philadelphia Inquirer reported Sunday. But then his ex-wife, Allison Morelli, found out about the Web site and became very upset, calling it “heartbreaking” and potentially harmful to their 9- and 12-year-old sons. At a June 6 custody hearing, Bucks County Court Judge Diane Gibbons ordered Anthony Morelli to take down the Web site and banned him from mentioning his ex-wife “on any public media” or saying anything about his children online “other than ‘happy birthday’ or other significant school events.” Over the following two days, Morelli posted two more entries, one saying he would comply with the judge’s ruling and then another calling Allison Morelli “a f- psycho” and a “black-out drunk,” and asked “what kind of f- judge gives the kids back to her?” He also wrote he would keep the blog going, saying, “The judge has no say over what I write here.” On June 14, Gibbons called the Morellis back to court, saying “It is not just venting that I have read in these pages. It amounts to outright cruelty,” and had the Web site shut down. To read more, visit: http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2011/08/01/Mans-divorce-blog-starts-free-speech-dispute/UPI-22461312177317/ |
| Will the planned fiscal committee increase taxes? Posted: 01 Aug 2011 04:24 PM PDT By Brian Montopoli, CBSNews.com If the proposed debt limit deal becomes law, it will create a 12 member bipartisan congressional committee charged with coming up with $1.5 trillion in deficit reductions by Thanksgiving. If the committee fails to do so or Congress does not pass its recommendations by the end of the year, there will be more than $1 trillion automatic spending cuts unless a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution is sent to the states. The automatic spending cuts and the mandatory up or down vote on recommendations give the commission some teeth that many similar panels have not had. Which makes the question of how it will reach its $1.5 trillion in savings an important one. Specifically: Will it follow Republican demands from the current debt limit debate that it only include spending cuts? Or Democratic demands for a “balanced” approach that also includes revenue increases? In an effort to win over skeptical fiscal conservatives, House Speaker John Boehner said in a PowerPoint presentation to his caucus Sunday that it will be “impossible” for the commission to raise taxes. The White House, seeking the backing of rank-and-file Democrats, says that the deal “100 percent” does allow for revenue increases. So who’s right? The key factor in figuring that out is the notion of a “current law baseline.” That sounds complicated, but it isn’t: It just means that you are measuring the cost of spending against the existing law, not what might happen in the future if changes to that law are made. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office’s current law baseline assumes two big things: That the Bush tax cuts will expire at the end of 2012, as the law now says they will, and that the government will not make any changes to the so-called Alternative Minimum Tax, which requires some taxpayers to pay at least some taxes even if they have many deductions that might otherwise exempt them from taxes. If the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire and the AMT is not patched, the government will take in $3.5 trillion more than it would otherwise. To read more, visit: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20086430-503544.html |
| Tea Party leader: ‘We have compromised our way into disaster’ Posted: 01 Aug 2011 03:33 PM PDT From: Spiegel Online Mark Meckler, 49, the co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots in the United States, talks to SPIEGEL about the US debt ceiling, the radical right’s uncompromising fight against the national debt and the “complete economic disaster” he claims President Barack Obama has created. SPIEGEL: The world is looking at Washington and sees gridlock and chaos. How much have the negotiations over the United States’ debt ceiling hurt America’s standing in the world? Meckler: Saying that these debates have hurt our image is absurd. What you currently see in Washington is one of the most responsible debates ever about the size and scope of government. The world should look at what is going on in the United States as a model for what should happen in all countries. SPIEGEL: We look at it and see a Congress held hostage by a small group of radical Tea Party members unwilling to agree to any budget compromise and risking a US default. Meckler: What do you mean by “a small group?” Forty-one percent of voters in the last US election said they agreed with Tea Party values. And the primary values of the Tea Party are about fiscal responsibility. SPIEGEL: But you are willing to accept a US default if your demands for massive budget cuts and no tax increases are not met. That seems rather irresponsible or even unpatriotic. Most leading economists forecast financial “Armageddon” in that case. To read more, visit: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,777705,00.html |
| Internet Explorer users ‘have below-average IQ’ Posted: 01 Aug 2011 03:30 PM PDT From: Telegraph.co.uk PC World reports that a “psychometric consulting” firm called AptiQuant gave free online IQ tests to 100,000 people, and then plotted the scores against the browser on which the tests were taken. It found that Internet Explorer users scored lower than average, while Chrome, Firefox and Safari users were very slightly above average. Camino, Opera and Internet Explorer with Chrome Frame were scored “exceptionally” high. “The study showed a substantial relationship between an individual’s cognitive ability and their choice of web browser,” AptiQuant concluded. “From the test results, it is a clear indication that individuals on the lower side of the IQ scale tend to resist a change/upgrade of their browsers.” Some people have suggested that there may be other factors at work. Business Insider’s Matt Rosoff points out that since IE is the default browser for Windows PC users, anyone who doesn’t know how to download and install a new browser will be stuck with it – “which drags down the average”. And users of other browsers “include a disproportionate number of computer geeks”, which might bring their average up. Or, he admits, it might be that “IE users really are kind of dumb.” Within the group of IE users, version 6 users score lowest, while users of version 8 do rather better. The overall chart shows that Firefox has the smallest percentage of low-IQ users, and the largest of average or high-IQ users. A similar study five years ago found that users had broadly similar IQs. To read more, visit: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet/8674678/Internet-Explorer-users-have-below-average-IQ.html |
| Insurers must cover birth control with no copays Posted: 01 Aug 2011 03:25 PM PDT By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, YahooNews.com WASHINGTON (AP) — Health insurance plans must cover birth control as preventive care for women, with no copays, the Obama administration said Monday in a decision with far-reaching implications for health care as well as social mores. The requirement is part of a broad expansion of coverage for women’s preventive care under President Barack Obama’s health care law. Also to be covered without copays are breast pumps for nursing mothers, an annual “well-woman” physical, screening for the virus that causes cervical cancer and for diabetes during pregnancy, counseling on domestic violence, and other services. “These historic guidelines are based on science and existing (medical) literature and will help ensure women get the preventive health benefits they need,” said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. The new requirements will take effect Jan. 1, 2013, in most cases. Tens of millions of women are expected to gain coverage initially, and that number is likely to grow with time. At first, some plans may be exempt due to a complex provision of the health care law known as the “grandfather” clause. But those even plans could face pressure from their members to include the new benefit. Sebelius acted after a near-unanimous recommendation last month from a panel of experts convened by the prestigious Institute of Medicine, which advises the government. Panel chairwoman Linda Rosenstock, dean of public health at the University of California, Los Angeles, said that prevention of unintended pregnancies is essential for the psychological, emotional and physical health of women. As recently as the 1990s, many health insurance plans didn’t even cover birth control. Protests, court cases, and new state laws led to dramatic changes. Today, almost all plans cover prescription contraceptives — with varying copays. Medicaid, the health care program for low-income people, also covers contraceptives. To read more, visit: http://news.yahoo.com/insurers-must-cover-birth-control-no-copays-140750830.html |
| 4 New Congresspersons Sign On As Co-sponsors To The Frank/Paul End Cannabis Prohibition Act Posted: 01 Aug 2011 03:21 PM PDT By Trevor Lyman, Marijuanaphonebomb.com Four more congresspersons have signed on as co-sponsors for the Barney Frank and Ron Paul HR 2306: Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act 2011. They are Michael Honda [D-CA15], Jerrold Nadler [D-NY8], Charles Rangel [D-NY15], Fortney Stark [D-CA13]. The stigma surrounding cannabis is finally coming to an end but there is much more work to do. Please join us for the first Marijuana phone bomb to take place the first week of September 2011. You can help us get the word out by telling your friends and family and by pledging to participate here. To read more, visit: http://marijuanaphonebomb.com/general/4-new-congresspersons-sign-on-as-co-sponsors-to-the-frankpaul-end-cannabis-prohibition-act/ |
| Congress out to spy on your ‘puter Posted: 01 Aug 2011 03:13 PM PDT By JULIAN SANCHEZ, NYPost.com If Congress had to name laws honestly, it would be called the “Forcing Your Internet Provider to Spy On You Just In Case You’re a Criminal Act of 2011″ — a costly, invasive mandate that even the co-author of the Patriot Act, Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.), says “runs roughshod over the rights of people who use the Internet.” But because it’s disguised as the “Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act,” the House Judiciary Committee approved it last week by a wide margin — even though it’s got little to do with child porn and won’t do much to protect kids. The centerpiece of this ill-conceived law is a sweeping requirement that commercial Internet providers retain a one-year log of all the temporary Internet Protocol addresses they assign to their users, along with customer-identification information. The Justice Department says this will help track down child-porn peddlers by linking online activity and real-world identities. But the government would be able to access that sensitive data for all kinds of investigations, most of which would have nothing to do with child porn. Traditionally, citizens in a free society are presumed innocent. If the police want to look through your computer files, the Fourth Amendment requires them to show a judge that there’s “probable cause” to suspect wrongdoing. The PCIPA turns that assumption on its head, treating every Internet user as a presumptive criminal and exploiting a serious Fourth Amendment loophole. The Constitution protects privacy against government intrusion, but it doesn’t stop the government from forcing private companies to do its dirty work. Records held by a corporation don’t enjoy the same Fourth Amendment protection as does the data on your personal computer — so a search warrant isn’t necessary. But there’s no evidence that law enforcement has a systematic problem obtaining Internet records in child-porn investigations. A Government Accountability Office report released in March concluded that Internet providers usually could provide subpoenaed records — and in the few cases where they couldn’t, investigators could often obtain them by other means. To read more, visit: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/congress_out_to_spy_on_your_puter_z8eadkV4ktqtKfanoon1eL |
| You are subscribed to email updates from RE Tea Party To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
No comments:
Post a Comment