Blogcritics: Comments on Welcome to the Police State

Comment by Shark

Sun, 22 May 2005 22:02:57 EDT

RJ: "Seriously, if this bill passes, I might have to become that which a hate the most: Someone who calls our current leaders a pack of out-of-control fascists..." Dude, what took ya so long!? Anyway, come on over; we have much better *"meetings" (think The Battle of Algiers meets Woodstock -- and better yet, NO DRESS CODE!) *group gay sex is optional, but we will force you to inhale

Comment by Bennett

Sun, 22 May 2005 19:01:01 EDT
"the cheese they eat in Wisconsin destroys their minds." True. It's what happened to Senator Proxmire.

Comment by gonzo marx

Sun, 22 May 2005 18:06:11 EDT
Mr Nalle sez.. *What does it say that this bill can spark outrage on FreeRepublic AND DailyKos?* ummm..another Sign of the Apocalypse? or... "where am i going in this handbasket and why do i have a snowball?" this has been brought to you as a public service announcement from our sponsor.. Excelsior!

Comment by Dave Nalle

Sun, 22 May 2005 18:03:19 EDT
Thanks Shannon, never expected to see my words on DailyKos. You know, I posted the article to FreeRepublic as well as here, and the responses there, the responses here and the responses to your piece on DailyKos are very similar. What does it say that this bill can spark outrage on FreeRepublic AND DailyKos? Dave

Comment by Shannon

Sun, 22 May 2005 17:55:28 EDT
Dave, you and I have had minor tussles in the past, but man -- kudos to you on this one. I wrote it up over at dailyKos with some examples from my life/experience: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/5/21/185758/590 ...because is just ridiculous. Good on you for pointing it out.

Comment by Dave Nalle

Sat, 21 May 2005 11:16:24 EDT
I think Sensenbrenner's long stay in office is a sign that all the cheese they eat in Wisconsin destroys their minds. Dave

Comment by sydney

Sat, 21 May 2005 11:03:43 EDT
I'd love to ararnge a mass hot-tips phone in on teh day the bill took affect. Overwelm the the police with tips; "the kids that have a locker next to me were talkin about being stoned at Jared Roy's party this weekend. Can I hang up now?" "tommy, this guy from school, says he likes weed. I think he somkes it for real" What the fuck are people Sensennbrenner doing in office? IS this guy out of his fuckin mind? This is a fucked up country ... I got to say. Makes me want to toss the whole bunch of elitest rich, old-boys out of office. Totally wack country we live in.

Comment by Dave Nalle

Sat, 21 May 2005 10:40:58 EDT
Well, I'm willing to accept that it has some resemblance to collectivism. But I've never said I was opposed to collectives or co-ops. It's the one thing the Wobblies actually support that's not a bad idea. Living out here in farm country I understand how important Co-ops were in their day, and the basic model has validity in any capitalist economy. Hell, look at Nokia - it's run by a collective. But the difference between a corporation and a collective is that the participation of the stockholders of a corporation is separate from the participation of the workers employed by the corporation. The concepts are similar, but the allocation of work and resources is different. But both should be treated in a way similar to individuals for legal purposes. Dave

Comment by gonzo marx

Sat, 21 May 2005 03:29:45 EDT
Mr Nalle sez.. *The whole idea of a corporation is that it will be an entity which functions like a person and represents the interests of multiple participants* yep..like i said..communist heh Excelsior!

Comment by Dave Nalle

Sat, 21 May 2005 03:20:16 EDT
>>no matter what informed or came before it, our Constitution is the Social Contract upon which our Society is based...<< Actually, it's not. The Constitution is the document which lays out the structure of our government. Our society is based on an unwritten social contract which goes back much farther than the Constitution and is much more universal. The Declaration of Independence is closer to being an expression of that social contract than the Constitution is. >>it has provisions for Amendment to add what we, as a Society agree on...hell, it even gives us the Rules to do so in clear and easy to follow Instructions...if you look closely i'll bet you can find why the Government is allowed to tax anything they want to, without the need to create some new legal fiction that defines a corporation as a "person"<< Actually, no. The Constitution specifically prohibits taxation by the Federal Government, and the 16th amendment only authorizes taxation of individual income. What I'm saying is that there's a tradition of common law which exists separate from the Constitution and governs issues which the Constitution was never intended to address. The whole idea of a corporation is that it will be an entity which functions like a person and represents the interests of multiple participants. As such it gains some of the rights of the people the corporation represents. In a lot of ways a corporation is like a government by contract. The earliest forms of government in America were basically corporations. This idea that corporations are basically like people is essentially a legal construct which makes them eaiser to deal with within the already existing general structure of the law, and it's very useful. Dave

Comment by gonzo marx

Sat, 21 May 2005 02:01:42 EDT
I am well Aware that our Constitution was Influenced and Informed by such documents as the Magna Carta and other principles i just think that when you say something like *subscribed to the belief that if it's not in the constitution then it shouldn't be done* it disQualifies you from ever being able to state anything about "strict Constutionists" without being a philosophical Hypocrite... no matter what informed or came before it, our Constitution is the Social Contract upon which our Society is based...it has provisions for Amendment to add what we, as a Society agree on...hell, it even gives us the Rules to do so in clear and easy to follow Instructions...if you look closely i'll bet you can find why the Government is allowed to tax anything they want to, without the need to create some new legal fiction that defines a corporation as a "person" utilizing the "Logic" you are putting forward...the concept of "collective" rights outside of the Nation as a whole, then a Union has the EXACT same Rights as a Corporation as a Citizen as a Baseball team as a Street Gang since ALL of them would have these so called "collective" Rights...sounds like communism to me no thanks only living, breathing, Human Beings as Individuals have those ...as far as my understanding of the Constitution goes.. please point out where this whole "collective" thing comes in, and how it helps the Citizenry as a Whole, rather than being a nice thing for the Robber Barons... i guess i just fall into the hermetic,gnostic, esoteric Tradition of Thought...you know..like those kooky Freemasons...you remember, most know them as the Continental Congress? or even, every President we have had check that pyramid on the back of your dollars..or even better...an aerial view of Washington DC... but i digress... Excelsior!

Comment by Dave Nalle

Sat, 21 May 2005 01:40:44 EDT
Actually, this idea predates the Constitution, and while it isn't in there - there's virtually no business law in the Constitution - it's a well established principle of law. And contrary to what you may think, a great deal of our every day law that doesn't really have much to do with the larger principles of law in the Constitution, draws on things like English Common Law and other parts of the legal tradition. Dave

Comment by gonzo marx

Sat, 21 May 2005 01:35:23 EDT
anybody but me see the hysterical Humor in this one.. on the one hand Mr Nalle speak of strict contructionalism.."subscribed to the belief that if it's not in the constitution then it shouldn't be done" and in the next breath he talks about corporations" being "people" and having "Rights".. can anyone point to me in the Constitution where this "brilliant" idea says anything about Corporations...or the Rights they have ... any Amendments? convenient to say you have to work on a strict and Literal sense when it works out for you, but then turn around and call something completely made up and call that "brilliant" the Persecution Rests... Excelsior!

Comment by Dave Nalle

Sat, 21 May 2005 01:30:00 EDT
>>can't see how they could be deemed "unconstitutional" when the original Intent was for a "citizen government" as is clearly indicated by the Founders own writings as well as the structure they set up...<< The kinds of people who wanted term limits were also generally strict constitutionalists, and subscribed to the belief that if it's not in the constitution then it shouldn't be done. The Constitution says nothing about limits, therefore the only way to have them would be either a constitutional amendment or to have each individual state enact them. And I believe a few states did pass term limits and some or all of them later repealed them. >>or how about that kooky 1890's Supreme Court Decision that "corporations" were "people"....that one is such a hoot..do you really need lil ole me to point out just how much evil has arisen from that boondoggle?<< Actually, it's an absolutely brilliant interpretation of a basic principle of republican government. A corporation, which represents the collective interests of a group of citizens MUST by its very nature be treated as a sovereign individual with all the rights and responsibilities that entails. This is the only justification for taxing corporations under our current tax structure, and the only way that they can function effectively in society. It's on the basis of this presumption of corporate identity that corporations can be sued, own property and engage in trade. It's also enormously important in protecting corporations from exploitation by the state. Dave

Comment by gonzo marx

Sat, 21 May 2005 01:15:56 EDT
can't see how they could be deemed "unconstitutional" when the original Intent was for a "citizen government" as is clearly indicated by the Founders own writings as well as the structure they set up... too bad, really..to me, many of the things that are wrong with our Federal Government stem from the "professional" political class and the constant addictive need for more and more money to get re-elected but then again , to me..money is NOT speech..sez so right here on the back "legal tender for all debts, public or private"...not to mention the one about only the Federal Government can print money...would that not imply that only the Fed can make speech? or how about that kooky 1890's Supreme Court Decision that "corporations" were "people"....that one is such a hoot..do you really need lil ole me to point out just how much evil has arisen from that boondoggle? but i digress... Excelsior!

Comment by Dave Nalle

Fri, 20 May 2005 23:53:43 EDT
The core groups which were pushing for term limits came to the realization that they were probably unconstitutional and the issue sort of faded away. Dave

Comment by gonzo marx

Fri, 20 May 2005 23:37:53 EDT
a walking, talking advertisement for term limits...eh? whatever happened to that Idea? /sigh Excelsior!

Comment by Dave Nalle

Fri, 20 May 2005 23:33:56 EDT
One has to wonder what kind of cheese high the people of Wisconsin are on to keep electing Sensenbrenner. He's in his 14th term in the House too. Dave

Comment by gonzo marx

Fri, 20 May 2005 23:18:20 EDT
and that what Mr Nalle is speaking of is even a remote possibility should scare the hell out of any decent folks with more active cells in their skulls than a cup of yogurt nice to see folks like Mr Nalle and RJ speaking out against the kinds of swine that could possibly believe this Bill is a good idea... there may be Hope yet.. Excelsior!

Comment by Dave Nalle

Fri, 20 May 2005 23:07:52 EDT
I have to say, RJ, that this bill does not seem to be all that widely supported. It may be significant that Sensenbrenner has no co-sponsors on the bill. It's surprising that it made it out of committee, but that doesn't mean it's going to go anywhere on the floor of the House. What we really need to look out for is the basic elements of the bill resurfacing as an amendment to some more innocuous legislation and getting snuck into law that way. Dave

Comment by RJ

Fri, 20 May 2005 20:53:00 EDT
Seriously, if this bill passes, I might have to become that which a hate the most: Someone who calls our current leaders a pack of out-of-control fascists...

Comment by Traci

Thu, 19 May 2005 18:53:38 EDT
Sure seams like a funny way to stop prison overcrowding!

Comment by Dave Nalle

Thu, 19 May 2005 15:23:07 EDT
Good point subtly including the somewhat racist aspect of expanding the 'drug free' zones, DrPat. Not a bad aspect of this monstrosity to draw attention to. Dave

Comment by DrPat

Thu, 19 May 2005 15:16:04 EDT
Thanks for the heads-up, Dave! For anyone here short of words, the following is what I wrote to my own Congress-critter:
Please do everything you can to stop H.R. 1528, Defending America's Most Vulnerable: Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child Protection Act of 2005. H.R. 1528 criminalizes activities that are not crimes, such as suspecting someone of selling drugs, or distributing sterile syringes to reduce the spread of AIDS and hepatitis. In addition, its expansion of what is considered a "drug-free" zone will ensure that urban drug users get harsh mandatory minimum sentences while those who commit the same offenses in rural and suburban areas get far less time. I am especially troubled by two aspects of H.R. 1528. The first is the requirement to divulge suspicions of drug use to the police within 24 hours or risk a 2-year mandatory sentence. The second is that private citizens who do reveal their suspicions can then be required to cooperate in every way with the resulting investigation -- including wearing a wire and going undercover if needed. That would put many Americans into dangerous situations by forcing them to go undercover to gain evidence against dangerous criminals, simply because they overheard a suspicious remark. Suspicion is a shaky plank with which to prop up the War on Drugs. Would you rather have the parents turn their son in to the police when he is discovered with a joint, or teach him not to use drugs? What about the girl who listens to a school-mate bragging about using drugs? This law would make that child a criminal for not reporting the conversation to police, and her parents criminals for not reporting their daughter's failure to report. This does nothing to provide safe access to drug treatment, and is totally contrary to protecting children. H.R. 1528 is so bad that it cannot be fixed. I urge you to oppose it in its entirety.

Comment by Nancy

Thu, 19 May 2005 14:52:22 EDT
He does look kind of crazed ... maybe he's been smoking something? Hey - maybe I'd better report him?!