Economic Left/Right: -0.12
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -6.72

1 down, 2 left of center, near Ghandi who will look over and move.

I don't remember my exact score, but it was negative one or two point something in both dimensions.

However, there were a lot of questions I wanted to answer with "yes (or no) but...".

Economic Left/Right: -1.88
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -6.26

Closest person on the international chart is the Dalai Lama.
I tend to vote Libertarian in Federal elections and other
parties in local.

Hey Toast (and everyone else), take this test:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Lemme know where you end up. I am:

Economic Left/Right: 2.75
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -1.49

1 down, 3 right of center.

Something else in Cali that I think is FAR worse than the Patriot Act:

http://www.ocweekly.com/ink/03/37/cover-kane.php

Couldn't it have been handled in another way?!?

For example: Fine the person DOING THE QUESTIONING $1000, NOT the person being questioned, and word it in a way that it's not specific to the Patriot act: "It is illegal to question someone about their own, or another person's, activities without a court order or an arrest being made".

The problem I have with this is that a person may have info on a terrorist, but suddenly they will be fined (granted a paltry sum) for turning them in! Instead make it a fineable offense to ask the questions, since that's the specific act that they want to stop, right?! Then you aren't directly countermanding the Patriot act, or asking citizens to break federal laws, but rather are attacking the specific problem.

This law hurts the innocent as much as the Patriot act itself. If questioned, you're in a lose/lose situation.

I've got a good reason why passing the law is really a bad idea, and it's kind of playing off the libertarian-poster who said it's a bad idea to pass junk laws: that is, that the law is a "statement" with absolutely no balls at all.

To LoveGravy, I'd say that the time when it's OK to disobey a federal law is when you are actually DISOBEYING it, to wit, if the community of Arcata had the patriot act enforced against them in some manner, and said "go stuff yourself" to the federales. Now THAT takes balls! Simply passing a law that says "we don't degree" is useless gesturing of the first order (since the law is invalid de facto and de jure) and doesn't really DO anything -- it's a prime political maneuver!

I am waiting for the first librarian to say NO to the FBI, then once the FBI has come and gone to tell everyone. That's a statement worth standing up for.

Arcata, it should be noted, is the home of the Arcata Eye, which in turn is the home of the best police-beat column in the world.

  http://www.arcataeye.com/police/

(You've probably seen this before, but I figured I should mention it for those who haven't.)

You americans have the best witch hunts... salam, macarthyism, etc, but calling a witch hunt 'the patriot act' takes the cake.... weird... at least there is someone sane all the way over there, even if they live where bears shit....

OK Chico, now I feel all wierd.

Well, frankly, I thought you were a woman and the LoveGravy was sort of, well, the gravy of love, you know, and now I feel like I've been in the Crying Game. No matter, it's all about the posts. Carry on.

Edited by author 05-19-2003 06:32 PM
By the way, my name comes from this:

http://www.southparkstudios.com/down/downl...cca2f2411e8a20c45b4

Chef from South Part is the poet laureate of this age...

Toast,

I'm trying to think of a case where it IS a good idea for a town to override Federal mandates. It sets a bad precedent. As many boingboingers like to do, don't only look at this case, look at the precedent it sets. My outrageous example simply takes the concept of allowing cities to supercede laws from a higher court to an extreme.

My father is an Opthalmologist, and is well versed in the perscription of marijuana for glaucoma patients. Does that mean a town can say "Medical Marijuana is OK"? I don't believe so, and neither does he. I'm a pro-choice person. If Roe-v-Wade is overturned, do I think it's OK for towns to override it? No, as HUGE of a mistake as I think overturning that precedent would be, I also feel that a city is too small of a body to override that decision. I DO feel, however, that a state can take a stab at it, but allowing it at the city level could lead to pandemonium. It opens a dangerous door.

Near where I live there is a town called "Rabbit Hash" (I live in KY). It is for sale, for $300,000. I can buy the entire town and become it's mayor. There are thousands of these tiny towns out there, what's to prevent a wealthy person to say "No Federal Income Tax in my town" (No roads needing Federal funds to maintain, no real huge benefits from the Federal government, so why not??). What if the KKK buys the town, what laws are they going to override? Do we say "Ok, the town has to have at least 10,000 citizens to override a Federal Law"? Or maybe 100,000? Where do the lines get drawn?

It's not that I have any love for the Patriot act, it's that I think that the move this town is making is a dangerous one. It's hard to say "Well, in this case it's OK, but if it's a case that I DON'T agree with then it's wrong", the problem with the law is that it must be applied evenly, and if this is allowed, then abuse within the confines of this precedent must be allowed too.

re the whole LoveGravy thing:
I used to think that that name was some sort of a naughty colloquialism, but now I'm thinking it comes more from an attraction a certain dressing or condiment that's yummy on potatos! Kudos to him!

Edited by author 05-19-2003 05:35 PM
oh lovegravy, i come to the quicktopic for you, all you. well, you and sakusha, pretty much. you are so fun, so cute, such a delight. on the long lonely days when i'm feeling a bit cranky, it's you that i turn to. never leave.