Bring It On!

Who watches the watchers?

August 21st, 2008 | by Steve O |

Here is a perfect response to all the freedom loving neocons out there that respond to our invasion of privacies with “if you did nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide” bullshit.

If you are a neocon or a closet neocon this is a must read. Our privacy is a God (if there is one) given right. If there is no God it’s a human right and no one, under threat of harm or otherwise, has a right to take it away from you.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • e-mail
  • YahooMyWeb
Sphere: Related Content

  1. 34 Responses to “Who watches the watchers?”

  2. By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 21, 2008 | Reply

    Privacy a God given right? Um, we’re born buck nakid; if God had the slightest interest in our privacy, we’d be born fully clothed. Furthermore, if God is God, he knows our every thought and deed, however private we may try to keep it from our fellow man; if God cared about our privacy, he wouldn’t be God. The only sense in which it could be said that God was interested in privacy is in making us humans not able to read one another’s minds. After that, everything we do is able to be observed and almost everything else we do, we do with at least one other person. Sorry, privacy is the last thing on God’s mind.

    As for man-given right, what man gives, man can take away if the purpose is compelling enough. There is no right that we have that is absolute except the right to keep our very thoughts private by not sharing them with another person. Speech, press, assembly, Church practice, gun rights — all of them the government infringes if the people believe that the reason is a good one. One can’t shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater because to do so might cause a panic and people could be crushed to death in a stampede for the exits. One can’t publish libels or falsely advertise because to do so harms the public good. Freedom of assembly can and must be controlled lest the assembly become a mob and so forth and so forth.

    Likewise, whatever the source of privacy, and I contend that it is a man-made right, it cannot be absolute, either. The author only mentions security in the context of calling it one half of a false choice. Sorry but that doesn’t pass the laugh test. Maslov ranks security very high on his ranking of human needs. It certainly comes higher than privacy. If you are not secure, if your life is constantly in danger from sources both natural and man-made, privacy is irrelevant. It is and always has been a balancing act.

  3. By Lazarus Long on Aug 21, 2008 | Reply

    Steve-O:
    “Our privacy is a God (if there is one) given right. If there is no God it’s a human right and no one, under threat of harm or otherwise, has a right to take it away from you.”
    Ok.
    If the right to privacy is a God-given right, show me where He/She/It hands that down. Chapter and verse please.
    Human Right? Show me where the Right to Privacy
    is listed in any Constitution, U.N. charter, etc. Show me in writing where we are guaranteed a right to privacy.
    Nope.
    in this country we have a strong tradition of personal privacy, so strong it is considered a Right. We have a Bill of Rights that defines our Rights against unlawful search and seizure (a form of physical privacy) and the right to remain silent (a form of privacy of thought).
    But where is our right to privacy defined and guaranteed?

  4. By Steve O on Aug 21, 2008 | Reply

    You two absolutely blow my mind. Did you read the article? The right to privacy was always a given in our society, so much so that our founding fathers NEVER thought they had to pen a protection for it.

    But instead of arguing why this right should be protected, even going to the extent of adding a constitutional amendment you would rather tear me apart and discredit me.

    Do you work for the watchers? Simply amazing that you would stand on a party line and defend a stance to take away your rights to privacy.

    Jut amazing. And as the article points out, you can sit there and read what I write and over time find a way to tear it apart and accuse me of something because the rules of privacy are ever changing.

    If you were true patriots you would be crying for an amendment to protect our rights but instead you’ll sit content in finding fault in what a right.

    Bravo!

  5. By Paul Watson on Aug 21, 2008 | Reply

    Well, my right to privacy is guaranteed by the European Union Human Rights legislation. So, there you go, one human rights piece that includes the right to privacy.

    By the way, L Long, it doesn’t matter what the says about human rights, America refuses to ratify those conventions anyway, so they’re not applicable.

  6. By Paul Watson on Aug 21, 2008 | Reply

    Somehow the word UN slipped out of that bit above. maybe they wanted some privacy? ;-)

  7. By Lazarus Long on Aug 21, 2008 | Reply

    Mr. Watson:
    No fair , answering for Steve-O. But you do get credit for the answer.
    Steve-O: Your response is a typical liberal response to a question you have no answer for: The Ad Hominem attack. But then again, to be fair, so do the folks on the right.
    yes, the rules regarding privacy ARE ever changing. My point is, where are the rights to privacy enumerated? (See Mr. Watsons response above……)
    The founding Fathers felt so strongly about the rights of the individual that they spelled them out in the Bill of Rights. Why is the right to privacy not there? Who knows. Maybe it should be. But simply insisting it is WHEN IT ISN’T is no answer (hint: you were so close with your reference to a constitutional amendment………..)
    And
    Don’t question the patriotism of someone still in uniform. It’s beneath you.

  8. By Chris Radulich on Aug 21, 2008 | Reply

    Although the Bill of Rights does not explicitly mention “privacy”, Justice William O. Douglas (writing for the majority) ruled that the right was to be found in the “penumbras” and “emanations” of other constitutional protections. Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote a concurring opinion in which he used the Ninth Amendment to defend the Supreme Court’s ruling. Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote a concurring opinion in which he argued that privacy is protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Byron White also wrote a concurrence based on the due process clause.

  9. By Chris Radulich on Aug 21, 2008 | Reply

    We are also born without guns. Yet the supreme court gave a rather torture and expansive view of the second amendment. If you support that decision it is inconsistant to argue against privacy.

  10. By Lazarus Long on Aug 21, 2008 | Reply

    Mr. Radulich:
    If you could see me now, you’d see tears of joy in mine eyes. Finally, someone posts with FACTS, not wishes and should-be’s.
    Thank you sir.

  11. By Steve O on Aug 21, 2008 | Reply

    Lazarus,

    From a vet to an active duty service member. I would hate to say, but wearing a uniform has nothing to do with patriotism anymore considering the Pentagon has opened the ranks to more violent criminals and gang members.

    And I know all about this. 32nd Naval Station in San Diego was swelling with gang members. Thy wore the uniform but it had nothing to do with patriotism.

    I’m not questioning your patriotism but man aren’t you standing for our freedoms?

    And no I cannot point out any text. I was speaking out my ass, privacy is for the rich who can hide behind their lawyers. I’m sorry, I forgot, you work for them. I’ll be quiet now.

  12. By Lazarus Long on Aug 21, 2008 | Reply

    mr. Radulich:
    I did have such hope for you. The Supreme Court GAVE nothing; they upheld the Second Amendment.
    “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
    Now, do we want to take this thread down that lane?
    Steve-O: Yes, I stand for our freedoms. Especially the freedom to amend our Constitution to include a right to privacy. Now I’ll hand it back to you, gently as I know you’re still healing: What are you doing about it?
    Let’s not go down the recruiting rathole either- we argued about that last year.
    And the working for lawyers bit - that’s cold man.

  13. By Chris Radulich on Aug 21, 2008 | Reply

    From the recent court decision.,

    1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

    keeping a weapon for self defense is also not in the constitution.

  14. By Cranky Liberal on Aug 21, 2008 | Reply

    Hey Craig, good to see you know gods mind. if more peopel in the world were sure they knew what god was thinking, then maybe we’d all get along. No wait, we’d probably all go to war and blow buildings up and torture people.

    Also I loved your born nekkid defense. I seem to remember that adam and eve covered themselves up with a fig leaf because being nude was sinful so why would god make poor babies come into the world that way? Is he trying to stamp sin on each child the moment they are born? That sounds ghastly. Maybe its the devil that has a hand in it.

    Really folks, the first one of you who thinks you don’t have a right to privacy, feel free to wear an ankle bracelet that lets the government know where you are 24 hours a day. Also maybe we coudl put the cameras in your room so we can all watch what you do. I think we shoudl also all get copies of all your mail too. While your at it, please post all your passwords for yoru email and other accounts. After all if you have nothing to hide, you wont care if I look.

    Goobers.

  15. By Lazarus Long on Aug 21, 2008 | Reply

    Mr. Radulich:
    The second amendment protects the individuals right to keep and bear arms as a part of a regulated militia. At the time of drafting, all able bodied men were subject to service in the local militia, part of which required the individual to supply his own kit, to include firearms. This was due to the British habit of disarming colonists, making them vulnerable to attack by indians on the frontier, which was Ohio at the time.
    True, keeping a weapon for self defense is not a Constitutional right. That’s not why I own a few. I own them because the Constitution says I can.
    But
    The Constitution guarantees me the right to vote
    the right to free speech
    the right to assemble
    the right to a free press
    Protection from quartering of troops
    and quite a few more.
    Interesting: The Tenth amendment to the Constitution: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
    So, States and People, where is the Right to Privacy? Seems the Constitution has a way to get it done……..

  16. By Lazarus Long on Aug 21, 2008 | Reply

    Cranky Liberal:
    Good to hear you chime in. Nice to see how the arguement comes full circle, with a proclaimed liberal using the “After all if you have nothing to hide, you wont care if I look.”
    Tell you what: you first. Maybe you can answer my question at the start of this thread: “But where is our right to privacy defined and guaranteed?”
    Tag, you’re it

  17. By Steve O on Aug 21, 2008 | Reply

    Lots of laughs Lazarus, states rights? Almost impossible in this day and age without the federal government threatening to restrict federal tax dollars if they don’t sing the federal song. Real ID is a perfect example of states trying to fight privacy rights.

    Me thinks you picked the wrong tree to bark up on that one. Real ID is being fucking crammed down states, hardly what our founding fathers expected.

    One reason federal taxes should be reduced or rules put in place at the federal level that protects states rights.

    The federal government should never be allowed to withhold my tax dollars to force the state I live in to go against what the state believes are my best interest.

  18. By Cranky Liberal on Aug 21, 2008 | Reply

    Hey Lazurass why would I even try to debate a guy who doesn’t get sarcasm and mockery? Derr

  19. By Lazarus Long on Aug 21, 2008 | Reply

    Steve-O
    “The federal government should never be allowed to withhold my tax dollars to force the state I live in to go against what the state believes are my best interest.”
    As a proud Virginian, I couldn’t agree with you more on that point. Unfortunately, that argument was settled 150 years ago in the War of Northern Aggression.

  20. By Lazarus Long on Aug 21, 2008 | Reply

    Cranky:
    Is that what that was? Let me try it
    Oh REAAALLLY?
    Hmm.
    What do you think?

  21. By Steve O on Aug 21, 2008 | Reply

    Lazarus,

    Unfortunately the Civil War wasn’t fought to obliterate state rights.

    And the constitution was set up to protect state rights and let the legislative branches duke it out how to interpret the words. There is a reason the Constitution is vague.

    But the argument of state against federal rights is fought even til today. And I want back my state rights to be a state, otherwise we do not need the borders of each state anymore.

  22. By Chris Radulich on Aug 21, 2008 | Reply

    The point is that you said that the constitution does not cover privacy because it does not mention it. It also does not mention the right to use guns ofr hunting and self protection. While I personally think that that the decision based on the second amendment was orwellian that is the argument they used. You can not reject an implied right of privacy and accept an implied right of self defense.

    PS The founder specifically rejected an amendment that was not tied to the military.

  23. By Lazarus Long on Aug 21, 2008 | Reply

    Mr. R:
    There can be so such thing as an implied right in the United States. Our rights are clearly enumerated in our Constitution, both Federal and State. The War of Northern Aggression solidified the supremacy of the Federal over the State Constitution.
    We DO have a strong tradition of privacy in this country that is not enumerated anywhere, unfortunately. Self defense is also not a Constitutional right, but it is a defense in a court of law. Interesting conundrum.
    I would like to see your source for the amendment not tied to the military. Could you provide the source?
    Steve-O:
    I disagree: The War of Northern Aggression WAS fought against states rights, specifically the right to secede from the Union, and the right to own slaves.

  24. By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 21, 2008 | Reply

    Lazarus,

    Show me where the Right to Privacy
    is listed in any Constitution…

    It doesn’t actually have to be enumerated in the Constitution for the right to exist. If it pre-existed the Constitution, for example. Check out the ninth amendment! Unlike our government, which is one of enumerated powers — that is, has no powers not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution or implicit in the Constitution’s structure or logically derived from that which is explicit in the Constitution — our rights work the opposite way. We retain as rights whatever we do not yield over to the government in the form of constitutional powers.

    Therefore the following statement: “There can be so such thing as an implied right in the United States. Our rights are clearly enumerated in our Constitution, both Federal and State”, is not correct. I retain to myself the right to wear yellow underwear. The Government is not empowered to forbid the wearing of yellow underwear merely on the basis of the fact that the underwear are yellow. Therefore I have the right to wear yellow underwear that the government cannot infringe unless the yellow die is found to be toxic to wearers of yellow underwear or something like that. Now the wearing of yellow underwear is nowhere enumerated in the Constitution and it is not necessary to amend the Constitution to enshrine the right to wear yellow underwear. The right to wear yellow underwear is implied in the ninth amendment which explicitly states that the enumeration of certain rights does not mean that those enumerated rights do not exist. We do not have to enshrine a right in a US or state constitution; we merely retain it to ourselves, that is, refuse to cede to the government the authority to regulate or forbid said right.

    Therefore, the question is, always, not, “Where is our right to this or that enshrined?” The question is, “Where did we, the people, ever empower the government, at whatever level, to infringe said right?”

  25. By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 21, 2008 | Reply

    Steve O,

    You two absolutely blow my mind. Did you read the article? The right to privacy was always a given in our society, so much so that our founding fathers NEVER thought they had to pen a protection for it.

    Yes, I read the article. I agree with it in part and I dissent with it in part but I did read it.

    Then there’s this:

    But instead of arguing why this right should be protected, even going to the extent of adding a constitutional amendment you would rather tear me apart and discredit me.

    I did argue why security concerns should be balanced against security concerns. I did not tear you apart. In fact, my comment does not attack you in any way. Nor did I discredit you. I took your post and the argument of your linked article seriously. I merely disagreed with a statement you made in your post and added a perspective that I thought missing from both the article and your post. If this is what passes for tearing you apart and discrediting you, I don’t know what to say. I was completely respectful of your person, your post and the article.

    I agree that a right to privacy precedes the Constitution (and therefore, does not need to be enumerated in the Constitution to exist). In fact, I explicitly said that I consider it a man given right. I followed that with a statement to the effect that what man gives he can take away to whatever degree the people believe necessary in order to secure ourselves and our nation from enemies.

  26. By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 22, 2008 | Reply

    The following sentence from the preceding comment of mine: “I did argue why security concerns should be balanced against security concerns” should read: “I did argue why security concerns should be balanced against privacy concerns.”

  27. By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 22, 2008 | Reply

    By the way, Lazarus, I assume that when you wrote: “There can be so such thing as an implied right in the United States”, what you intended to write was: “There can be no such thing as an implied right in the United States.

  28. By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 22, 2008 | Reply

    Lazarus,

    My brain blew a gasket when writing the following: “The right to wear yellow underwear is implied in the ninth amendment which explicitly states that the enumeration of certain rights does not mean that those enumerated rights do not exist.”

    It should have read: “The right to wear yellow underwear is implied in the ninth amendment which explicitly states that the enumeration of certain rights does not mean that unenumerated rights do not exist.”

    Sorry for the confusion.

  29. By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 22, 2008 | Reply

    Steve O,

    Jut amazing. And as the article points out, you can sit there and read what I write and over time find a way to tear it apart and accuse me of something because the rules of privacy are ever changing.

    I sat here and disagreed with you. Whole other vibe, man. Surely, if it’s okay to disagree with the President of the United States (and of course, it is) then, just as surely, it is okay to disagree with Steve O or the author of the linked article. I accused you of absolutely nothing, Steve O.

    As for ever changing standards, isn’t that a virtual shibboleth of the left and of Supreme Court Justice Kennedy? It is quite obviously true. The right to abort fetuses never existed until 1973 when a set of Supreme Court Justices decided it did based, interestingly enough for the purposes of this discussion, on the right of privacy emanating from an assortment of explicitly enumerated rights. There can be no other explanation than that those Justices believed that the right of privacy was ever changing and it did, in 1973, change to encompass the right to kill human fetuses for essentially any reason whatsoever. Don’t kick me for the concept that people’s notions of what is and is not encompassed in their rights changes over time. You liberals were doing it long before I ever mentioned it. But I contend that an ever changing notion of what is and is not encompassed in the rights that the people have is enshrined in the tenth amendment which states that powers not explicitly given to the government in the Constitution are retained to the states or to the people. Since, constitutionally speaking, the people are sovereign, all governmental authority deriving from their consent, a long established constitutional principle, the people may both expand or contract the circumference of rights which they either retain to themselves or yield to the states or federal government, it is not only not patriotic to suggest that people’s notions of what their rights are or are not change over time, it is a constitutional principle.

    Tell you what, Steve O. I’ll not call you unpatriotic if you don’t call me unpatriotic. Deal?

    If you were true patriots you would be crying for an amendment to protect our rights but instead you’ll sit content in finding fault in what a right.

  30. By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 22, 2008 | Reply

    Oops, forgot that last part. The last sentence in my last comment was a quote from Steve O’s comment way up above. I’ll respond to it here. While the sentence is not altogether a coherent one, I think I get the gist. If I were a true patriot, I would be crying for an amendment rather than arguing that it must be balanced, just as all of our other rights must be, against some legitimate interest of the people and the people’s elected government. Is that about it?

    Bullshit. Whatever happened to “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism!”? Or does that mean just Liberal dissent against a conservative government? Again, bullshit. If dissent is the highest form of patriotism, being the search for what an individual deems to be in the best interest of his own rights and security and welfare and the rights and security and welfare of the people of America, then that includes ALL dissent, including dissent from YOUR opinion.

    I’m not sure where you got the idea to unload a lot of crap on me, Steve O, but I plead not guilty.

  31. By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 22, 2008 | Reply

    Steve O,

    Do you work for the watchers? Simply amazing that you would stand on a party line and defend a stance to take away your rights to privacy.

    No I don’t. I speak my own mind. I do not stand on any party line; I write my own independent conclusions from my own understanding of history, the law and Constitution, and my own ratiocination. Yes. I believe that people’s rights, including my own, expand and contract in response to conditions. Let me give a for-instance:

    For purposes of this thought experiment, take as a given that cities all over America were experiencing the sort of terrorist attacks that Israel experienced at the hight of the two intifadas.

    I would expect that the local, state and federal government would institute security counter-measures designed to prevent said attacks and that these counter measures would intrude upon privacy to a much greater degree than I would accept in times of relative peace. Why? Because it would be unreasonable to say that my, or indeed, anyone else’s privacy outweighed the legitimate interest in preventing that sort of widespread violence.

    That might include searches of persons or vehicles without prior warrant, just as we already tolerate arbitrary stops, searches and seizures at our nation’s borders.

  32. By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 22, 2008 | Reply

    Cranky,

    Hey Craig, good to see you know gods mind.

    I don’t claim to know the mind of God. I extrapolated from the actions of God — if there be a God who created us. If he were interested in our privacy, wouldn’t you suspect that he would let us in on that fact? Wouldn’t you expect a “Thou shalt not invade the privacy of another person” in there among the ten big ones or, in fact, among the some 600+ commands found by orthodox Jews in the Old Testament or something to the various kings of Israel mentioning that people have some privacy right or another? Okay, take it out of purely Christian or Jewish scripture. Where are the divine commands protecting people’s privacy? I can’t claim to have read or studied every religion’s holy writings so I’m open to being informed on the matter. But purely extrapolating from what we know for certain if their is a God, it doesn’t seem as though he was all that interested in privacy rights.

    Okay, I take that back. One just came to me. After being expelled from the garden of Eden, God fashioned for Adam and Eve clothes of animal skins so I suppose that, if you take the Genesis story seriously as an expression of God’s will toward privacy, on the plane of human to human interaction, I suppose there is some warrant for God’s making allowances for two embarrassed sinners to cover their nakedness. That’s mighty slim pickings from which to extrapolate a right of privacy of divine origin.

    if more peopel in the world were sure they knew what god was thinking, then maybe we’d all get along. No wait, we’d probably all go to war and blow buildings up and torture people.

    I don’t know. Steve O seems pretty certain that there’s an inviolable right to privacy, of either human or divine origin, that no concern for security, either private or societal, can justify restricting. I fail to see how that’s any different from me claiming to know, with certainty, the mind of God…which I didn’t actually do. As I said, I extrapolated from the actions of God in creating us beings with very limited ability to keep much of anything private from others and who doesn’t seem to have expressed much interest in the matter, claiming as he does to know all things, including the hears and minds of men himself.

    Also I loved your born nekkid defense. I seem to remember that adam and eve covered themselves up with a fig leaf because being nude was sinful so why would god make poor babies come into the world that way?

    Actually, I don’t read anywhere that they covered themselves because it was sinful to be naked. I read that they covered themselves because they felt ashamed of their nakedness. Since God created them naked and said nothing about nakedness being sinful and since, even after the fall, God still never says that nakedness is sinful, I gotta conclude that nakedness, per se, cannot be all that sinful.

    Is he trying to stamp sin on each child the moment they are born? That sounds ghastly. Maybe its the devil that has a hand in it.

    See above. God nowhere, to my knowledge says that being naked is sin and therefore, being born naked does not make babies sinful. What brought sin into the world was Adam and Eve’s disobedience regarding the one prohibition that God had given them: of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, you shall not eat for in the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die.

    Really folks, the first one of you who thinks you don’t have a right to privacy, feel free to wear an ankle bracelet that lets the government know where you are 24 hours a day. Also maybe we coudl put the cameras in your room so we can all watch what you do. I think we shoudl also all get copies of all your mail too. While your at it, please post all your passwords for yoru email and other accounts. After all if you have nothing to hide, you wont care if I look.

    I cannot speak for anyone else but, in my first comment, I explicitly said that privacy was a man made right. I merely suggested that (a) no right is absolute and the Supreme Court has long engaged in balancing acts between the rights of people and the valid interests of society and government’s valid interests in protecting society and, oddly enough, have done it to the praise of liberals and (b) that right to privacy, which I acknowledged, ought to be balanced, like every other right we people possess, against the need for personal and societal security. It’s not like I haven’t said anything that the most liberal Supreme Court Justice hasn’t said before.

    Anyway, thanks for asking.

  33. By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 22, 2008 | Reply

    Really folks, the first one of you who thinks you don’t have a right to privacy, feel free to wear an ankle bracelet that lets the government know where you are 24 hours a day. Also maybe we coudl put the cameras in your room so we can all watch what you do. I think we shoudl also all get copies of all your mail too. While your at it, please post all your passwords for yoru email and other accounts. After all if you have nothing to hide, you wont care if I look.

    Not thinking one has a right to privacy that the government may not infringe for what one thinks might be valid reason does not obligate one to give up privacy just for the hell of it. We already give up our privacy under certain conditions: upon entering and leaving the country, for example, the border guards can, at their discretion, search one’s car, the contents of everything in the car and one’s person, all without a warrant, a judges verbal okay or anything other than the Court’s controlling decision that such searches are within the border guard’s absolute discretion.

    Why?

    Because the Court recognizes that the government has a valid interest in national security that override Americans’ privacy rights in those circumstances. That doesn’t oblige me to let you search me, my car, or anything in my car unless you are a police officer, in which case, under certain conditions, again, the Court has ruled that police officers may search me and my car and everything in it incident to a lawful arrest, for example, or if, by the plain-sight rule, he happens to see illegal contraband in my car.

    But you, not a police officer in the carrying out of your lawful duties? Hell no. Like I said, I don’t say there is no right to privacy. I say the privacy right is no more absolute than any other right.

  34. By Lazarus Long on Aug 22, 2008 | Reply

    Craig:
    you’re either an insomniac or work a graveyard shift.
    Hopefully you’ve been able to pick up on my playing devils advocate in this argument. This been a good exercise in rhetoric as well.
    Yes, meant to say “There can be NO such thing as an implied right in the United States” rather than “There can be so such thing as an implied right in the United States”. Late post, forgot my specs. Thanks for calling that out to everyone ;>
    As always, I can depend on these threads to give me pause to think. Privacy is a very personal concept, one which many people take for granted, and don’t seem to realize is slipping away.
    Like most citizens of this world, when all is said and done, all I really want is to be left alone by governments and various well meaning fools. But, when Steve-O and others rush to throw labels on folks of independent minds (non-liberal), I just have to jump in with an opposing thought.
    This thread has been one of the better ones I’ve seen, some good thought and arguments put forth.
    BTW, I do work for the Watchers………..

  35. By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 22, 2008 | Reply

    Lazarus,

    Insomniac. Well, last night, anyway. I’m much the same way about playing devil’s advocate. If I can’t find something to disagree with in a post, dang it, I get frustrated and think, “What can I argue against here?” As for forgetting specs, I corrected only a few of my errors. As you noted, it was very late.

Post a Comment

Fish.Travel