Actually, in this context ‘same as the old boss’ would be a comfort. To me, at least, if not the folks who made such a hullabaloo over the PATRIOT Act; I’m not worried about the government abusing its authority so much as I worry about it making an utter hash of its attempt to try to use it. But of course said ‘abuse’ was not the least common election-year theme – usually in the context of how things would change, once the Republicans weren’t running things. And usually argued by people who really should have known better.
Which is why I’m more amused than anything else about this:
Attorney General Eric Holder endorsed the Senate’s version of legislation that would extend three provisions of the Patriot Act that are slated to expire at the end of the year.
Holder wrote in a letter today to Senate Judiciary Committee members that he offers “strong support” for the USA Patriot Act Sunset Extension Act, which would reauthorize the “lone wolf,” records and “roving wiretap” powers. By contrast, a House version of the bill would not continue the “lone wolf” provision, which lets the government track targets who don’t have any discernible affiliation with terrorist or other foreign groups.
…although I admit that I’m kind of curious of which member of the current ruling party thought that it was a good idea to hamper lone wolf surveillance. The timing for that seems… suboptimal.
Moe Lane
Crossposted to Moe Lane.
KnightsofMalta
Steve Maley
Caleb Howe
Time to blunt that knife
samdallas (Diary) Tuesday, November 10th at 10:30AM EST (link)One thing I didn’t like under GW was his expansions of executive police power. That is against all core conservative values. Now that the boy king is in power I hope that is more clear to more of us. When you consider a new law think of it being exercised by the bully in school who becomes a cop or the Kenyan that becomes president.
We are terrorists according to Obama
cdbymatt Tuesday, November 10th at 11:18AM EST (link)Why would any of us want Obama to have the Lone Wolf provision. That enables him to lawfully monitor and track people who belive in the constitution.
Let's see, Monte -
Locked and Loaded (Diary) Wednesday, November 11th at 8:09AM EST (link)I’ll take door number two.
As long as PC trumps
Warrior (Diary) Wednesday, November 11th at 10:20AM EST (link)everything else, the efficacy of such measures will remain limited.
The Army knew for months that this character Nidal Malik Hasan was an extremist Muslim raving on about suicide bombers, infidels and the like, yet he was still promoted to Major. Nobody needed a Patriot Act or any kind of advanced surveillance powers to detect this gut was a deranged nut — just a serviceable pair of eyes and ears…
As long as we continue to play PC with people’s lives, they will continue to lose them…Remember:
DIVERSITY IS OUR STRENGTH
“Racial criteria are irrational, irrelevant, [and] odious to our way of life.” — Thurgood Marshall for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund in the 1950 Supreme Court case of McLaurin v. Oklahoma
You had the worst possible combination;
Achance (Diary) Wednesday, November 11th at 10:50AM EST (link)a federal agency and the social so-called sciences. As I discussed in a post the other day, somebody like Hasam can sit comfortably in almost any government, local, state, or federal, because all are simply terrified of discrimination and harrassment complaints and suits. If a person is a member of a protected class, they are pretty much immune from discipline and discharge. To compound government’s general inability to deal with poor performance by members of protected classes, people with a background in social sciences should not be allowed to supervise and evaluate ANY employee. In fact, a background in social work, psychology, or psychiatry should be disqualifying for any supervisory or managerial job. There is only one rule for these people: Thou Shalt Not Judge. So what if Susie has confused sex with her 15 year old client with therapy, Susie’s a good person. So what if Sean only sees 3 clients a day when the standard is 7? Sean is a good person. So long as you fit in the good person clique you can do no wrong. On the other hand, if you fall out of the “good person” clique they do, however, turn astoundingly vicious and the person who has fallen out becomes the proverbial sick chicken and is pecked to death by the clique. Over my career, I lost or settled far more grievances/arbitrations involving social services employees than any other. They simply cannot supervise or manage and won’t tolerate anyone around who can.
In Vino Veritas
Achance, I replied 2 U below
Warrior (Diary) Friday, November 13th at 10:22AM EST (link)I can’t believe I hit the wrong button again! Sorry for the delay, too. I just noticed it…
“Racial criteria are irrational, irrelevant, [and] odious to our way of life.” — Thurgood Marshall for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund in the 1950 Supreme Court case of McLaurin v. Oklahoma
For many years,
Warrior (Diary) Wednesday, November 11th at 2:12PM EST (link)my wife was a state prosecuter of child abuse and neglect cases. She spent most of her time arguing with defense attorneys (and social workers) and trying to convince judges that she was not imposing her “middle-class” values on parents when she suggested that defendants’ children should wear shoes in the winter time and maybe eat more than one meal a day.
I myself went to an HBC for my graduate counseling degree. Naturally, being a rock-ribbed conservative, I spent three years keeping my head down and my mouth shut. I even had to drop out of the more lucrative income-producing school of social work because I couldn’t stand hour after hour of “racist white men,” “sexist Christianity,” “patriarchial power structure,” “evil homophobes” and on and on. (Isn’t it unlawful to preach ideology on the public dime?)
Believe me, I know from whence you speak. At state counselor conferences they “know” of my politics, although I haven’t discussed those issues with anyone in the field. (Being a middle-aged white man, of course, makes me a racist brute!) I endure getting “pecked to death” by snarky academic types and strident ideologues convinced of their own righteousness and unwilling to consider an opposing view.
As a practicing counselor, I cannot be “judgemental” as you mean it if I am going to help anyone. I think that simple counseling principle has been erroneously transmuted by rank and file practitioners into the political, moral and religious arenas where it becomes a liability rather than a professional necessity.
I also must say I’ve met several genuinely moral, reasonable and caring people in the field. It’s just a matter of which end you see. The bureaucratic, gubmint admin side tends to attract slackers and gum poppers (although not always.) But I share your frustration.
At one time or another, we’ve all had to deal with one of those “I’m just here ’til five” types who don’t give a rat about you or anything else because they know they can’t be fired. One reason I oppose public employee unions is this very thing. I believe any kind of employees should be treated fairly and receive a fair wage. But nobody HAS to work for the gubmint for crying out loud.
I think many counselors forget that we spend all our time trying to get people to change, to take responsibility for their lives and to stop being dependent on others. For some odd reason, when they enter the voting booth, their minds turn 180 degrees and they pull the lever for the latest peddeler of “gimmie” dependence and wealth spreading schemes. And of course, all that propaganda from the academy fosters abandonment of critical thinking by the individual, regardless of discipline. Law schools and med schools have also become havens of left-wing clap-trap.
Full disclosure: I sometimes only see three clients a day, but it’s not by choice. If I can schedule and see seven a day I will — by all means! (BTW, I’m so old and poor now though, if offered a sinecure at the local gubmint installation, I could probably be bought off. Does that make me a sell out?!)
“Racial criteria are irrational, irrelevant, [and] odious to our way of life.” — Thurgood Marshall for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund in the 1950 Supreme Court case of McLaurin v. Oklahoma
this is such a good post
mom2oneson (Diary) Friday, November 13th at 10:48AM EST (link)I forgot to reply the other day…glad I was nosy and clicked your post to A so I saw it again and could tell you.
You are really a gem in that field.
Mom, that's very encouraging
Warrior (Diary) Friday, November 13th at 11:51AM EST (link)Thanks for taking the time to “be nosy” and reading the post.
You might want to read my on-going diary reviewing Jonah Goldberg’s book, Liberal Fascism.
“Racial criteria are irrational, irrelevant, [and] odious to our way of life.” — Thurgood Marshall for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund in the 1950 Supreme Court case of McLaurin v. Oklahoma