This one just defies reason:
| Mayor sees wireless service as
basic right Tue Oct 4, 2005 6:56 AM BST By Eric Auchard SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who became internationally known for his campaign a year ago to legalize gay marriage, said on Monday he considered wireless Internet access a fundamental right of all citizens. ... Wireless access can be seen a basic right that should be available not just to business professionals but also lower-income citizens. "This is a civil rights issue as much as anything else," Newsom said. |
Someone obviously doesn't understand what a "right" is - much less what constitutes a fundamental right.
A right can be seen as something you have, even when you possess nothing. Speaking without government interference is a right. Having an active voice in how your society is governed is a right. Worshipping (or not worshipping) the deity or deities of your choice is a right. Bearing arms to defend the safety of yourself and/or community is a right.
Having a right to something does not mean that exercising that right it is without monetary cost - it's free, but not as in beer. If you want to disseminate your opinion or information, you have many options, anything from standing on a street corner shouting at anyone who will listen, to mass printings to broadcasting on the public airwaves. You do NOT have the right, however, to force me to pay for it.
And that's what the mayor of San Francisco seems to be trying to do - force you to pay for the equipment and service so everyone in SF can access the latest Strongbad email, or whack off to pictures or video of bikers wearing diapers chasing nurses dressed as Smurfs.
I am livid. Absolutely consumed with rage. Congratulations all you "progressives," all you supporters of socialism, all you Democrats, the next step in Communizing the U.S. has been taken :
| Supreme Court Rules Cities May
Seize Homes By William Branigin The Supreme Court today effectively expanded the right of local governments to seize private property under eminent domain, ruling that people's homes and businesses -- even those not considered blighted -- can be taken against their will for private development if the seizure serves a broadly defined "public use." In a 5-4 decision, the court upheld the ability of New London, Conn., to seize people's homes to make way for an office, residential and retail complex supporting a new $300 million research facility of the Pfizer pharmaceutical company. The city had argued that the project served a public use within the meaning of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution because it would increase tax revenues, create jobs and improve the local economy. A group of homeowners in New London's Fort Trumbull area had fought the city's attempt to impose eminent domain, arguing that their property could be seized only to serve a clear public use such as building roads or schools or to eliminate blight. The homeowners, some of whom had lived in their house for decades, also argued that the public would benefit from the proposed project only if it turned out to be successful, making the "public use" requirement subject to the eventual performance of the private business venture. |
The sheer arrogance, the hubris of these bureaucrat bastards, putting their department's reputation before the safety of the country:
|
U.S. Border Patrol agents have been ordered not to arrest illegal aliens along the section of the Arizona border where protesters patrolled last
month because an increase in apprehensions there would prove the
effectiveness of Minuteman volunteers, The Washington Times has learned.
More than a dozen agents, all of whom asked not to be identified for fear of retribution, said orders relayed by Border Patrol supervisors at the Naco, Ariz., station made it clear that arrests were "not to go up" along the 23-mile section of border that the volunteers monitored to protest illegal immigration. ( Washington Times ) |
Tip o' the hat to Cheryl for the link.
You scored as Anarchism. Imunimaginative's Deviantart Page
What Political Party Do Your Beliefs Put You In? created with QuizFarm.com |
Q: What do the Left and Islamist Fundamentalists have in common?
A: They both are desperate for Democracy to fail in Iraq.
The Islamists say Democracy is evil, a product of the corrupt West, a sentiment the Western Left seems to support, despite their protests to the contrary. They say that Iraq does not want Democracy, that her people cannot handle it and that any elections while the Iraqi state is under U.S. protection are illegitimate. The Islamists are willing to kill Iraqis to crush any hopes for freedom in the Middle East, and the Leftists cheer them on in their desperation to illegitimize George Bush.
But the Iraqi people are braver than either of their foes would believe, and give both the Islamists and their Socialist allies a defiant finger.
I love my parents. I love them dearly, and I'd kill or die for
them should the need arise. But politically, we're night and day, split like the
country itself. Readers who know me know that I am, for the Internet world,
fairly conservative. I prefer to think of myself as a lowercase "L" libertarian.
My parents, however, are uppercase "L" Liberals.
How this came to be is no great mystery, as my folks (like many of the hippie generation) have always been of a leftward bend. And as the acorn falls not far from the tree, I, too, was (lowercase) liberal for the first 25 years or so of my life. But as I grew up and began to think more and more for myself, something changed.
MANCHESTER music legend Morrissey sparked controversy when he announced Ronald Reagan's death live on stage during a concert - and then declared he wished it was George H.W. Bush, former U.S. president and father of the current holder of that office, who had died instead.
