Over at Cake or Death, Chad wonders why the New York Civil Liberties Union holds that:
It’s illegal for the city of New York to randomly search bags on the transit system, but it’s perfectly a-okay, hunkey-dorey, peachey-keen for them to be searched when entering buildings (who happen to house the NYCLU).
Chad sees some hypocrisy in their actions, but then again, hypocrisy is only the “greatest crime one can ever possibly commit” for Republicans. Since the ACLU is not Republican, well, then, they can get away with it. Anyway, check out Chad’s post for a taste of his wit — and wisdom.
Are you so stupid you don’t see the difference between public and private property issues regarding this post?
Absolutely.
The issue you are trying to make is that the ACLU is against bag searches in public locations, i.e. the subway, but favors them in private locations.
When you are in a public setting, your right to privacy, in which the ACLU’s objection is rooted, is attenuated for the good of the public. However, in a private situation, you must provide much more compelling evidence for you to compromise another person’s right to privacy.
Furthermore, if you look in the statute books, I think you would find that the ACLU’s building, since it’s not theirs alone, is considered public space for the purposes of things like the Americans with Disabilities Act.
In short, the ACLU is against searches made in public spaces, unless that public space happens to be in the building in which they reside.
I thought you’d topped yourself with your insistence on the right of gays to solicit and have sex in public bathrooms and get off scot-free, but as always, you never cease to amaze, Bob. Thanks for the evening’s entertainment. đ
So, how do people out there feel about Muslims at Giants being detained and followed by security and FBI for praying?
er….Giants Stadium by the way…
Bob, I can see the issue of public vs. private property, that’s fine. But if a building’s owners can hire security guards to randomly check the bags of workers and visitors to that building, then why can’t the city of New York employ the NYPD to do the same for the transit system?
If the subway was truly a public space, then you and your friends could hang out down there in the tunnels, do whatever is it that you do in the dark, dodge a couple trash trains, make friends with the homeless, and then pop on up whenever you wanted to.
But you can’t.
And do you think terrorists give two shits as to what’s public and what’s private? I think if you’ve tuned into the news any time over the past decade, you’d see that they don’t.
Oh but wait! I forgot. Bag searches in public are just RoveBush’s way of creating fear and maintaining control. Bag searches in private are for keeping people safe.
Glad to see you made it another day outside the gay internment camps, Kevin.
As long as the subject is liberal hypocrisy, this is hot.
It’s a book alleging to show Michael Moore’s Schedule D form where he owns thousands of shares of Halliburton stock.
Also claims to show that Nancy Pelosi very carefully keeps her businesses (restaurants, vineyards, resorts) non-union.
It’s kind of funny, I think, the way the same people who are always accusing the GPs of being Republican shills always offer a knee-jerk defense of every left-wing hypocrisy.
But the ACLU’s behavior is entirely consistent with the left’s typical modus operandi: one set of rules for them, another set of rules for everybody else. Other examples would include Rosie O’Donnell proclaiming that people who own guns should go to prison, even though she maintained armed bodyguards. There’s also all those people on Cape Cod demanding renewable energy, but then going all out to stop the construction of a windmill farm just beyond the horizon of their lush estates. Or, Cindy Sheehan demanding accountability from the administration, but refusing to take responsibility for her ant-semitic rants. Also, the interesting news this week that Michael the Hutt owns thousands of shares of Enron.
Basically, in the opinion of the ACLU, people who ride the subways are just peasants, and probably little Eichmann’s who deserve to get blown up anyway. But they are entitled to protection because… well, because they’re just plain better than us, partly because they are enlightened enough to accept the rights of terrorists to blow (other) people up.
6: So why do you need to make a childish comment like that? Seems that it makes a few people on here feel good to take swipes like this at other people. Who you felt better by writing that.
What are you talking about?
I’m serious. You were about to be put in a gay concentration camp, right? (Or did someone else say that the other day? If so, sorry.) And I’m glad to see you weren’t. I’m glad they didn’t get you.
ND30 –
I thought youâd topped yourself with your insistence on the right of gays to solicit and have sex in public bathrooms and get off scot-free, but as always, you never cease to amaze, Bob. Thanks for the eveningâs entertainment.
The funny thing is that these “public bathrooms” include bathrooms in department stores and gyms and such, which are of course private property…. like the ACLU building…
They love twisting reality to suit their desires, don’t they?
Hey, Calarato, Kevin’s under a lot of stress… moving from safehouse to safehouse … never sleeping in the same place twice lest he be discovered by the BushHitler Gay Extermination Patrols. Cut him some slack.
Meanwhile, a few more left-wing hypocrites:
Al Franken says conservatives are racist because they lack diversity and oppose affirmative action. Fewer than 1 percent of the people Al Franken has hired over the past 15 years have been African-American.
Ted Kennedy campaigns for higher taxes on the wealthy and rails against US corporations who set up off-shore companies to lower their taxes… but shields his own family fortune from the IRS through elaborate tax shelters … including the use of offshore trusts, such as one based in Fiji.
Mary Landrieu — like many rich liberals — sends her own children to private school, but fights tooth and well-manicured nail against voucher programs that would give poor and middle class families the same opportunity.
Left-wing uber-Sugar Daddy George Soros promotes higher, “progressive” income tax structures… but shelters most of his vast fortune in places like Bermuda and the Cayman Islands.
John F. Kerry — campaigned on repealing Bush tax cuts to make the wealthy “pay their share,” but opts to pay the lesser of two available tax rates in Massachussetts on his own vast fortune.
So, which house lefty is going to leap to the defense of these hypocrites?
So, I made a comment on another topic about what can happen if extremists are given un-checked power. Something that’s not a fantasy, but has happened in recent human history. So, I’m not sure if you’re trying to refute what I’m saying or saying “it couldn’t happen here” or just using some kind of childish effort to somehow denigrate me.
I have to say, I do applaud others I’ve seen here who can keep their comments adult and can use rational statements. This applies to the conservatives, moderates and liberals out there who obiviously vaule free speech.
By the way, were you aware that ridiculing people for their ideas is part of the “14 points of fascism”? check it out at http://ellensplace.net/fascism.html
Kevin,
There is no way that the Bush administration or anyone in it is planning death camps for gays.
It would be impossible because it would be totally out of character. In other words: Thinking, saying, or even hinting at it in any serious way is plain nutty.
Please note: I’m not saying that as ridicule. I am saying it fact. It would be as ridiculous as saying 2 + 2 = 5.
I don’t know if you understand/buy that, or not. But if you don’t, then you truly don’t understand life, freedom, America, libertarians or conservatives.
As for your “14 points of fascism” – Lighten up.
Where I come from, it’s normal for males of differing opinions to rib each other on differences of opinion; especially when A knows a certain opinion (or suspected / potential opinion) of B’s to be plain nutty.
And finally, on a deep level, what I was saying was quite sincere: I am, in fact, very very glad that you aren’t being sent to a death camp.
Every Thanksgiving, the thing I give thanks for is being an American, i.e., living in a free and essentially gay-positive country.
If you want to see what real discrimination against gays looks like, visit Iran sometime. Now that’sdiscrimination.
So my comment was applicable and appropriate, both on a shallower or more playful level than you seem tuned into, and on a much deeper level than you seem tuned into. It’s called “double meaning”.
Clear?
Actually, Kevin, had you said “can happen”, I doubt you’d be getting the comments you’re getting. But you said “is happening”. You said gays WERE being exterminated. Then when asked to prove your statements, you ran.
Meanwhile, what was interesting on your fascism list is what was missing, namely the two most fascist regimes in history…..Soviet Russia and post-Revolutionary France.
Perhaps that was because the author’s point in compiling the list was to prove that corporations, religion, and the wealthy are to blame for all the problems of society. These “workers’ revolutions” are not consistent with that ideology, since they all eliminated corporations, religion, and the wealthy and were still fascist, so they are ignored.
In addition, Kevin, are you aware of the true credentials of your “Doctor” Laurence Britt? Is the left now using fake academics to push its mantras?
Finally, your railing against fascism is hilarious when you and yours did everything in your power to prop up, cover up, and protect one of the last remaining fascist regimes in the world….Saddam Hussein’s. You hid the fact, for instance, that Saddam was imprisoning infant and toddler children of political dissidents and called it “dealing peace”.
Somehow, my sympathy for you is being quickly exhausted.
Minor semantic quibble –
I think by “fascism”, NDT means totalitarianism.
In my lexicon, “fascism” has a slightly narrower meaning as that branch of totalitarianism which tries to keep a fig leaf of private property ownership.
“Communism” would be the branch of totalitarianism that tries to keep a fig leaf of public property ownership.
Excuse me, but where I come from, “ribbing” happens once or twice with regard to a specific incident. Some of you more childish responders have made a point to say something about it in every post. Also, I re-iterated here that I didn’t say it was something that was happening – but something that could happen if too much power was handed over to certain people.
15: By any chance did you happen to read the entire article that you linked? At the very end, he clearly states the factual obvious, that we are still a democracy. He does, however, indicate that his writing is a cautionary tale.
I think it’s funny that in your post, you do exactly one of the things he mentions in his 14 points – You put the word doctor in quotes in an attempt to ridicule his credentials. Interestingly enough, his history (from what I read in that article) makes his squarely a capitalist with socially left leanings.
I have yet to see anyone give a sound, logical reason as to why gays/lesbians/bisexuals want to support a group of people who would be perfectly happy to see us exterminated. Seriously, I want to hear a logical, thought out response to this point of view instead of âoh, thatâs just an old argumentâ
Comment by Kevin â October 16, 2005 @ 4:51 pm
I think itâs funny that in your post, you do exactly one of the things he mentions in his 14 points – You put the word doctor in quotes in an attempt to ridicule his credentials.
You’re damn right I’m ridiculing them — because he’s not a doctor OR a political scientist. Your link claimed he was both.
And this is the nature of your “fascism”, Kevin; people who catch you lying and expose the fact are “fascists”.
By the way, were you aware that ridiculing people for their ideas is part of the â14 points of fascismâ?
Does that apply to the way leftists ridicule (and/or demonize) homeschoolers, proponents of Intelligent Design, Promise Keepers, defenders of traditional marriage, people who want to change their sexual orientation, “Neo-cons,” Constitution originalists, social security reformers, embryonic stem cell research opponents, Roman Catholics, Christian evangelicals, Christians in general, opponents of racial preferences, the Minutemen, large families (e.g. Mark Morford’s screed in the SF Chronicle: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/19/DDGJSF9UDD1.DTL&hw=Morford&sn=002&sc=399), right-wing radio talk hosts, conservative gay bloggers, gun-owners, SUV owners, global warming skeptics, Zionists, Iraq liberation supporters, and anyone else who doesn’t toe the dogmatic left-wing line?
Hey Kevin, you’re still at it!
Glad to see you made it through the night without being exterminated. đ
Hey, maybe we need to set up a “Kevin Extermination Watch”, with a date-stamp.
There is a difference between the space that is a building, even if the ADA covers it, and true public spaces, like the transit system. A building’s owner can kick just about anyone out if they are causing trouble or just shouldn’t be there. More public spaces like transit systems you have to be causing trouble to be kicked out, and the police have to do it much of the time.
Even though you can link the two, NDT, it doesn’t make them the same. Sorry. There still is a difference, and if you decide to check into it, instead of trying to bend reality to agree with the post, you’ll see that.
” I have yet to see anyone give a sound, logical reason as to why gays/lesbians/bisexuals want to support a group of people who would be perfectly happy to see us exterminated. Seriously, I want to hear a logical, thought out response to this point of view instead of âoh, thatâs just an old argumentâ”
V the K, seriously. I supported the war in Afghanistan. Since then, it’s been Iraqis, who wanted to kill other people(Saddam and Israel), not us. So please, quit saying “It’s the same thing!” I want a logical, well thought out argument on how Iraq was a threat to us. And no, paying for people to bomb Israel isn’t a threat to us. Oh? The Oil. That’s an economic situation, and has nothing to do with exterminating us. There’s no threat, although some people may be miffed at higher gas prices, but that’s not much to pay for some peace and protection.
Um, what does Kevin’s comment about Republicans/mainstream conservatives wanting to exterminate gay people have to do with Iraq?
There IS a fundamental difference that you are overlooking, however, and that is at office buildings and other locations such as government offices, airports, etc., EVERYONE is subject to bag searches. For public transportation, that is not possible, and the result is certain types of people (i.e., Arab men or Arab-appearing men) get singled out for searches. And before you say, “Well, if we want to stop terrorists, we should start with Arabs,” let’s not forget Timothy McVeigh.
V the K, seriously. I supported the war in Afghanistan. Since then, itâs been Iraqis, who wanted to kill other people(Saddam and Israel), not us. So please, quit saying âItâs the same thing!â I want a logical, well thought out argument on how Iraq was a threat to us.
The same way Afghanistan was prior to 9/11.
It’s been known that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda were basing in Afghanistan, with the full blessing and support of the Taliban, since the mid-nineties. Of course, that was considered no threat to the United States, because Afghanistan was so impoverished and under complete UN sanction; there was no way that they could attack us, or that the government support from the Taliban could amount to anything.
Forgive us if we didn’t want to make the same mistake twice — and this time, with a sheltering government that a) knew how to train covert agents, b) had tried to use them several times against Western targets, and c) had nice things like chemical, biological, and nuclear-based weapons to give them to use.
There IS a fundamental difference that you are overlooking, however, and that is at office buildings and other locations such as government offices, airports, etc., EVERYONE is subject to bag searches. For public transportation, that is not possible, and the result is certain types of people (i.e., Arab men or Arab-appearing men) get singled out for searches. And before you say, âWell, if we want to stop terrorists, we should start with Arabs,â letâs not forget Timothy McVeigh.
In order for your logic to work, Andy, the bag of everyone who goes into the ACLU’s building must be searched.
What you’re going to find, I wager, is that they — gasp! — PROFILE. That’s right; they can’t search everyone, so they look for people who are acting suspiciously or look suspicious. There is a distinct difference between “everyone is searched”, as happens at an airport, and “everyone is SUBJECT to search”, as happens in their building.
And therein lies the hypocrisy. Unless the ACLU’s building searches every single bag, they are doing exactly what they are going to court to try to prevent others from doing. The very precautions they demand in their building to save their own precious hides, they want to deny to the millions of people in New York who use public transit.
Actually I’m guessing they probably do search every single bag; it’s standard procedure for many buildings in Manhattan, no one is exempt.
Frankly, since I live in NYC and use the subways on a daily basis, I think I have slightly more vested interest in this particular issues than some others.
The first point to raise is, simply as an issue of effectiveness, a scheme like the random searches the NYPD are basically pointless. I’ve passed by them several times. If anyone was determined to get through them, it would be a simple exercise. Buses, unlike the subways, are not subject to the same kind of searches.
I do, however, appreciate the increased presence of the police force. Having more watchful eyes is probably the most effective type of deterrent especially compared to random searches.
But as a legal point, random searches in public, without just cause, is simply a violation of privacy. Perhaps there could be a semantic point made if the searches actually happen within the boundaries of the entry gates – i.e. once you commit to coming into the subway system, you agree to give up a certain amount privacy to use the system – but that distinction has not been made by law and is therefore unenforceable.
Obviously with privately owned buildings, the tenants are subject to agree to aqny rule of searching they see fit. I work in a building that maintains gates with issued identity cards. The Citicorp building in my work neighborhood requires all bags to go through a x-ray machine.
So until the laws are changed in how these searches can be legally conducted, despite the basic ineffectiveness, the NYPD at the directive of the mayor’s office violate public privacy rights necessary for society to function.