Great Moments In Privacy Protection

The Times editors really can pick their spots - now they oppose DNA collection in order to protect the privact rights of arrestees:

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear argument about whether it is constitutional for a state to collect DNA from people charged with violent crimes but not yet convicted. Last April, the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that a state law authorizing such collection violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.

...

The Maryland law clearly contravenes the Fourth Amendment.

Clearly. So who is the Times fighting for?  All of us, of course, but specifically, this thug:

The case involves the collection of DNA from Alonzo Jay King Jr. after his arrest on assault charges in 2009. His DNA profile matched evidence from a rape in 2003, and he was convicted of that rape.

The state did not, however, obtain a warrant to collect his DNA, nor did it establish that it had probable cause to think that his DNA would link him either to the assault or the rape. It did not even meet the lowest threshold for some searches, by establishing that it had a reasonable basis for taking his DNA, or showing that the DNA evidence would disappear unless it was collected.

Maryland argues that collecting and analyzing DNA is like fingerprinting. But the purpose of fingerprinting is to identify someone who has been arrested. Maryland was using DNA for investigative purposes, not identification, and doing so without legal justification.

The fingerprinting point-counterpoint is ludicrous (and discussed here in the context of a similar California case). DNA is a prefectly plausible identification tool and the police routinely run new fingerprints through databases in order to solve crimes. Put it this way - if, after booking Mr. King, the police had run his fingerprints through a database and found a match to a knife found at the scene of an unsolved murder, would the Times be squawking?

And yes, these are the same Times editors that won't rest until we have a national gun registry, so their concern for our privacy is a very sometime thing.

Yes, we could run our criminal justice system Times-style. The result will be fewer rape cases solved and more of the wrongfully-convicted languishing in jail, but the privacy rights of those arrested (but not yet convicted!) of violent crimes will have been upheld. Do we all see a brighter tomorrow?

Here are two papers discussing the issues. DNA does contain more information than fingerprints so there is a possibility of a loss of medical privacy, whoch could be mitigated with appropriate safeguards. If this Big Brother privacy concern from the same people screaming for National Health seems irreconciliable, well, you aren't smart enough to be a Lib either.

Comments

[matt]

We had to oppose the collection of DNA samples before we supported it!

[Rob Crawford]

Next up -- the Times ponders photographs on drivers' licenses: presumption of guilt, or harmless means of confirming identity?

[Tom Maguire]

the Times ponders photographs on drivers' licenses...

Great point! With the advent of facial recognition software and the ubiquity of surveillance cameras, they will be able to track us everywhere. Fortunately, we have a Democratic President.

[narciso]

The Solon of Scranton, would not steer us wrong;

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/02/25/biden-no-real-law-abiding-citizens-fear-infringement-of-their-constitutional-rights-or-something/

[Neo]

John Kerry Makes Up New Country: Kyrzakhstan…

Obama makes up 7 additional states,
Fed makes up trillions of additional dollars

... What a country !!

[Bruce]

The problem for me is the difference between arrest and conviction. You can be arrested for a lot of things, and many people have. Getting a felony conviction is a bit harder.

Part of the problem is that we have so many laws on the books these days that a zealous prosecutor can indict almost anyone on something. I would feel a bit better about this whole thing if they were to purge the DNA records of those who are not convicted of a violent felony, and maybe not use the DNA until the conviction.

Making things even worse is that it appears that they can also tell familial matches, if some, but not all, of the DNA matches, and predict how close the relationship is. This potentially means that if a sibling is ever arrested (and maybe never convicted), you may become a prime suspect with a partial match on their DNA.

I think that a lot of people who don't oppose this think that it would only apply to and affect the criminal class. But, why should it? Why do people who don't trust the government with their guns, trust it potentially with their DNA?

I guess my basic problem is that I don't start from the position that the government, esp. at the federal level, is out for our best interests. Rather, it is out for its own best interests, and that of the politicians, bureaucrats, and police, in this case. They may coincide with our best interest, but I would suggest in many cases, that is more coincidental than anything. Why trust it to do the right thing with the DNA it collects? I don't.

[Threadkiller]

"Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security."

[narciso]

Btw, the Syrian national council, snubbed 'Reporting for Duty' because they haven't been neutral enough to the Nusra front and the Ahram al Shams.

[Janet]

A link for Neo's post -

"The State Department kindly omitted the error in the official transcript of Wednesday's speech, which Mr Kerry delivered on the eve of his first foreign trip as secretary of state."

I don't think I could keep all those countries straight....

[steve]

If the purpose of fingerprinting is merely to identify the person arrested, why doesn't the NYT come out and oppose fingerprinting those for whom identity is not an issue?

[NK]

TomM-- according to the NYT we can never EVER offend arrested felons or Voter Frauds (same thing?) b/c of the sanctity of their privacy right. The rest of us, can suck privacy eggs acording to the NYT.

PS: OK make fun of Mr. Roberts odd righthanded swing follow through (is that a Yoga pose?) but he's STILL BETTER than 2/3 of the Yanks current OF!

[narciso]

See, this is where having Hagel comes in handy, he like the obsequious shoe salesman, in 'Pretty Woman' doesn't forget the name of his sponsors;

Garden variety nazgul alert;

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/02/25/richard-seymour-s-tawdry-christopher-hitchens-bio.html

[rse]

Tom showed up for some excellent snark. Privacy abuses are only mentioned under Rep presidents.

http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/aspiring-to-create-new-habits-of-mind-and-mental-models-suitable-for-a-new-culture-society-and-economy/ is me charging straight at what the Systems Thinking profs at both Cambridge schools are really trying to do. And how it is not just MIT and it is coming everywhere with the Common Core.

Next I am going to describe graphically exactly what the economic and political vision looks like that goes with this ed vision and systems thinking.

And on the subject of this post, the data being thrown out about people and what they believe and value and what it takes to change them really is like something from science fiction. And I was not happy to learn last week that Big Blue has been pursuing mental models/brain research from 2006 and calling it the Blue Brain. It was their P Tech model bo referred to in the SOTU as the new model for high schools. And they just got a large grant from EU to continue this research. Those statists.

[James D.]

I don't start from the position that the government, esp. at the federal level, is out for our best interests.

I could not possibly agree with this more.

No matter how sensible or logical or well-intentioned a government program or policy is, it doesn't matter if the people who will be implementing and enforcing it are not trustworthy.

And I think "not trustworthy" is an extremely generous description of nearly all of our elected and appointed political leaders; and far too many among our justice and law enforcement agencies.

[Rick Ballard]

"Why trust it to do the right thing with the DNA it collects?"

That's a very good question. It should be carefully considered in light of the rise of consensus pseudoscience and the paucity of job opportunities for newly minted PhDs. The government is quite capable of renting "expert" lab coats willing to manufacture ARIMA models proving whatever their political masters wish to assert.

Does anyone believe it will be more difficult to string together suppositions regarding a "violence" genetic sequence than it has been to generate suppositions concerning the existence a genetic sequence responsible for the ability to coordinate the colors of couches and drapes?

Would you be pleased to have your Death Panel reviewing your DNA as they debate (for all of 15 seconds) issuance of your DNR toe tag?

[henry]

rse, check for roots in Polyani,">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Polanyi">Polyani, especially his rejection of positivism, explanation of tacit frames, and focus on public rather than private liberties.

[Old Lurker]

James Delingpole again.

Why do the Brits say things so clearly?

LUN

[Danube of Thought]

Ponder the following hypothetical: Scientists develop a scanner that, when pointed at a house, will flash a red light if, and only if, a felony is being committed inside. Should the police be allowed to cruise the streets pointing this scanner at each house?

[Dave (in MA)]

John Kerry Makes Up New Country: Kyrzakhstan…

What's so funny about that? It's where Manny Ortez originally came from.

[narciso]

It's right out of the West Wing, they confused Kyrgistan and Kazakhstan,there as well.

[Danube of Thought]

Would the Times object if the DNA had been taken from a cigarette butt the guy left behind?

[Captain Hate]

Didn't anybody tell where Reporting for Doody was to report? More smart diplomacy; even when Rodham was getting blotto "concussions" she never got that lost.

[Danube of Thought]

Does anyone believe it will be more difficult to string together suppositions regarding a "violence" genetic sequence....

I believe it will never be possible to deprive a person of his liberty on the basis of such suppositions. Should we ever get to the point where the courts would allow it, DNA evidence will be the least of our worries.

[narciso]

It is striking, if a year ago, you would have said, a film about the hunt for Bin Laden, would not win any of the major awards, you would think one was crazy.

[Dave (in MA)]

narc, they decided to give 'em to the movie glorifying Jimmeh.

[Threadkiller]

What we need are DNA sniffing police dogs...

This Dog Can Send You to Jail How cops and their canines manufacture probable cause

http://reason.com/archives/2013/01/31/this-dog-can-send-you-to-jail

SCOTUS strikes again.

[Threadkiller]

"Ponder the following hypothetical: Scientists develop a scanner that, when pointed at a house, will flash a red light if, and only if, a felony is being committed inside. Should the police be allowed to cruise the streets pointing this scanner at each house?"

http://www.volokh.com/2010/01/04/can-the-police-now-use-thermal-imaging-devices-without-a-warrant-a-reexamination-of-kyllo-in-light-of-the-widespread-use-of-infrared-temperature-sensors/

[Rick Ballard]

DoT,

My thoughts were running more along the lines of preference and denial. Certain gene sequences have been given preference for quite some time and the preference results in denial to other gene sequences when a finite number of positions are available. It doesn't require a stretch of the imagination to envision a scenario where "mental health professionals" reach a "scientific consensus" regarding genetic predisposition to violence as a rationale for abrogating rights.

It will all be couched as an effort to promote the general welfare, of course.

[Rick Ballard]

DoT,

My thoughts were running more along the lines of preference and denial. Certain gene sequences have been given preference for quite some time and the preference results in denial to other gene sequences when a finite number of positions are available. It doesn't require a stretch of the imagination to envision a scenario where "mental health professionals" reach a "scientific consensus" regarding genetic predisposition to violence as a rationale for abrogating rights.

It will all be couched as an effort to promote the general welfare, of course.

[Threadkiller]

SCOTUS Approves Search Warrants Issued by Dogs

When a dog alerts and no drugs are found (as happened twice in this case), "the dog may not have made a mistake at all," Kagan says. Instead it "may have detected substances that were too well hidden or present in quantities too small for the officer to locate," she suggests. "Or the dog may have smelled the residual odor of drugs previously in the vehicle or on the driver’s person." This is a very convenient, completely unfalsifiable excuse for police and prosecutors. But probable cause is supposed to hinge on whether there is a "fair probability" that a search will discover evidence of a crime, and the possibility that dogs will react to traces of drugs that are no longer present makes them less reliable for that purpose.

http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/19/scotus-approves-search-warrants-issued-b

[Danube of Thought]

My thoughts were running more along the lines of preference and denial.

Good point. But medical professionals can always condition treatment on the patient's acquiescence in various procedures, even today. Not hard to imagine their conditioning this, that or the other on getting a DNA sample. They won't have to rely on samples taken at the time of an arrest.

[Janet]

from OL's 11:10 link - "Canals and railways were built and financed by private investors in order to satisfy a genuine need. Wind turbines serve no useful economic function whatsover. Not a single one would even be built were it not for the massive taxpayer subsidies which go into the coffers of large, mostly foreign-owned energy companies and of greedy landowners. As soon as the public subsidies stop, so will the wind farms. "

[rse]

henry-absolutely Polanyi. See him as the support in the footnotes all the time.

Schon also worked on a book called The Research Society in the 60s that came out of work he did with Raymond Hainer. The book shows me the list of participants and the work they were all doing for the Navy weapons lab. It influenced Case and Western before they merged as they has profs on panel as did Carnegie and Mellon. On the B school/economic front, the profs are taking the position that they basically created mgmt theory in the first place and therefore can remake it to fit new desired economic systems.

Schon and Argyris are far more interesting in what they push than Forester. I think Senge's book in 1990, The Fifth Discipline, like Spady's work is designed to push the desired theories to gain change without surrendering who really developed and how the Transformation sought is close to total.

My guess is if I did not have an original of the Fieldbook from 94, he would be less graphic today. Always try to get a copy of the version created before controversy.

[GUS]

TK, Kagan, like John Kerry, is a clown. What is to stop the Police from asserting that every dog, EVERY TIME, lit up on the accused?? Kagan is as bright as a 10 watt light bulb.

[I nominate Chris Stevens.]

Imagine the sort of Ambassador we could have to that country.
=============================

[Frau Pirx]

Stanislaw Lem examined an earth without violence or risk in "Return From the Stars."

Hal Bregg is an astronaut who returns from a space mission in which only 10 biological years have passed for him, while 127 years have elapsed on earth. He finds that the earth has changed beyond recognition, filled with human beings who have been medically neutralized. How does an astronaut join a civilization that shuns risk?

[Threadkiller]

United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, in 1976, gave the Border Patrol authority to operate checkpoints within the interior of the United States and not at border crossings only.

1. The Border Patrol's routine stopping of a vehicle at a permanent checkpoint located on a major highway away from the Mexican border for brief questioning of the vehicle's occupants is consistent with the Fourth Amendment, and the stops and questioning may be made at reasonably located checkpoints in the absence of any individualized suspicion that the particular vehicle contains illegal aliens. Pp. 556-564.

(a) To require that such stops always be based on reasonable suspicion would be impractical because the flow of traffic tends to be too heavy to allow the particularized study of a given car necessary to identify it as a possible carrier of illegal aliens. Such a requirement also would largely eliminate any deterrent to the conduct of well-disguised smuggling operations, even though smugglers are known to use these highways regularly. Pp. 556-557.

(b) While the need to make routine checkpoint stops is great, the consequent intrusion on Fourth Amendment interests is quite limited, the interference with legitimate traffic being minimal and checkpoint operations involving less discretionary enforcement activity than roving-patrol stops. Pp. 557-560.

(c) Under the circumstances of these checkpoint stops, which do not involve searches, the Government or public interest in making such stops outweighs the constitutionally protected interest of the private citizen. Pp. 560-562.

(d) With respect to the checkpoint involved in No. 74-1560, it is constitutional to refer motorists selectively to a secondary inspection area for limited inquiry on the basis of criteria that would not sustain a roving-patrol stop, since the intrusion is sufficiently minimal that no particularized reason need exist to justify it. Pp. 563-564.

2. Operation of a fixed checkpoint need not be authorized in advance by a judicial warrant. Camara v. Municipal Court, [428 U.S. 543, 544] 387 U.S. 523 , distinguished. The visible manifestations of the field officers' authority at a checkpoint provide assurances to motorists that the officers are acting lawfully. Moreover, the purpose of a warrant in preventing hindsight from coloring the evaluation of the reasonableness of a search or seizure is inapplicable here, since the reasonableness of checkpoint stops turns on factors such as the checkpoint's location and method of operation. These factors are not susceptible of the distortion of hindsight, and will be open to post-stop review notwithstanding the absence of a warrant. Nor is the purpose of a warrant in substituting a magistrate's judgment for that of the searching or seizing officer applicable, since the need for this is reduced when the decision to "seize" is not entirely in the hands of the field officer and deference is to be given to the administrative decisions of higher ranking officials in selecting the checkpoint locations. Pp. 564-566.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=428&invol=543#t*

With the decision of the court, regarding "drug dogs", now being the law of the land, can the Border Patrol have dogs sniff every car and that be enough to perform a search of vehicles that were not pulled over for a violation of the law?

Can they use other dogs like cadaver dogs to look for human remains? Maybe they can use bomb sniffing dogs on every car now. (We can be sure there won't be any dogs that can sniff out a hispanic person that has not bathed for two months while working their way north from Oaxaca.)

What does this mean for The 9th Circuit decision in U.S. v. $30,060 in U.S. Currency?

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the government did not have probable cause to seize $30,060 from a motorist based only on a drug-detection dog's reaction... Key to the court's ruling was a finding that up to 75 percent of all currency in the Los Angeles area is coated with traces of cocaine or other controlled substances.

http://www.ndsn.org/dec94/dog.html

SCOTUS is ok that a dog "may have detected substances that were too well hidden or present in quantities too small for the officer to locate," so we are pretty much screwed.

/rant

[Frau Pirx]

If Kagan looked more like HCOAB, we might be a little more forgiving...
nah.

[Frau Pirx]

TK - Kagan? screw the pooch?

[jimmyk]

"Didn't anybody tell where Reporting for Doody was to report? More smart diplomacy; even when Rodham was getting blotto "concussions" she never got that lost."

I seem to recall Hillary having her share of faux pas, though I can't remember the specifics any more.

[jimmyk]

"Ponder the following hypothetical: Scientists develop a scanner that, when pointed at a house, will flash a red light if, and only if, a felony is being committed inside. Should the police be allowed to cruise the streets pointing this scanner at each house?"

One problem there is the feedback loop into what gets defined as a "felony." If that could be fixed, then I suppose people could sign a release giving the police permission to do so.

[MarkO]

"Should the police be allowed to cruise the streets pointing this scanner at each house?"

This would depend entirely on who is in the White House.

Freedom from government intrusion is so last century.

[NK]

We are getting close to "Pre-Crime" units here.

[Threadkiller]

Flordia v. Jardines is the other case that will be decided by SCOTUS this year.

Facts of the Case: On November 3, 2006, the Miami-Dade Police Department received an unverified ""crime stoppers"" tip that the home of Joelis Jardines was being used to grow marijuana. On December 6, 2006, two detectives, along with a trained drug detection dog, approached the residence. The dog handler accompanied the dog to the front door of the home. The dog signaled that it detected the scent of narcotics. The detective also personally smelled marijuana. The detective prepared an affidavit and applied for a search warrant, which was issued. A search confirmed that marijuana was being grown inside the home. Jardines was arrested and charged with trafficking cannabis. Jardines moved to suppress the evidence seized at his home on the theory that the drug dog's sniff was an impermissible search under the Fourth Amendment and that all subsequent evidence was fruit of the poisonous tree. The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing and subsequently ruled to suppress the evidence. The state appealed the suppression ruling and the state appellate court reversed, concluding that no illegal search had occurred since the officer had the right to go up to the defendant's front door and that a warrant was not necessary for the drug dog’s sniff. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the appellate court's decision and concluded that the dog's sniff was a substantial government intrusion into the sanctity of the home and constituted a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The state of Florida appealed the Florida Supreme Court's decision.

Question:
Is a dog sniff at the front door of a suspected grow house by a trained narcotics detection dog a Fourth Amendment search requiring probable cause?

Audio of the oral argument is at the link.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2011/2011_11_564

[Frau Pirx]

Preemptive strike policy can be applied to the death panels, too.

By taking care of myself and remaining fit may just mean my organs will be better for harvesting.

Shoot...Alan Colmes agrees with TM on this matter.

[Threadkiller]

Illinois v. Lidster plus Dorner plus a couple of well trained Kag-nines may be all the probable cause necessary.

Facts of the Case: Police stopped Robert Lidster at a checkpoint set up to find information about a recent hit-and-run accident. Lidster was arrested, and later convicted, for drunk driving. Lidster successfully appealed his conviction to the Illinois Appellate Court. It relied on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Indianapolis v. Edmond (2000) holding that a checkpoint is unconstitutional if its only purpose is to uncover "ordinary criminal wrongdoing." The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed.

Question: Does Indianapolis v. Edmond, which dealt with the Fourth and 14th Amendment prohibitions of unreasonable searches and seizures, prohibit checkpoints organized to question motorists about a previous offense and arrest motorists for drunk driving?

Decision: No. In an opinion delivered by Justice Breyer, the Court held 6-3 that the Illinois checkpoint did not violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures and was constitutional. It ruled that the checkpoint was reasonable because it advanced a "grave" public interest - "investigating a crime that had resulted in a human death" - and interfered minimally with Fourth Amendment liberty. The Court distinguished Illinois's "information-seeking" checkpoint from the "crime control" checkpoint struck down in Edmond. Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg - while agreeing that Edmond does not invalidate the Illinois checkpoint - dissented from the majority's decision granting constitutional approval to the checkpoint. They argued that the case should have been remanded to the Illinois courts.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_02_1060

"Sorry grandma, the dog sat down and that means you were hiding something in your truck. Swiss-cheesing your vehicle was fully within our rights."

[fdcol63]

Speaking of privacy:

I was at a business conference last week, and one of our speakers was a guy who helped run the digital campaign for Obama in 2012.

Besides having to sit through almost 2.5 hours worth of Obama/Biden and Moo-chell hagiography, the stuff they did with Facebook and other social media in terms of targeting specific voting groups and individuals was awesomely powerful, but also very, very frightening.

Very few people fully understand the way that their digital habits, social media use, and internet browsing is opening themselves up to the kind of data mining/analysis and message targeting that is currently being conducted to and against them, or the extent to which their privacy is being undermined.

It certainly reinforced why I deleted my FB account.

The sadder thing is that the Right has a long way to catch up to them in this regard.

And the even sadder thing is how most of these larger social media/internet tools like FB, Google, etc., are controlled and dominated by Leftists.

[NK]

fdcol63@159-- all (unfortunately) very true). I got an earful of that from my daughter's boyfriend who worked for the Mo. Dems and Obama in Mo., plus my wife is Big Data analytics for large consumer product manufacturers, so I hear about consumer habit tracking (data mining) from her. It's Orwelian. According to this young Obama- Drone, the Obama data people claim that their mining social networks, and RR'12 failure to do so, was a 3M vote in battleground states. Is that what this guy you saw claimed?

[NK]

3M vote -- SWING--

[Old Lurker]

But RR had an electronic GOTV system that was going to be Shock & Awe, right? Oh wait. It crashed on game day.

The Reps are gonna get right on a feasibility study soon I'm sure. Please send money for more consultants.

[NK]

Consultants -- if they bring in votes are worth it. I'd start looking for the top 5 execs in Google and FB who are NOT on the senior management track and hire them with incentive contracts.

[Threadkiller]

The leftists could not stop Chick-fil-A Day even with all their nifty technocrap.

The GOP needs to follow that model to gain support of like minded individuals and forget the notion that a Twitterpated yoot will ever vote for a conservative that deletes his FB page.

[fdcol63]

NK, at least 3 Million.

[Threadkiller]

..ever vote for with...

[fdcol63]

Personally, I hope that there's a great backlash oneday, and people just turn off and tune out of most of this social media stuff.

[jimmyk]

By taking care of myself and remaining fit may just mean my organs will be better for harvesting.

Frau, did you ever read "Never Let Me Go," by Ishiguro? About kids raised for their organs to be harvested. I think they made a movie of it.

[narciso]

Well Hillary missed the significance of Our Lady of Guadalupe, for one, something Oglesby's lefty newsletter didn't cover.

[Old Lurker]

"I hope that there's a great backlash oneday, and people just turn off and tune out of most of this social media stuff".

Well if so, since I do not partake of FB, Twitter et al, if it all goes away I can update my old line about "The Sexual Revolution came and went, and I missed it!"

[jimmyk]

Yeah, that was one, narc. I knew there was one related to Mexico or Latin America.

[NK]

fdcol63-- that's what the Obama-Drone claims he was told. IN Battleground states-- Obama's data people claimed they dragged out 1.5M votes that would have stayed home but for their social networking, and RR left a like number of Battleground votes home. Bottomline, but for the datamining efforts, RR would have won the battleground popular vote solidly (probably overall as well) and the EC would have been too close to call. That's the Obama data meme anyway.

[NK]

Here's what the gun confiscators say in public-- Jim Hines is one of the most smarmy phony THINGs you'll ever meet. Dem politician AND Goldman banker (hope he's not a frien of TomM's). Ig-- note what AG Jepsen says-- 2nd amendment is an individual right --"for now": http://darien.patch.com/articles/gun-control-talk-at-the-darien-library-draws-a-crowd

[fdcol63]

NK, before seeing this guy's presentation, I would have poo-poo'd much of his claims.

Afterward, not at all. I may not like what they did, but they masterfully used the data to achieve their objective.

Whether it was 3 Million or 1.5 or whatever, it was the difference ... along with massive voter fraud and those on the Right who refused to vote for RR.

[narciso]

Are the Oscar voters really that dense, that they needed a public relations campaign, rhetorical question;

http://www.vulture.com/2013/02/silver-linings-playbook-oscar-campaign-stephanie-cutter.html

[NK]

TK-- some research may be in order regarding datamining and how manufacturers, retailers, and now politicians use it to access people and make them part of a community and customers.

[Threadkiller]

But for RR's mission statement they may have won.

RomneyRyan
e______e
p______p
e______l
a______a
l______c
_______e

[NK]

BIG DATA-- is that big and powerful. Not a good thing for an 18th century liberal such as myself.

[Janet]

Frau, did you ever read "Never Let Me Go," by Ishiguro? About kids raised for their organs to be harvested. I think they made a movie of it.

Wonderful movie.

[fdcol63]

I figured out years ago that if information was power, then control of that information was even more powerful. Thus, I got into computer systems/network administration and engineering.

But somewhee along the way, I limited myself too much to the physical control of the information, and did not focus enough on the directed USE of that information.

LOL

[pagar]

Janet, thanks for your 12:23 post or I would have missed the fine link OL put up that you referenced. Thank you OL.
I also wanted to thank you for several of your church related posts of the past couple of days that I am trying to catch up on.

[pagar]

" but they masterfully used the data to achieve their objective."

IMO, a lot of the contributions as far as the data mining etc for the leftists comes from the
group that won't ever worry about paying back their student loans because of the Democrat efforts in leaving youth on their parents insurance till they are 26. Student loans forgiven for going to work for the government, food stamps for a large group of Americans, no investigation of voter fraudn etc.

[NK]

way too simplistic IMO. The Obama vote community they built played many more angles than that.

[rse]

The Big Data coupled with supercomputers is part of the reason the Left is now asserting and this admin working with the tech companies is working to implement a centrally planned economy built around Sustainability as the premise on why it has to be centrally planned. Actually the real reason is politicians want power and current Business on top does not want to lose its existing markets to competing products. So they cozy up to pols and regulators and say "Make them stop that."

And all that is in published reports the National Research Council has published in last 2 years.

[Melinda Romanoff]

rse-

Full day kindergarten has been rolled out here, right on schedule.

[Neo]

It's been only two weeks since Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) introduced H.R.747 "To amend the Military Selective Service Act to require the registration of women with the Selective Service System" and now, they want to get rid of the draft completely ...

WASHINGTON—Two lawmakers are waging a little-noticed campaign to abolish the Selective Service System, the independent federal agency that manages draft registration.
They say the millions of dollars the agency spends each year preparing for the possibility of a military draft is a waste of money.

Reps. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., and Rep. Mike Coffman, R-Colo., say the Pentagon has no interest in returning to conscription due to the success of the all-volunteer force.

[Jack is Back]

After reading fdcol63's post on his recent business conference cum education in using social media to win elections, there is this: White House using Twitter Trolls to push Gun Control.

Now, I recognize the left has a leg up on this act because of Zuckerborg, Brill(iant) and others in the Valley but the GOP needs to find a few young brilliant geniuses of their own and come up with a cyber plan that will work for them. Signing up to JOM or Ace isn't going to solve one damn thing.

[NK]

JiB-- I think that's right, and talent like that is available from the pool of talent that are being aced out of senior management at FB and Google. People like that are motivated to stick it to their former employer. BUT-- get them on incentive contracts based on actual votes brought in.

[Ignatz Ratzkywatzky]

--Ig-- note what AG Jepsen says-- 2nd amendment is an individual right --"for now"--

Chief Justice Humpty Dumpty is where the left takes its constitutional cue;

‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.’

[NK]

Good thing I didn't know about this public session, had I been there, I may have said something impolitic to AG Jepsen or Cong. Hines about the 'for nowness' of Roe v Wade, or homicide prevention using stop and frisking young men in Norwalk, Bridgeport and Hartford. As a converted zealot about gun rights, I am prone to inflamatory speech here in BlueHell. They would have had to haul out the fainting couches in the Library.

[henry]

Well there is smart, and there is cocky. LOL

[NK]

And $500K buys you meets with JEF. What a grifter.

[Old Lurker]

You're welcome Pagar.

My wife wanted me to give up snarking about the Episcopal Church for Lent. But that would have been too hard so I gave up chocolate instead.

Porch, speaking of my snarking on that subject, you will be amused that in response to my sending him the Delinpole post of last week (via DoT), my Pastor included this quote in his letter to the congregation this week in which he castigated church leaders at all levels: "A Church which is wed to the desires of one generation will find itself widowed in the next". (my paraphrasing and sorry I forget the source)...so I think there remain a few who get it, though I think he is as pessimistic as I am.

[Old Lurker]

Just finished speaking with my politically connected pal in Houston. He thought I would like to hear that Gov Perry was quoted last week as suggesting he recall the Texas reps to Congress since their skills will be needed at home when Texas leaves the Union.

[Jack is Back]

OL,

I was brought up in a mixed Episcopal-Catholic family. My Irish mother prevailed.

My right footed grandfather was the senior warden at St. John's Episcopal Church in Southampton as well as the famous St. Andrew's on The Dunes. Never once did he stifle or argue or complain to my Mother. He accepted her faith and for that he is my saint. But, interesrtingly, during discorvery of all the old artifacts, books, letters and diaries left behind we have discovered that "Willie" became interested in the commonality of both religions especially the service (Mass).

He may have been one of the first ecumenicals. Think about it - if Episocopalians/Anglicans/CoE could just get over Henry VIII rant against those rigid Italians where we could be as a world force:)

[Old Lurker]

I agree Jack. The next Pope actually has a shot at continuing the welcome to disgusted Protestants begun by Benedict. We've even lost some Episcopal priests to you guys in the last year or two.

[Jack is Back]

OL,

But the bugger is the celebricy which I am a strong proponent of dismissing. If the Catholic Church (who I love) changes that one restraint, its a game changer. But others feel that is what makes it more disiciplined and I say in this day and age that is wishful thinking.

[Caro's iPad]

Also from OL's Delingpole link regarding wind farms

When people look at them in 100 years time it will not be with admiration but disgust that so much money can have been squandered to so little purpose. And they'll wonder why these bat-chomping, bird-slicing eco crucifixes are doing ruining the view when they should have been taken down long ago. The answer is that most energy companies have structured their contracts so that they are not liable for the costs of decommissioning the useless turbines. We're going to be stuck with these monstrosities for a very long time.

Yike.

[NK]

The Anglican Church-- has some of my favorite hymns. Glorious music and heartfelt words. A joint communion between the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Churches can't come soon enough as far as I'm concerned-- Priests marrying? Meh church made law, change it.

[NK]

Caro-- those wind turbine monstrosities don't last anywhere near 100 years. They will be piles of aluminium and carbon fiber long before then.

[Jack is Back]

NK,

Exactly. But watch the conclave. It it goes to a 3rd world prelate, bets off. If it goes to a 1st world prelate then maybe. Someone like Dolan, yes. Someone like Turkson, no.

[Old Lurker]

I suggested once that if one were to rerun the ROI calculations of a wind farm deleting the tax credits, projecting a realistic useful life, and then factoring in the end of life cash costs, then there would never be a rational investor involved in any of them.

[maryrose]

Caro:
Yikes is right.I often think about what future generations will think about what was going on during this era of our country's history. Definitely a sorry chapter indeed.

[NK]

JiB-- why is that? isn't the Anglican Church an African Church now?

OL-- ad in the liability issues when these things fail spectacularly sending carbon fiber schrapnel everywhere, what about 'sound noise' polution lawsuits. If these weren't part of the envro crony gravytrain-- they would be a dead business letter.

[maryrose]

NK: Married priests? I don't think in my lifetime.
JIB: I agree with you .I love my faith because it has never failed me. This is the year of Faith for Catholics. I believe a third world Pope will be selected.

[lyle]

I suggested once that if one were to rerun the ROI calculations of a wind farm deleting the tax credits, projecting a realistic useful life, and then factoring in the end of life cash costs, then there would never be a rational investor involved in any of them.

To say nothing about how gawd-awful ugly they are. I utterly detest them and every asshole who sucked in the cash from the gov to put them up. Gah!

Also, "rational" goes out the window when uncle sugar starts dropping the coin. But you knew that.

[Threadkiller]

"We finally really did it. You Maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!"

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/wind_energys_ghosts_1.html

[Porchlight]

"A Church which is wed to the desires of one generation will find itself widowed in the next". (my paraphrasing and sorry I forget the source)

OL, that is a great way to put it.

Our Anglican rector was ordained a Roman Catholic priest 40 years ago this week. 20 years ago, he met and married a woman he loved and left the Church to become an Episcopalian (later splinter Anglican) priest. His wife has been his great support these 20 years and it's clear that our church is the better for it.

That said, I do respect the arguments for celibacy. It's just that there are so many fewer men called to the priesthood these days - how can the Church afford to recruit from such a diminished pool at a time when the Church needs strong leadership more than ever?

[Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet]

But others feel that is what makes it more disiciplined and I say in this day and age that is wishful thinking.

I suspect that equating celibacy with a more disciplined priesthood has always been wishful thinking. I strongly believe that the kind of priestly sexual shenanigans which have been brought "out of the closet" in recent decades have been rampant since celibacy became the rule.

[Chubby]

((I strongly believe that the kind of priestly sexual shenanigans which have been brought "out of the closet" in recent decades have been rampant since celibacy became the rule.))

When did it become the rule? St. Peter was married and one of Christ's first healings was to heal Peter's wife's mother of a fever. And St. Paul said it is better to marry than to burn. True, Christ didn't marry (except in fiction) but what mortal ever approached the moral perfection of Christ Jesus?

[Laura]

The reasons for a celibate priesthood are based quite soundly on Church biblical exegesis and historical tradition, despite the period when priests were allowed to marry. Chubby, the apostles abandoned the married life and St Paul's admonishments only pointed out the difference in vocations. I doubt there will be a wholesale change anytime soon. I do think you might see a small push towards a married lesser clergy, similar to the Orthodox. For example deacons in the Catholic church may be married but may not marry once in the diaconate. Also Anglican and Lutheran priests that cross the Tiber and are married are allowed priestly duties but are not eligible for bishop.
On a personal note our priest, a missionary Filipino, says the divided loyalties and duties of a family would make his life impossible. I believe this would be an issue for any married priest.
I find it hard to understand why celibacy, not to minimize the hardship, is somehow supposed to be more of a hurdle now than say at the time of the English martyrs. To me, it goes directly to the lack of moral fortitude and depth of commitment common to this age.

[Chubby]

((...to the lack of moral fortitude and depth of commitment common to this age.))

thanks, Laura. That was very interesting.
I don't mean to offend, but weren't there times in the past when the popes had mistresses? or is that not true? I see the popes of this age as being far more moral than that.