Employers requesting FB passwords - FB conversation

S.B. posted this: Curious why our own representative Doc Hastings voted against an amendment that would have provided employees some protection against employers who require employees to turn over Facebook passwords to them? 

House Republicans Vote Against Facebook Privacy www.addictinginfo.org

In a continued effort to work against the American people, House Republicans blocked a measure 236-184 (that's every single voting House Republican) that would have allowed the Federal Communications Committee to prevent employers from asking for and obtaining Facebook passwords from workers.

Top of Form

R.B.: He, too, likes to fire people?

S.B.: Well, we know that corporations are people too, my friend.

Apparently, creepy, voyeuristic people who like to read your private messages and find out who your friends are and what they're doing. 

S.B.: and while you or I might get tossed in jail for hacking our way into someone else's account -- if your a corporation, it's perfectly fine to use the threat of a job to strong-arm people into giving up not only THEIR privacy, but the privacy of their friends and family. 

R.B.: Its okay so long as its not government.

B.E.: I don't understand why this isn't clear cut. If an employer cannot ask me about marital status, age etc, why would I be required to give said employer access to something that clearly indicates not only age, marital status and affiliations... (all things that cannot, under current law, prevent me from getting a job I'm qualified for) but also has information regarding my habits, hobbies and child? Also, isn't it against facebook policy to give your account over to anyone? Doesn't that violate their terms of service therefore opening me up to potential account deletment (yes, I said deletment).

R.B.: Facebook has actually stated they intend to sue any prospective employer who keeps on demanding applicants sign over their accounts to HR

 http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2012/03/facebook-says-it-may-sue-employers-who-demand-job-applicants-passwords.ars

Me: The Constitution enumerates the right to free association, which of course includes facebook activities, but also includes employer/employee associations. The terms for those activities are set forth by private parties. They can be assented to or not, according to their choice.

Sometimes these terms might be onerous or burdensome. I would pass on any prospective employer who wanted my passwords, which I am free to do, just as the employer is also free to ask.

The worst thing that could happen is government intervention ("Congress shall make no law..."), which grants them even more power to pry into peoples' affairs. That's a more egregious situation: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57324779-281/doj-lying-on-match.com-needs-to-be-a-crime/ 

R.B.: ‎"Look my friend, corporations are people, too" (Mitt 2012), so let's just 'friend' them and be done with it.

T.C.: ‎@Rich, you are only free to turn down the employer if you do not need the job. If you need the job, then this is coercion. I don't know that a new law is required to protect against this (there are already anti-discrimination laws, anti-coercion laws, etc), but to say that someone can simply turn down a request they don't like is naive.

Me: T.C., there is no need to condescend. You don't know me, but you seem to think you can call me names. I ask that you refrain from making judgments about me.

An employer/employee relationship is voluntary. Simply because someone "needs" a job does not change anything. No one has suggested that alternatives must be pleasant ones.

S.B.: Rich -- I know T.C. well enough to suspect he wasn't being condescending. There's a difference between calling someone a name, and pointing out that something they've said is naive. What you said is, frankly, naive. That doesn't mean that YOU are -- but the statement, I think, is.

Me: I'm sure he is a fine man. The fact that you agree with his assessment makes it no less uncivil.

T.C.: ‎@Rich, as Scott said, I called your statement naive, not you - and I do stand by it. I don't know you and do not mean to be condescending. However, it is very easy for those of us who are fortunate enough to have choices to forget that our situation does not apply to everyone else. Where you see a choice between pursuing a job or not, a less fortunate applicant could see a choice between eating and starving, a job and loosing their house / car / apartment / etc. Those are not choices that - fortunately - many of us have to make. In fact, these are not choices at all but survival decisions (as food and shelter are basic survival requirements and are what is at stake). For those who are faced with these consequences if they do not get the job, there is no choice but to acquiesce to the request. To not do so goes beyond a merely unpleasant consequence. For some, this is equivalent to saying "no" to the person holding a loaded gun to your face and asking for your wallet. Yes, it is, technically, a choice that you make when you productive your wallet, but it is certainly not an action freely taken.

P.H.: The only reason any company would want to access a FB/Twitter account is to get a sense of one's character before they hire them (and in some cases, while they are an employee). I suspect anyone in that position would simply shut down their account so no password would be necessary. That is what FB is really concerned about. It has nothing to do with privacy, as we all know they are selling the results of some pretty powerful analytics on the back end of their application.

S.W.: Hmmm....I think that I will give my employer the pw to my FB the same day I give them the key to my mailbox.

D.E.W.: I'd say, "sure! Would you also also like my login info for my banking, credit cards, ebay, porno sites?" and then tell em to kiss my ass!

R.R.: Is there any problem for which the intervention of the Federal Government is not the solution? At first glance this looks like a knee jerk reaction with both parties trying to get in front of an issue that is barely understood or quantified. If this practice were rampant I might be more accepting of the argument that it rises to the level of "coercion" but in the absence of that how about we let employees (without whom employers cannot survive) vote with their feet and their clear and loud response to the recent media coverage? We don't have to run to nanna Sam every time somebody flirts with a stupid idea.

P.H.: R.R., I read about a year ago that between 45-55% of employers were accessing mainly Twitter and FB accounts of their employees based on some studies that were conducted at that time ( I was actually pretty shocked by it, but it was reported to be used as a tool to profile employees or potential new hires). The recommendation was to watch what you wrote because (whether one likes it or not) there is no such thing as privacy when it comes to what you post on a social network site. I think it's okay that people are asking the question as to whether there should be some controls or regulations about the practice, because as indicated by some of the thoughtful responses above (e.g., Brandi, Terrence, and others) this is actually a fairly complex issue.


Me: It's a choice between surrendering your password and starving? Really? Oh Great Government! Come Ye and save us!

Todd Bentley - FB conversation

S.L.: The Word of Faith movement has left the shores of America and is one of the worst things that has hit the continent of Africa. This Sunday (and also Monday and Tuesday nights) at Grace Bible Church here in Bozeman we have the privilege of hosting Mr. Justin Peters, a man who has done extensive research on the Word of Faith Movement, has appeared on The Way of the Master programs, and has, in person confronted men such as Joel Osteen, for their false teaching. If you know of loved ones who have gotten caught up in the Word of Faith Movement, or perhaps you have questions about this movement, and you want a gentle but well-researched presentation on the Word of Faith movement and the unbiblical nature of it, join us this Sunday morning (9:00 and 10:45) as the Call To Discernment Conference begins.

[WOTMR] Todd Bentley, with Justin Peters: Part 1 of 2

www.youtube.com

This took place on June 17, 2008 hour 2 program on the Way of the Master Radio show. I thought it was important to bring out someones personal experiance tha...

Me: Todd Bentley was out of control and was disciplined. You can read about it here: http://www.morningstarministries.org/resources/videos/todd-bentleys-restoration-update

It's a little disturbing to listen to these men mock the idea that God can heal people.

C.T.: Bentley is bad news...and so are those who have supported him...amazing how they take advantage of people who are truly seeking. I know firsthand how easily it is to be decived. The problem is there are many other ways people are abused in the church as well....

S.L.: Rich, come and see.

Me: Come and see what?

S.L.: The Word of Faith movement has left the shores of America and is one of the worst things that has hit the continent of Africa. This Sunday (and also Monday and Tuesday nights) at Grace Bible Church here in Bozeman we have the privilege of h...osting Mr. Justin Peters, a man who has done extensive research on the Word of Faith Movement, has appeared on The Way of the Master programs, and has, in person confronted men such as Joel Osteen, for their false teaching. If you know of loved ones who have gotten caught up in the Word of Faith Movement, or perhaps you have questions about this movement, and you want a gentle but well-researched presentation on the Word of Faith movement and the unbiblical nature of it, join us this Sunday morning (9:00 and 10:45) as the Call To Discernment Conference begins.

Me: No thanks. I just don't have the stomach for Christians mocking and criticizing other Christians.

S.L.: Why? If what Bentley and company promote is sound, solid, and biblical, what is there to be afraid of?

Me: It's not a question of fear. Todd Bentley screwed up his life and his ministry, and has since repented. What should our response as Christians be, in your opinion?

S.L.: If Justin Peter's conference is not of God, it'll bomb... much of the faith movement is false teaching and very damaging to many who buy into it.. As far as Bentley, I cannot and will not judge his heart, that is above my pay grade. I think the conference will be educational as we all need to learn how to biblically discern what is truth and real...

S.L.: We were warned of false teachings during the last days.....

Me: You are quite correct, of course. I am not disputing any of this at all. What I am pointing out is the attitude and presentation of that "Way of the Master" fellow. He's mocking. I see that kind of attitude too often in these self-appointed... guardians of doctrine. I have seen churches dissolve because the leadership saw fit to mock and and denigrate. 

I have to check my attitude all the time. Gal. 6:1 - " Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted."

My response to Dr. Johnson's latest letter.

Regarding your latest letter, I appreciate you taking the time to write me back. But I notice that once again you have very little to say about what I wrote. However, you do have a lot to say about Republicans, which is curious indeed. So I wonder, why do you find it so difficult to focus on what we’re talking about?

Ok, so here's my direct responses to your latest, which are interlaced and in bold:

“Actually I do get a little upset when I read your columns, but in this case I thought about it for four days before I wrote my letter, waiting to see if I felt the same--I did.” Ironically, you claimed below that you hit a raw nerve with me, but it is clear that you are already in that state yourself.

“I used the dictionary for your name for some attempt at humor, perhaps lame.” You think it is funny to attempt to insult someone’s intelligence? Forgive me for not laughing.

“You didn't mention Democrats, but nine out of ten people will think you are referring to Democrats when you say left or progressive, particularly when it's you who are using it those terms.” I would expect that nine out of ten people who were educated and paying attention would know the difference. Since they’re clearly not the same, and now that you know my context, does this in any way change what you think about the matter?

“The reason I referred to the Republican candidates is because instead of discussing jobs, they have been talking about laws for social issues.” Yet you continue to prattle on about Republicans. Why?

“Your second paragraph ends, ‘There ought to be a law!’ Changing a word or so, your third paragraph could read, ‘if I were a part of the political right, that would be the answer. The right love to tell people what to do. They are all about controlling people's lives, for their own good of course.’ Rather than refute what I wrote, you simply assert that “my” side does it too. Once again, it isn’t “my” side! Further, your comments are a diversion. Bad behavior from one cannot be used to justify bad behavior from another.

“The Republicans or political right have no problem with laws when it comes to our personal lives. This is particularly evident in the states working for laws that interfere with women's health issues. This addresses your second to last paragraph re big government controlling people.” You persist in conflating Republicans with the political right. I will no longer accept your comments about this. Until you obtain clarity, there is little I can explain to you.

The fact remains that the Left is distressingly comfortable with bringing the power of government to bear on law-abiding citizens. So do you have any refutation of this, or are you conceding the point?

“I agree with you that the Republicans have also screwed up...They don't appear to realize when you incur debts, they must be paid back with interest--taxes are the usual source.” Sigh. Once again we are talking about Republicans. Ok, I’ll indulge you one last time. Give me a list of notable Republicans that have suggested we do not pay back the debt. 

“Government does create jobs that private industry won't touch to begin with. An example is NASA. The miniaturization in space technology had a spin off into Silicon Valley and other industrial progress.” Apparently you missed my point. I didn’t say that government doesn’t employ people. Nor did I discuss whether or not government programs have produced good results. I said that government doesn’t create jobs.

You do understand this, don’t you? In order for government to hire someone, it must first take the money it needs from the private sector. So for every person hired for public work, there is less cash in the private sector to hire employees.

And by the way, regarding NASA. You do not seem to know that the government prohibited private companies from entering space without the space shuttle, until Reagan signed the Commercial Space Launch act. In other words, it was illegal for business to do what you fault them for not doing.

“People gripe about regulation, but you wouldn't be too happy if I weren't regulated as a physician.” No, people gripe about the unconstitutional insertion of government into the private affairs of people. People do not gripe about generic regulation. You are constructing a strawman. Few, if anyone, believe in no laws. Conservatives/ libertarians are not anarchists.

People without integrity will break laws, and people with integrity will obey them. Therefore, my comfort comes from people who are moral and law abiding, not from government regulation.

“You are in insurance and it was not unusual for me to go to bat for a patient with the commissioner when the company wouldn't pay an honest claim. I also had patients who wanted to have me lie for them on an exam or claim and I would say, ‘if I lie for you, what's to keep me from lying to you?’" I am happy that you approach your profession with integrity. This is a choice you have made apart from regulation, isn’t it?

“I also agree that government tends to approach all issues with the same approach, e.g., use an elephant gun to shoot a mosquito as well as an elephant. Specifics, please. Up ‘til now it seemed that government could do no wrong in your estimation.

“As to ‘values’ mentioned in your column yesterday, remember it's tough not to be concerned when your wages have gone down relative to inflation whereas CEOs who have lost money for their corporations get golden parachutes and lots of options.” Perhaps you could tell me how other people receiving money has any impact on your life at all. Also, maybe you could tell me how a private company, following the legal contract it signed with the CEO, no matter how foolish the deal might be, is a matter for government.

“Big banks also eagerly took bailouts and then gave bonuses.” This is clearly a failure of government, since the “pay czar” was supposed to police this. And you shouldn’t be surprised to learn that the political right was unanimous in its opposition to the bailouts.

“Understanding that you are independent in your thinking, I thought you might find it interesting that in the last 50 years if you had invested one thousand dollars in the market only during each of the Republican eras, you would by now have two thousand and a few hundred dollars. If you had done the same and kept in the market only during Democrat eras, you would have amassed ten thousand dollars.” Republicans again? Good grief. Have I been unclear? I will not defend a position I have not taken. Do you understand this yet?

Another simplistic, superficial correlation. You should know by now that I am not interested in these. Do you not remember your “Bill Clinton raised taxes and created 23 million jobs” debacle? You exhibit no regard at all for who was in power in other branches of government for the time periods in question, or for wars, bailouts, government interventions in the economy, tax policy, and any relevant regulatory and political environment that may have influenced the economy.

“Finally, it appears to me you vent a lot in your columns with much righteous indignation. Remember, Harry Truman said, ‘if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.’" A truly odd comment. I have been writing letters to the editor for decades, and my column for two years now. But I am somehow unable to stand the heat I receive? What?

I’m still in the kitchen, but have little patience for the critics who cause the heat, yet who don’t know what I am cooking but nevertheless feel free to pontificate about my food.

“I write about four to six letters a year, my last about your column where I actually agreed with you to some degree.” A backhanded compliment along with an obligatory denigrating comment. Sorry, I’m not impressed.

“In this past letter that we are addressing now, I got one neutral comment and ten thanking me for writing it-­more than any letter I've ever written.” Considering how focused you are on Republicans, I’m sure that Republican bashing probably plays big in your circle of friends. I really don’t care. All my friends love my columns. So this proves… what?

“It appears with you I hit a raw nerve.” Unthinking regurgitation of talking points unrelated to what I write never sits well with me.

“Although I'd say I'm a progressive, and want to help people down and out, I still belong strongly in personal responsibility.” A curious statement. Am I to believe that you think progressives generally don’t believe in personal responsibility?

“I might add, I have no problem with mandating health insurance. If you choose not to have health insurance and are injured in someway; you should have tattooed on your chest, ‘Leave me to die as I chose not to be insured.’” I happen to agree that people should bear the results of their choices without interference from a do-gooder government. And this person is also free to receive charity, if the charity is so inclined.

But if insurance is mandated, how could this person be uninsured?

“I say this and yet volunteer to see patients who need help at Community Health Partners, am a member of the Local Advisory Council on Mental Health, and volunteer at the Salvation Army and Gallatin Valley Food Bank. Good for you. But that seems to be in violation of progressive principles. A couple of days ago in the Chronicle, a progressive letter writer bemoaned the existence of charities, desiring that government would totally replace them.

“I'm including a few essays that give you an idea how I think.” Thanks for sending them, but I have no desire to respond to them.

Dr. Johnson, I had hoped that you would have provided me with a cogent response, but so much of what you wrote about is regarding a political persuasion I am not a part of and care little about. Perhaps if you choose to respond to this letter you might be a little more careful to address the topics at hand.

You will note that I quoted you profusely, and directly responded to each of your comments. This is my practice, one that I recommend you embrace as well.

Thanks for your time.

Mr. (Dr.) Johnson responds

Dear Rich,

Actually I do get a little upset when I read your columns, but in this case I thought about it for four days before I wrote my letter, waiting to see if I felt the same--I did. I used the dictionary for your name for some attempt at humor, perhaps lame. Actually I only used the first definition as it leads to the broader definition of the second. You didn't mention Democrats, but nine out of ten people will think you are referring to Democrats when you say left or progressive, particularly when it's you who are using it those terms.

The reason I referred to the Republican candidates is because instead of discussing jobs, they have been talking about laws for social issues. Your second paragraph ends, "There ought to be a law!" Changing a word or so, your third paragraph could read, "if I were a part of the political right, that would be the answer. The right love to tell people what to do. They are all about controlling people's lives, for their own good of course." The Republicans or political right have no problem with laws when it comes to our personal lives. This is particularly evident in the states working for laws that interfere with women's health issues. This addresses your second to last paragraph re big government controlling people.

I agree with you that the Republicans have also screwed up. I was once a diehard Republican. But their attitudes on taxes don't follow the Constitution. They don't appear to realize when you incur debts, they must be paid back with interest--taxes are the usual source. Government does create jobs that private industry won't touch to begin with. An example is NASA. The miniaturization in space technology had a spin off into Silicon Valley and other industrial progress.

People gripe about regulation, but you wouldn't be too happy if I weren't regulated as a physician. You are in insurance and it was not unusual for me to go to bat for a patient with the commissioner when the company wouldn't pay an honest claim. I also had patients who wanted to have me lie for them on an exam or claim and I would say, "if I lie for you, what's to keep me from lying to you?" I also agree that government tends to approach all issues with the same approach, e.g., use an elephant gun to shoot a mosquito as well as an elephant.

As to "values" mentioned in your column yesterday, remember it's tough not to be concerned when your wages have gone down relative to inflation whereas CEOs who have lost money for their corporations get golden parachutes and lots of options. Big banks also eagerly took bailouts and then gave bonuses. Understanding that you are independent in your thinking, ! thought you might find it interesting that in the last 50 years if you had invested one thousand dollars in the market only during each of the Republican eras, you would by now have two thousand and a few hundred dollars. If you had done the same and kept in the market only during Democrat eras, you would have amassed ten thousand dollars.

Finally, it appears to me you vent a lot in your columns with much righteous indignation. Remember, Harry Truman said, "if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen." I spent two years on the Chronicle board from 2002 to 2004, wrote a few guest columns and editorials. I write about four to six letters a year, my last about your column where I actually agreed with you to some degree. Usually when I write a letter to the editor, I can expect one or two positive comments, and occasionally none. In this past letter that we are addressing now, I got one neutral comment and ten thanking me for writing it-­more than any letter I've ever written. The last was when I was skiing yesterday was a waiter at Jimmy B's at Bridger Bowl. I asked him how he knew it was me. He said it was the different spelling of my name.

It appears with you I hit a raw nerve. Although I'd say I'm a progressive, and want to help people down and out, I still belong strongly in personal responsibility. I might add, I have no problem with mandating health insurance. If you choose not to have health insurance and are injured in someway; you should have tattooed on your chest, "Leave me to die as I chose not to be insured." I say this and yet volunteer to see patients who need help at Community Health Partners, am a member of the Local Advisory Council on Mental Health, and volunteer at the Salvation Army and Gallatin Valley Food Bank. I'm including a few essays that give you an idea how I think.

Seat belts and thankfulness for govt overreach - FB conversation

S.B. posted this: Say what you like about overreaching regulations, but I just drove past a family of 4 standing next to their wrecked car, who would have been dead had it nort been for airbags, seatbelts and crash resistant bumpers.

All innovations that the auto industry resisted btw.

J.S.: It's all there for a reason. 

M.G.: I am totally with you on this one!!

S.B.: Yeah but you're a nurse. You just don't wanna see all that blood! ;-)  

M.G.: Haha!! Blood is cool. I just don't think it is someone's "right" to go without a seatbelt or helmet and then get hurt, so we (taxpayers) can pay for their hospitalizations! It happens all the time! It seems the people that have no insurance are the same people that take extra chances....

Me: A) You couldn't possibly know that they would be dead absent govt regulations

B) you couldn't possibly know that they wouldn't have been wearing seatbelts otherwise.
C) Crash resistant bumpers are designed to prevent body damage in low speed impacts. They are therefore irrelevant to the situation you describe.
D) the federal government has no constitutional authority to force anyone to buy "safer" cars.
E) Apparently, government overreach is just fine and dandy, if only that some lives are saved. So, what amount of government overreach cannot be justified in the name of saving lives? Mandatory exercise? Banning fattening foods? National speed limit of 20 mph? Where is the line drawn in the name of saving lives?
E) I find it interesting that your first thought is to give thanks to government.

R.B.: You're right, he should have thanked the free market for making that car so affordable first.

 

Me: S.B.? Not likely.

R.L.: Honestly, crash resistant bumpers had nothing to do with saving their lives...it doesn't sound like it was a low speed impact. Airbags were invented by a car company, BTW (Mercedes)...actually, that same car company invented almost all modern safety features and continues to innovate even today, all without forced government regulation. Other than that, I agree air bags, crumple zones, anti-lock brakes and seat belts are all wonderful. Now riddle me this, why is it currently not legal to drive with an FIA certified crash cage that uses an X-brace across part of the door or a 5-point harness? They're okay when I'm racing, but not driving to work? More government stupidity...

 

D.H.: having had to sit on 395 for over an hour while 3 people were airlifted after a roll-over accident, I would agree with you. Dad and baby were belted in and suffered only minor injuries; mom and two kids were not wearing seatbelts - they were the ones airlifted. The mom died at the hospital.

 

S.C.: So sad for the children and Husband that lost the wife and mother, but how stupid not to wear your seat belt anymore or make sure your children are, especially with all the road rage these days you never know what is going to set someone off in this weird world these days. So many peeople out driving under the infulence, especially the meth heads, scary, way too scary.

A.K.: Some of us remember when the government was talking about requiring the installation of air bags in all cars. Conservatives opposed it in the name of freedom and because the free market didn't decree it. We were told it would make new cars too expensive. 

My wife and I had our lives saved nearly two years ago in a collision. I am not sorry that I lost my freedom to buy a car without air bags.

 

R.B.: Air bags? More like fascism-pillows used to smother the American people. Seat belts prevent us from pursuing the American dream through our windshields in the event of a crash.

 

A.Z.: I must say, you leftists draw some gerrymandered lines when it comes to the "its my body and I can do what I want" themes.

 

J.J.: libertarians like me have never advocated zero government. Government regulation is not the problem; excessive government regulation is the problem. This truth is not as photogenic as the cartoon crafted by the left, but it is the truth.

 

A.K.: There are many strains of Libertarianism that come very close to advocating zero government. I have read books on Libertarianism that advocate private police and private courts.

 

J.J.: It's okay to drink the cartoon KoolAid (tm) now and then. Where else would MSNBC get their commentators?

 

Me: Some of us here have difficulty in discerning the difference between a "good thing to do" vs. "a proper role of the government." The two are not the same. 

 

Me: There are many strains of totalitarianism. They only differ in the amount of power usurped from the people.

"Our values:" Chronicle editorial

Sometimes a phrase simply appears in the political discourse. It’s like a memo goes out, because suddenly every talking head is using it in their talking points. Doubtless the intent is to manipulate an opinion in order to obtain a political objective.

One such phrase I’ve been noticing lately is “our values.” A recent letter to the editor complained, “…he did not represent our values in Helena.” President Obama himself has used it: “That is the story of our history…, our commitment to stand up for our values…”

“Our values” sounds so noble, so thoughtful. One might assume that people who use this phrase really care; they are moral, nuanced, and thoughtful. Implied is that there are others who violate “our values.” Those people are immoral mouth breathers. They’re misogynists. Greedy. Eeeevil. They don’t have “our values.”

I would assume that “our values” was focus-grouped. Since most Americans have morals based on a religious premise, I suspect that the phrase is being used to attract them. One political party is traditionally seen as more in step with “values voters,” and as a result the other party desires to attract them by showing they care about “our values” too.

But is it even meaningful to ask what might be the values of 300+ million people? Is it even possible to impute commonality to a diverse group? Kind of like “world opinion” or “the interests of women,” I would assert that “our values” is simply a plausible sounding fiction, a cynical political maneuver.

Or maybe it’s an attempt to redefine “our values.” Traditional values might include self-reliance, fidelity, virtue, and generosity. But these values are frequently portrayed as old-fashioned, quaint relics from a past that never really existed. You see, we are progressing beyond those repressive ideas of yesteryear.

Yes, we have new values now, like equitable distribution of resources, choice, fairness, civility, and reproductive justice, all of which are carefully defined. These values, coupled with the idea that with enough reeducation, money, and with the right people in power, we can make the world a place where everyone is in harmony with each other in a wonderful paradise of unity and purpose.

As a result, in the name of fairness it is quite correct to assert that you have a claim on what belongs to someone else. In the name of equality you are justified in passing judgment on those who are deemed to have benefited excessively from life’s lottery. In the name of justice you should expect that other people will celebrate and subsidize your lifestyle.

In short, other people ought to be required to do things for you.

There is a word for people like this. That word is "child". And while we may love children and want to nurture them, we don't tolerate them running around incessantly demanding their way. We certainly shouldn’t pay for every whim that enters their precious little minds. Nor should we have to endure their inevitable insipid name calling. We are not haters, bigots, or oppressors.

This is the entitlement mentality. This is the world of little brats inside of grownup bodies. This is the product of a narcissistic generation obsessed with whether or not the piece of cake they were given is as big as someone else’s.

Let’s be clear, we are not talking about people with genuine need. You see, America has always been a generous nation, often in spite of government programs wasting our money on every hare-brained scheme someone dreams up. No, we are talking about those who think they have been cheated out of their rightful piece of cake, and want the bully down the street to come over and beat up the person who has a bigger slice.

Thus, “our values” is a way thinking that has nothing to do with a free and moral people. These values are obsessed with puerile things. We are right to reject them.

Progressives shredding the Bill of Rights

Since The Nation is complaining about Conservatives shredding the Bill of Rights, I thought we should look at them. I suspect that it is the Left that doesn't much care for the Bill of Rights. 

AMENDMENT I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. 

The Left seems to like about one half of this amendment. The really like not establishing, but they are routinely against the free exercise. Also, the "make no law" part has got to be the most  ignored phrase in the Bill of Rights.  

AMENDMENT II

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.

Oh, man. How the Left hates this amendment! Despite the recent supreme court ruling, they continue to insist that this right is a "group" right exercised at the behest of government conscription. But even this misses the point. The Bill of Rights is a list of additional government limits. It is are not intended to create rights or to describe the obligations or privileges on citizens. 

AMENDMENT III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

As the police state advances in America via the Patriot Act and various forfeitures laws, IRS liens, etc, we might someday need this amendment again. I wonder which side the ACLU will fall on?

AMENDMENT IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Left tends to like this amendment, but in a limited sense. In fact, they have done a pretty good job in many cases by litigating the excesses of government. But they fall short as it applies to "papers" in the sense that our most private of documents and records are routinely required of us in the form of our tax return. This is an egregious violation of privacy. 

AMENDMENT V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Again, the Left has done some good work here for the most part, with the exception of  the "takings" clause. This amendment was modified by the supreme court in the Kelo case in violation of the amendment process. "Public use" now means "public benefit." And "public benefit" is measured by the amount of tax revenue generated. 

AMENDMENT VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Much of this amendment has been rendered moot. We can safely delete the words "speedy," "impartial," and sometimes, "public," since they are no longer relevant. 

AMENDMENT VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

"Rules of the common law." Hmm. Not Sharia law? Not international law? 

AMENDMENT VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

"Excessive fines," like the forfeiture of your house, bank accounts, or car if suspected of being a RICO? And of course, the definition of "cruel and unusual" is schizophrenic, where slight discomfort is cruel and unusual in some cases, but sending an American citizen to Gitmo is perfectly ok if the government suspects some sort of terrorist connection. 

AMENDMENT IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Here's another irrelevant amendment. Because of the faulty idea that the Bill of Rights is about the people, this amendment is the ugly sister. According to this amendment, the people are pre-eminent over government. This might be the most important amendment, and the most ignored.

AMENDMENT X

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.

Hand-in-hand with Amendment IX is this one. This one also has been neutered by the Left, placing the federal government as the highest power. This is a reversal of the pyramid and a violation of this amendment.

The Nation makes me an attractive offer for merchandise

The Nation magazine, perennially decrying evil capitalists, are nevertheless always asking for money. 

I especially like their concern for the shredding of the Bill of Rights, and their desire to cuddle with Karl Marx. 

Gawd.

Wall Street Invented Class Warfare When we demand fairness, the powerful cry "class warfare." But while the rest of the country struggles, Wall Street firms are seeing record profits. The 1% have had the upper hand for too long. With our new t-shirts designed by Milton Glaser, you can support The Nation while you set the record straight. Calvin Trillin Mugs Who could be better to read along with the morning headlines than Calvin Trillin? The Nation's beloved verse poet for over twenty years, Trillin's words are now on a mug. Featuring his poem, "The Best Thing You Can Be Is CEO," the mugs serve as a cheerful reminder that somewhere out there—despite dismal unemployment figures and record-breaking home foreclosure rates—a corporate CEO is safely strapped to a golden parachute. Nation Writer T-Shirts, Thank a Teacher Pencils, and more! Our Nation Writer T-Shirts feature quotes by celebrated Nation contributors Molly Ivins, Kurt Vonnegut, James Baldwin, and W.E.B. Du Bois. Our "Thank a Teacher" pencils are a great way to show support for educators. With Buttons by Milton Glaser, you can proudly show which side you are on. And, finally, our classic Nation logo t-shirts and mugs let you show off your excellent taste in journalism. Unemployed Philosophers Guild While you are visiting Nation Mart, you can also check out the many gifts offered by our partner, the Unemployed Philosophers Guild. They have mugs that illustrate the effects of global warming or the shredding of the Bill of Rights, puppets in the likeness of figures such as Oscar Wilde and Albert Einstein, and pairs of freudian slippers. You can even treat yourself to a cuddly Karl Marx!