CoffeeShopWeekly.com

From the Coffee Shops to the Barstools

What the Real People are Saying

Warning!

Not Politically Correct Because We Don’t Have To Be

July 15, 2005

CSW 05-17E

The Coffee Shop is Open

And the people say…………….

Video Cameras and Civil Liberties

vs.

The Disgusting Bombers of London

Did you happen to see the videotape of "evil" walking around London? It sure was eerie. There they were. The London bombers. Right before our eyes. Caught on videotape with bombs in their backpacks, murder in their hearts, virgins on their minds. Will the A.C.L.U. bring suit posthumously because London violated the vile men's privacy rights via videotape? It wouldn't surprise us if they did even though it's the American Civil Liberties Union. We know they don't have a clue as to what day it is. Perhaps they will be as confused about what country they're in.

Here's an example of stupidity from the Houston branch.

Randall Kallinen, who is president of the Houston A.C.L.U. chapter, has been quoted by the AP as saying, "We've really become a surveillance society. History has shown that any time that surveillance has become a way of life, it becomes abused and used for purposes not intended." Aw shucks! You mean we can't use cameras to catch terrorists, or criminals, or kidnappers, or traffic violators? Is it their theory that we have a right to break the law without someone watching? Don't peek. Don't invade my privacy while I'm committing a crime? Now that's just stupid, liberal thinking!!! However, we must admit. In a way, this jerk is right. The London cameras were never specifically intended to be used to identify radical Muslim murderers about to kill scores of Brits.

And another thing. On February 25, 2002 the A.C.L.U. wrote on its website, "Indeed, the studies of cameras in Britain found that people deemed to be "out of time and place" with the surroundings were subjected to prolonged surveillance."

And it paid off, didn't it dweebos!

And paranoia continues to run rampant.

According to syndicated conservative (?) columnist Jacob Sullum, "…knowing that you are being watched by armed government agents tends to put a damper on things. You don't want to offend them or otherwise call attention to yourself." (CSW: Like peeing in an alley or planting a bomb?!)

He says, "Eventually people may learn to be careful about the books and periodicals they read in public, avoiding titles that might alarm unseen observers." (CSW: Like How to Blowup a Subway in 5 Easy Lessons?)

"They may also put more thought into how they dress, lest they look like terrorists, gang members, druggies or hookers." (CSW: Duuuh! Right! And your point is? These are really weak arguments against surveillance cameras. What a dweeb.)

So if you haven't guessed by now, CSW is all for cameras in public places. Don't do anything wrong, you don't have to worry.

And Now a Few Words From Our……….. Readers

If your e-mail is used, we copy and paste it just as you write it, bad grammar, misspelled words and all. We embolden the font for clarity then strip and delete your name and e-mail address.

 

Re: CSW 05-17 "Child Molesters, Pedophiles"

Nice article! Also, as an FYI, since early May, Cincinnati has been serving any sex offender living within 1000 feet of a school an eviction notice. I live about 10 minutes from Cincinnati and now the court cases are just starting to show up of people protesting it. Just wanted to let you know.

Ed. Note: Thanks. Now if we could get Governor Taft to issue eviction notices too, Ohio would have no problems. But then, Taft doesn't do much of anything.

There is one CORRECTION that needs to be noted. Those opposed to this should be labeled "civil liberties advocates" because a constitutionalist is technically anyone skilled in analyzing the constitution. Rehnquist and Scalia are of most noted in that area. They would definitely defend this law and would most likely defend the death penalty for repeated sex offenders. I thought I would make a note of that to you.

Ed. Note: We were using "constitutionalist" in the broadest of terms to indicate those "intellects" who think they have all the answers when it comes to interpreting the constitution. But you're correct. "Civil liberties advocates" is a better choice of terms. (This reader has written an article on the proposed city legislation. It can be found at Jeremy LaKosh.)

Re: CSW 05-17 "How do you see it?"

The way I see it is that you've got it nailed down pretty good. Keep up the good work.

Ed. Note: Thank you, thank very much.

 

Thank you ladies and gentlemen for your attention and have a good evening.

The bar is open.

How do you see it?

Comment to Comments@coffeeshopweekly.com