Mike Williams

In a recent development in the land of beer and sausage comes a striking blow to those who would like to store your personal communications information for a period of six months. You know. Just in case law enforcement might need it for something.

via Slashdot…

Germany’s highest court on Tuesday overturned a law allowing authorities to retain data on telephone calls and e-mail traffic to help fight terrorism and crime. The Federal Constitution Court ruled that major changes needed to be made to a 2008 law ordering data on calls made from mobile or fixed-line telephones and e-mail traffic to be kept for six months for possible access by law enforcement agencies.

The judges said the data storage was not secure enough and that it was not sufficiently clear what it would be used for. A record number of almost 35,000 people, including current Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, had originally brought the case to the court. The law stems from a European Union directive.

The court said all data stored to date must be deleted immediately. It said the law went far beyond the requirements of the EU directive. The storage of data could “cause a diffusely threatening feeling of being under observation that can diminish an unprejudiced perception of one’s basic rights in many areas,” said the president of the court, Hans-Jürgen Papier.

Absolutely shocked? I was.

This is the European Union after all. Peace, love, socialism, and all of that.

If you take the time to read the article you’ll see that the fight isn’t over yet. The Germans would be ok with a law that had better defined parameters when it comes to the storage, use, and access of the data.

I suppose if you whack people with a stick long enough they might just get pissed off.

Sounds ridiculous doesn’t it?

Regulation implies something which man controls.

Nature is something man does not control.

Somehow, we are supposed to believe that those two words go together.

They obviously do not.

CO2 or carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring gas. It is the by-product of the mammalian respiratory cycle. We breathe in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide.

That is a fact.

Plants use carbon dioxide for growth and expend oxygen in the process. We call this a “circle of life” if you will. A mutually beneficial relationship and one that has lasted for thousands of years.

Somehow. Somewhere in our recent history our elected officials think that they know better than nature and think that they somehow have the power to control one of these two elements.

The damaging component is the reason they believe the regulation is needed. Excessive carbon dioxide is leading to global warming. Have you looked outside lately? Warming? Seriously? This theory that carbon dioxide is a major player in the global warming hoax has been refuted and shown to be completely false.

With that being said, where are the calls in the senate for the brakes to be applied.

Trying to regulate nature based on a theory that has been proven wrong has to be the very definition of insanity.

If you are wondering why you should be looking forward to voting congress out of office, I believe this is just one small reason.

I have many many more.

To the folks who are Sarah Palin robots, this post is not for you.

I like Sarah Palin but I seriously do not agree with everything the woman says.

Case in point. Exhibit A.

Now the smart thing will be for independents who are such a part of this Tea Party movement to, I guess, kind of start picking a party,” Palin said. “Which party reflects how that smaller, smarter government steps to be taken? Which party will best fit you? And then because the Tea Party movement is not a party, and we have a two-party system, they’re going to have to pick a party and run one or the other: ‘R’ or ‘D’.

Telling the Tea Party movement that they need to pick a party solely because we only have a two party system is ludicrous. It completely discounts the many reasons that the tea party movement exists. The tea party movement (the real one) is party neutral. So, I suppose that it’s ok to pick the lesser of two evils? Isn’t that what the McCain campaign was all about for the true grass roots conservative types who, on several occasions, denied McCain a presidential bid?

Yes.

Thinking that you absolutely must pick sides is part of the problem here.

The Democrat candidate sucks. The Republican candidate sucks.

If a tea party candidate who believes in everything I do runs, why shouldn’t I vote for them? What’s more important? Is it more important that the candidate have an R after their name or is it more important to vote for someone who actually represents me and my views?

Telling someone that they absolutely positively MUST pick sides is the problem.

I’m also afraid that the person who said that has absolutely no idea what she’s talking about.