The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[Alex]

It could be accurate as told but experience says that a story from The Blaze should be investigated to make sure reality conforms.

[Ghoulish Delight]

In this case the Blaze article was linked to from Drudgereport.com so that should elevate any concerns about its veracity.

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

In this case the Blaze article was linked to from Drudgereport.com so that should alleviate any concerns about its veracity.

There, I fixed that embarrassing typo for you.

[Strangler Lewis]

The decision is unremarkable.

Which is not to say it's not outrageous.

But under current precedent, it's unremarkable.

Someday, "they" will develop a machine to hook up to people's brains to accurately record their thoughts and their intent (sale or personal use) regarding the drugs and other indicia in their car. Doing so would seem to be as lawful under the Fourth Amendment as searching a cell phone, and it would be as lawful under the Fifth Amendment as a forced blood draw.

The interesting Fourth Amendment issue would be when evidence of other crimes is uncovered in the suspect's thoughts. Arguably, the search would be overbroad if the technology could not hone in on the specific memory centers that referenced the crime being investigated. On the other hand, the police generally have the right to seize evidence in plain view anywhere they have a right to be, i.e., your brain.

[alphabassettgrrl]

Did a tiny bit of digging. The decision was in January.

One other thing I found in the search was that police in Michigan don't just look at your phone- they download the whole database from it.

[Alex]

Wasn't there another recent ruling somewhere that causing a computer to wake up, even if in the course of siezing it, was a search requiring a warrant?

[Ghoulish Delight]

While I have no love for Hank Williams Jr. and am not going to shed a tear for him or the loss of that insipid song, I can't say his stupid analogy was anything other than stupid, not offensive.

Surely it falls under the, "Unless it involves the mass slaughter of human beings, don't bring up Hitler in a political discussion," idiot umbrella. But I don't think he was actually comparing Obama to Hitler.

[Betty]

Yeah - I tend to think he's more of a dumbass without a lot of common sense more than anything else.

[Strangler Lewis]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

While I have no love for Hank Williams Jr. and am not going to shed a tear for him or the loss of that insipid song, I can't say his stupid analogy was anything other than stupid, not offensive.

Surely it falls under the, "Unless it involves the mass slaughter of human beings, don't bring up Hitler in a political discussion," idiot umbrella. But I don't think he was actually comparing Obama to Hitler.

Yes, the smart thing to have done would have been to clarify that actually he has no use for Jews so that while, yes, Obama happened to be Hitler in his analogy, it's not like Boehner was the good guy.

[Kevy Baby]

Only because I am sure I am not the only one curious about what Hank actually said, I am using one article (which seems to mirror what I am finding on other sites) to show the quote:

Originally Posted by Victor Fiorillo in The Philly Post

On Monday, Williams went on Fox & Friends, the morning show for the Red States, where he was asked who he liked among the current GOP candidates. (No one, in case you care what Hank Williams Jr. thinks.) Then he felt the urge to express his distaste for Obama’s ill-advised “golf summit” with Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner. And here’s what Williams said: “It would be like Hitler playing golf with Netanyahu, okay?”

And to be clear, my intention is not to take a side in this one, simply to post the quote and its context.