Daily Topics - Tuesday January 3rd, 2012

Hour One: Political predictions for 2012 - Robert Reich / Plus, the latest from the first primary of the year...the Iowa Caucuses - John Nichols, The Nation Magazine
Hour Two: Republicans flip-flop on Voter ID and voter fraud - Brad Friedman, The Brad Blog / Plus, Montana's high court decision on Citizen's United - David Cobb, Move to Amend
Hour Three: Concealed carry permits for convicted felons? Noel Flasterstein, Gun Rights For You
Comments

The Oxford English Dictionary shows that the words 'private' and 'privacy' have had their present meanings back to Shakespeare's day. There was no particular association with toilets (except, of course, in the obvious euphemistic way). But your argument does not turn on this linguistic point: it is simply sophistry to assert that there is no right to privacy because the word 'privacy' does not appear, as foolish as the argument that 'separation of church and state' does not appear in the Bill of RIghts and so does not exist.
Incidentally, I have met a fair number of Brits, and nobody says 'water closet' any more, although it is sometimes seen on old signage. They say 'toilet'. Oddly, Americans seem to feel that 'toilet' is just slightly naughty (Archie Bunker used to get laughs just by saying 'terlet'). Or they say 'loo' or other slangs. They sometimes say 'bathroom' now (even though there may be no bath, as in truck stops), the result of American television, but I get the impression that this is by no means in general use.

The Declaration of Independence does in fact say, "... whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, ... " It doesn't say "whenever any monarchy..."
Respectfully Thom, the notion that Americans should rid themselves of tyrannical government, as prescribed in the Declaration, is not a singularly militia movement opinion - unless you consider Naomi Wolf a militia member. I'd be suprised to learn that you have not read "Give Me Liberty", but if not I'd suggest you do. If you have, and still make such generalized statements, you've not only lost the intellectual high-ground, but also this long time listeners respect.

The Thirteenth Amendment does not actually say persons can't own persons. the closest thing is the part of the Fourteenth Amendment (Sec. 1) that says the governments of the states can't deprive a person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

I've known only one person who ever referred to a bathroom as a restroom, even though "restroom" is on all the signs in public establishments in the US.
The funny thing about the British is that they refer to the room as the toilet, which makes it sould as if they have very bad aim. As I understand it, "toilet" is sort of formal, and "loo" is colloquial, though still not impolite.



The Fourth Amendment unfortunately has a deep flaw. There is no sentence to say that searches shall be conducted only with a warrant. It says searches have to be reasonable. It says judges have to have someone swear that there's a reason to issue a warrant. It just doesn't connect the warrant to the search.
By the way, the monarch of England has, for a long time, had a Privy Council, which has never had a name change, to my knowledge.