Those of the young generation, people too young to remember the collapse of Soviet bloc and other socialist states in 1989 and 1990, are fortunate to be living through another thrilling example of a seemingly impenetrable state edifice reduced to impotence when faced with crowds demanding freedom, peace, and justice.

There is surely no greater event than this. To see it instills in us a sense of hope that the longing for freedom that beats in the heart of every human being can be realized in our time.

This is why all young people should pay close attention to what is happening in Egypt, to the protests against the regime of Hosni Mubarak as well as the pathetic response coming from his imperial partner, the U.S., which has given him $60 billion in military and secret-police aid to keep him in power.

Several Democrats became emotional and at least two were moved to tears on the Iowa House floor as they argued against a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships, but the Iowa House went on to approve it on a 62-37 vote February 1 after a three-hour debate.

"This decision will spur hatred, and that hurts," said Representative Phyllis Thede (D-Bettendorf), her voice filled with emotion. "All of you here in some form are initiating hatred; that is not your intention but you are initiating it. ... What you're doing today, it only hurts you. It does nothing for anyone else."

Representative Beth Wessel-Kroeschell (D-Ames) urged the House not to label same-sex couples as second-class citizens. She said that House Joint Resolution 6 is extreme, and that only two states have approved amendments as restrictive. She argued that marriage is a basic civil right. And she said that gay and lesbian couples have been some of Iowa's best foster parents.

Billions of dollars worth of badly needed state construction projects on roads, bridges, schools, and transit were abruptly halted last week when a state appellate court tossed out Illinois' entire capital construction program and all its funding sources.

The state is appealing to the Illinois Supreme Court, but if the appellate-court ruling is upheld, it's probably not going to be easy to replace this thing.

About 21 House Republicans voted for the $31-billion capital plan's controversial funding mechanisms - video poker, vehicle fees, and tax hikes on candy and booze.

Except for video poker, those fee and tax hikes have gone almost completely unnoticed since the bill was passed in May of 2009. But with a brand-new and tremendously unpopular income-tax hike still burning white-hot in the public's gullet, and a whole bunch of "new conservatives" elected last November, re-approving the tax and fee hikes isn't going to be a simple matter.

"Of course, there is no doubt that if we lived in a police state, it would be easier to catch terrorists. If we lived in a country that allowed the police to search your home at any time for any reason; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to open your mail, eavesdrop on your phone conversations, or intercept your email communications; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to hold people in jail indefinitely based on what they write or think, or based on mere suspicion that they are up to no good, then the government would no doubt discover and arrest more terrorists. But that probably would not be a country in which we would want to live. And that would not be a country for which we could, in good conscience, ask our young people to fight and die. In short, that would not be America." - Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI), voicing his concerns over Congress' passage of the USA Patriot Act (October 25, 2001)

Russ Feingold, a staunch defender of the rule of law and the only senator to vote against the ominous USA Patriot Act, recently lost his bid for re-election to the U.S. Senate to a Tea Party-backed Republican. From the start, Feingold warned that the massive 342-page piece of legislation would open the door to graver dangers than terrorism - namely, America becoming a police state. He was right.

The Patriot Act drove a stake through the heart of the Bill of Rights, violating at least six of the ten original amendments - the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Amendments - and possibly the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, as well. The Patriot Act also redefined terrorism so broadly that many non-terrorist political activities such as protest marches, demonstrations and civil disobedience were considered potential terrorist acts, thereby rendering anyone desiring to engage in protected First Amendment expressive activities as suspects of the surveillance state.

The Patriot Act justified broader domestic surveillance, the logic being that if government agents knew more about each American, they could distinguish the terrorists from law-abiding citizens - no doubt an earnest impulse shared by small-town police and federal agents alike. According to Washington Post reporter Robert O'Harrow, Jr., this was a fantasy that had "been brewing in the law enforcement world for a long time." And 9/11 provided the government with the perfect excuse for conducting far-reaching surveillance and collecting mountains of information on even the most law-abiding citizen.