Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
United States Your Rights Online

Want Freedom? 1084

Xenopax writes "According to this story on the Sacramento Bee Americans are now more willing to throw away their first amendment rights for the false feeling of security than ever before. In fact many believe that the First amendment goes too far with its protection and think we should allow monitoring of religious groups for national security. Also many people believe the media shouldn't be allowed to question the government in times of war. One has to wonder if anyone cares about their constitutional rights any more, or if everyone would be happier living in 1984." The study is conducted by the Freedom Forum every year and is available for download.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Want Freedom?

Comments Filter:
  • The country (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 30, 2002 @01:18PM (#4170945)
    The country is diverse, with many differing opinions. Too often we're encouraged to look at "the numbers" and try to imagine what "society" feels about a particular issue. There is no such thing. There are 260 million americans, with such diverse and opposing views that it should come as no suprise that in times of high tension, the "common ground" we thought we shared seems to slip away, as we retreat towards the safety of our personal biases. That's what's happening here. Whether we need to be concerned with it is another matter. Our first amendment rights are already non-absolute, so that's not even the question. It's shades of gray, degrees. All you can do is to try not to respond too emotively, measure and weigh your beleifs and opinions, and do what you know is right for yourself.
  • religion (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Toshito ( 452851 ) on Friday August 30, 2002 @01:20PM (#4170974)
    I'm not against keeping an eye on religions. They are the biggest source of conflicts in the history of man.

    The problem is that not every religion will be treated equaly... Bush will surely not mess with his friends of the christian right...
  • by dada21 ( 163177 ) <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Friday August 30, 2002 @01:21PM (#4170993) Homepage Journal
    Thank the founders that this country is not a democracy, but a Constitional Republic. Of course, the liberals and conservatives of this country like to forget that.

    Our Constitution was set forth in order to protect our God given rights from destruction by an insane majority. As you can now see, the insane majority is here.

    I will only vote for those who push legislation for smaller government. In Illinois, we will have libertarians on almost every ballot position, and that's how I will make my statement.

    Of course, if we do find more infrindgements on our liberties, I will be one of the first to move to Costa Rica, or another country where their freedoms are GROWING, and because those countries aren't fighting "wars on everything," the standard of living is just as high as it is here (for entrepreneurs), but the tax burden and liberty loss is less.

    Don't accept this mess. Vote to end government/business orgies and socialist schemes -- VOTE LIBERTARIAN [lp.org].
  • by Lemmy Caution ( 8378 ) on Friday August 30, 2002 @01:27PM (#4171053) Homepage
    The United States has not had real conflict in its borders since the mid 19th century - even 9/11 wasn't a real war at home in anyway comparable to anything the rest of the world has had to deal with for most of the 20th century. In light of that fact, it wasn't surprising that a rhetoric of a free society was able to develop. In light of the love of comfort and security that the American populace evinces, I sometimes think that if it faced the sorts of turmoil that Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America confronted, it would be willing to create a society far less free than many of the above in order to defend those comforts. The luxury of freedom apparently ranks below other luxuries.
  • by kafka93 ( 243640 ) on Friday August 30, 2002 @01:31PM (#4171097)
    The Orwellian reference is most often quoted, but the society in which we increasingly find ourselves bears more similarities with Huxley's work than that of the overrated hack. Our freedoms are not corroded because of fear of any particular oppression, but rather because it's generally more comfortable, more stupefying, to give those freedoms away. People *will* trade their freedom for security - hell, people will trade their freedom for pretty much anything that makes their lives a little easier in the short term, and that allows them to think a little less, to make a little less effort.

    In a society where creature comforts are increasingly easy to come by for the average man, there's an increasing willingness/tendency to sacrifice - or ignore - everybody else. So a few of those funny towel-heads get harassed - what of it? So a few lazy bums are on the streets - not my problem. So long as I get my multiple television channels, eh?

    Most people just don't care all that much about their freedom - they view 'freedom' as the right to watch tv, drink a beer, see a football game. Even on Slashdot, there are always people who are happy to espouse the free software alternative right up to the point at which they want to play a Windows-only, proprietary computer game. Is it really surprising that most of us don't know what our rights are? We don't need or want to know - and such rights are threatening, particularly in the hands of _other people_.

    Just a quick rant.
  • by reimero ( 194707 ) on Friday August 30, 2002 @01:44PM (#4171242)
    One thing I find interesting in all this discussion of rights and freedoms is really how much we assume is constitutionally guaranteed versus what the Constitution actually says. For instance, here is the First Amendment [cornell.edu] in its entirety:
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    From the above, it has been inferred that any kind of prayer in public schools is unconstitutional, that putting the 10 Commandments on public property is unconstitutional, that pr0n is legal, that a woman has the right to privacy and, consequently, the right to terminate pregnancy, that public libraries may not filter web sites, and so on and so forth.

    The point I'm making is that we have become accustomed to reading an awful lot into that one small amendment. As a student of political science, however, I find it both amusing and disturbing that the first five words of the amendment are the ones most frequently ignored: "Congress shall pass no law..."

    Taken literally (and as the Founding Fathers intended!) this means that most of these freedoms we take for granted were never intended to be freedoms at the level they are, but rather issues left to the individual states!

    I don't know exactly what that means for us today, but it is food for thought.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 30, 2002 @01:46PM (#4171264)
    If the US government can't keep sensisitve information from the media then we have much bigger problems than treason. Trust me, if the media can get information, then so much more easily can foreign goverments (with spies, etc. Not paranoia, the US has always had spies from all over infiltrate -- we usually find out decades after the fact. I mean, *Cuba* has infiltrated in recent years! Not to mention England, the USSR back in the day, etc. etc.).

    I have to say, I find all of this terrifying, and I'm not sure if it's just a lack of historical perspective (is history not taught in the US?), or just a blind, naive and (IMHO undeserved) confidence in a "completely benign" government (ha!).

    Do people really not understand that's what made a lot of communist (arguably really totalitarian, but that's another topic) countries not pleasant to live in?

    If you're really willing to give up these freedoms, then I suggest China or Cuba (or for that matter Iraq). That's the government you're looking for. No human rights or due process to protect you from the tyranny of government? Sorry, comes with the territory! But at least you'll be protected from the media selling secrets to foreign goverments!

    In fact, to quote someone who may carry more weight with Americans:

    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    - Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

    (I could go on about the quote. I love that it's not just "will not have" but actually "do not even *deserve* liberty nor safety". I have to agree).
  • by poot_rootbeer ( 188613 ) on Friday August 30, 2002 @01:50PM (#4171309)

    The sad truth is that the average person is dumb, and half the population is even dumber than that.

    Thus, it doesn't surprise me when 4 out of 10 people say that they don't think the press and the academic community should be allowed to criticize government plans -- they're the 4 who are dumber than average.
  • Looking closely... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by American AC in Paris ( 230456 ) on Friday August 30, 2002 @01:52PM (#4171321) Homepage
    In reading through the survey results, the following struck me as interesting.

    The question the article makes a lot of noise over (question 2.) Question 2 is basically a recitation of the text of the first amendment, followed by the text:

    "Based on your own feelings about the First Amendment, please tell me whether you agree or disagree with the following statement: The First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees.'

    In this context, more people agreed than disagreed (by 2 points) that the First Amendment goes to far.

    Now, if you look at questions 3-9, each of which ask the interviewee to rate the importance of each freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment individually, there's a solid and vociferous defense for the freedoms guaranteed (on average, between 65% and 80% of people feel that any given freedom is 'essential'.)

    What does this tell us? It tells me that there is an effective lobby against "The First Amendment", and that, when the freedoms are disassociated from "The First Amendment", Americans are rabidly supportive of their First Amendment rights. This leads me to hope that, while First Amendment attacks are en vogue in a number of circles today, that the people will lash back should the Frist Amendment face too concerted of an attack.

    If we want to draw attention to the erosion of First Amendment rights, we need to step away from the "XXXXX is taking away our First Amendment rights" argument and approach the problem from an "XXXXX is taking away your (right to assemble/right to practice religion/right to privacy/right to speak your mind)."

    Sadly, it seems that people cherish the First Amendment considerably less than they cherish the rights that amendment provides.

    (My views are my own. They do not reflect those of my employer. I am not a real political analyst, I just work with them.)

  • by peacefinder ( 469349 ) <alan.dewitt@gmAA ... inus threevowels> on Friday August 30, 2002 @01:59PM (#4171391) Journal
    This isn't the first time that we've gone off the collective deep end this way. A couple yars ago, I read American Aurora [powells.com], which tells the story of the 1800 presidential election through the lens of contemporary newspapers. The curtailment of liberty and supression of dissent that went on then are absolutely appalling to me, and probably to any modern westerner.

    Those who do know history are doomed to watch others repeat it. :)
  • Bread and Circuses (Score:2, Interesting)

    by rickwood ( 450707 ) on Friday August 30, 2002 @02:10PM (#4171491)
    As long as we're whoring with gratuitous quotes...

    "A perfect democracy, a 'warm body' democracy in which every adult may vote and all votes count equally has no internal feedback for self correction. It depends solely on the wisdom and self-restraint of citizens...which is opposed by the folly and lack of self-restraint of other citizens. What is supposed to happen in a democracy is that each sovereign citizen will always vote in the public interest for the safety and welfare of all. But what does happen is that he votes his own self-interest as he sees it...which for the majority translates as 'Bread and Circuses'

    Bread and Circuses is the cancer of democracy, the fatal disease for which there is no cure. Democracy often works beautifully at first. But once a state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader--the barbarians enter Rome."

    -- RAH, To Sail Beyond Sunset

    Post Scriptum: In accordance with Sircar's Corollary, and since Fascism is already mentioned somewhere in this thread, I'm pre-emptively invoking Godwin's Law.
  • by Mr.Sharpy ( 472377 ) on Friday August 30, 2002 @02:11PM (#4171510)
    if one morning they woke up to find that while they were sleeping the US government had become a totalitarian dictatorship with Pres. Bush at the helm? Granted, that seems unlikely since they apparently prefer to work the government slowly in that direction, but the question still remains.

    If the US government was openly and violently suppressing the American people, what do you think the rest of the world would do? Would the Europeans come to our aide? Would the Africans laugh at our disgrace? Would China just go on with its business of becoming the next super-power?

    Would the French help an American resistance movement? Would the British sell the people arms? Or would there be endless talk and admonitions of human rights violations? I really can't imagine that anyone would help us.

    I really do believe that the greatest threat to American citizens is not terrorism, but our own government. That might be paranoid, but it's how I feel about it. And everyday I become more and more concerned. And then I wonder, who would help us? What would the world do?
  • by murky.waters ( 596967 ) on Friday August 30, 2002 @02:21PM (#4171630)
    You've got it all confused:

    1.
    "In a true capitalist system, government can NEVER subsidize, tariff, or embargo companies. They can't regulate or control. They can't tax."

    That's anarchy with a capitalistic twist. BAD IDEA. Mugging people would be a viable business model, America's biggest companies would be crime syndicates (you might argue that that is already the case though...). Hey, and why not just let poor people starve to death, how would that be? I bet real efficient, and great news for your wallet. Your mistake is not acknowledging that shit happens. No taxes means no justice for poor people, not even the tiny hint thereof we have today. You get driven over by a car? Like who gives a bleep. We're not wasting our precious millions on the likes of you, scum!

    2.
    "greed helps EVERYONE, not just the greedy"

    That's one of the bigger pieces of bullshit floating around in peoples' heads. Haven't you heard about Nash equilibria yet? You know, the guy they made that movie about? Well, he got a Nobel prize in economics for pointing out that Adam Smith's invisible hand is bullshit. Not always, but more often than not the best result for the group and the individuals is achieved when people cooperate (== opposite of capitalism). Unfortunately, when one side cheats, the other gets screwed big time, and so both sides tend towards non-cooperation, resulting in an inefficient outcome.

    Bah, and after that tirade, here's my point: what's wrong with the world, such as it is today, is that people treat each other like shit, without any respect or dignity, and only trying to screw each other over:

    Anybody can be a jerk, in America we call that "freedom."

  • by guanxi ( 216397 ) on Friday August 30, 2002 @02:24PM (#4171666)
    Fair enough. Also, at least Lincoln made clear our universal objectives.

    What are we sacrificing for now? Merely security for the majority? Every tinpot dictator in history has provided that.
  • by teamhasnoi ( 554944 ) <teamhasnoi AT yahoo DOT com> on Friday August 30, 2002 @02:25PM (#4171668) Journal
    One issue voters are always trying to force their belief systems on me. "Hey, you can't do that! It says in the bible..blahablaalaba. We need a law that no one can walk around naked in their own house."

    While I have nothing against the bible or people reading it, living it or whatever. I DO NOT want people telling me what I can, or can't do based on their 'bible beliefs'. The regression of free speech is a sad tale of repressed morality, and low IQ. When I hear that a book/movie/music is banned, people are being put on 'probably going to be a crimminal' lists and held for no legal reason, and when GWB decides to go to war all by himself, I ask, "Where are the dissenting voices?"

    The DMCA, U.S Patent Office, the Patriot act, Carnivore, Echelon, M$ allowed monopoly, the lack of worker rights in the workplace, **AAs, DRM, SSCCA, the isolationism of the USA and our resulting lack of support for the Kyoto treaty, the lack of difference between political parties, Senator Disney and his Club, Campaign Reform (not), CAFE standards, war oil oil war, Alaskan Reserve, Enron, Halburton, Worldcom, The Office of Homeland Security.

    Are these things NOT fucked up? Am I missing something?

    I don't fear the terrorists. I fear my own well meaning, scared, righteous, incompetent citizens will continue to support a Government that is plainly out of control.

    I'm now in the list.

  • by MAXOMENOS ( 9802 ) <mike&mikesmithfororegon,com> on Friday August 30, 2002 @02:33PM (#4171756) Homepage

    Why is it that there seem to be many Americans that believe that the USA invented the concepts of democracy, freedom and liberty? The issue comes up time and time again. Is it something that is taught in schools in the USA?

    Nope. The usual party line is that the Greeks invented Democracy, Freedom, and Liberty; and that the Americans re-established it after getting sick and tired of Monarchy.

    That's the party line anyway. The reality is probably more complex, involving a mix of Masonic ideals, romantic ideals about the Greeks and Romans, and English corporate traditions.

    I do think it's safe to say that The American Revolution inspired (or was one of the inspirations for) the French Revolution, which laid the foundation for the spread of Liberal Democratic ideals throughout the world. At least, that's my rather provincial, and admittedly somewhat chauvanistic, take on the matter.

    Of course, what's going on now, IMO, is laying the foundation for the spread of tyrrany throughout the world.

  • Good point. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ratamacue ( 593855 ) on Friday August 30, 2002 @02:37PM (#4171802)
    Another prime example is the US and its "war on drugs". By revoking the citizen's freedom to use or sell mind-altering substances for recreational purposes, the US government created a black market which has greatly accelerated the national crime rate. Correct me if I'm wrong, but (1) the US currently has the highest ratio of inmates/population in the world, and (2) at least 50% of US inmates are in jail for non-violent drug offences. Can anyone put 2 and 2 together?

    Incidentally, this prohibition directly benefits government in the form of justification for more tax revenue and power over the people. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
  • Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday August 30, 2002 @02:37PM (#4171804)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • DISGUSTED (Score:2, Interesting)

    by suprnova ( 179605 ) <suprnova@suprnova.net> on Friday August 30, 2002 @02:41PM (#4171845) Homepage
    I am quite disgusted at the apparent lack of education of the general populace of the U.S.

    How can ANYONE possibly turn around say the gov't. should have the ability to question religion, and that journalists shouldn't be allowed to question the Gov't.

    You would have to be terribly uneducated to say ANY of these things.

    I am shocked to see that the United States is quickly turning into any of the dystopian books I have read (Brave New World, 1984, etc)
    Maybe if the rest of the country picked up a book once in a while, they would see these things coming....

    Also, when did it become a crime to believe in something. So people believe in the same religion as some of the terrorists. That doesnt mean a thing.
    I remember when I was in high school, you could say to someone "leave me alone or I will kill you", now, if you say that...its off to jail for conspiring to commit a terrorist act....disgusting...
  • by oyenstikker ( 536040 ) <slashdot@sb[ ]e.org ['yrn' in gap]> on Friday August 30, 2002 @02:43PM (#4171877) Homepage Journal
    I asked my mother a few questions:
    Me: Should the government be allowed to read suspicous people's email without a warrent?
    Her: Yes.
    Me: Should the government be allowed to stop media that they view as a threat?
    Her: Yes.
    Me: Should the government be allowed to hold suspected terrorists without trial?
    Her: Yes.
    Me: Should the government be allowed to censor the internet?
    Her: Yes.
    Me: Should the government be allowed to put cameras looking into suspected terrorists houses?
    Her: Yes.
    Me: Should people give up any liberties to make our country safer?
    Her: NO!!!!

    exactly.
  • by Ungrounded Lightning ( 62228 ) on Friday August 30, 2002 @03:11PM (#4172137) Journal
    Makes us look like wusses, throwing it all away in the face of the relatively very minor threats we face in 2002.

    Who you calling "us"?

    The bulk of the population was ALWAYS willing to throw this stuff away - even (perhaps especially) during the period where those documents were composed. The revolution was run by a tiny fraction of the population even then.

    The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights were largely put there by a coalition of radical (for the time) pressure groups and state legislators. These people were the "anti-federalist" faction of the Founding Fathers and were concerned that the Federalists were staging a coup and setting up a super-state by hijacking an articles-of-confederation-revision committee of the Continental Congress.

    The pressure for the freedom of religion clause came primarily from protestant ministers - concerned that the government might select a state religion - other than theirs - and restart the religious wars that led to the founding of several of the colonies by refugees of various religious factions.

    Interestingly, Moslems were common in the former colonies (especially near the seaports - lots of sailors). Islam was the canonical example of a non-Christian religion that produced moral people, used in the debates whenever the question of whether "freedom to chose a Christian religion" was what was meant.

    The Bill of Rights exists EXPLICITLY to protect unpopular rights of unpopular minorities from trampling by a hostile-to-indifferent majority. And these days the establishment-of-religion clause of the First Amendment has been used for everything from defending abortionists to blocking the Pledge of Allegiance and moments-of-silence in public schools. And the country is still reeling from an act of war by a political sect attempting to start a religious war. Yet a poll finds less than half of the population polled will say "The First Amendment goes too far".

    Seems to me that the current US population is MUCH more understanding of, and in favor of, the ideas behind our freedom than the population at the time of the revolution.
  • Come on people you all know that bad stuff is happening like the Hollings Bill and making it P2P illegal and contracts with fellons. These affect the tech sector and geeks like us. BUT this is scary how Bush and his loons are running with a free hand and no one says anything. Those that could are scared of being labeled a terrorist. America and this adminastration are getting closer to Stalinism than ever before. Not to mention the dash of McCarthyism throwed for shits and giggles. IMHO this country is going down the shitter. I hope enough people can see this. BUT I'm not going down with the ship. So heres a question what are other good progressive countries out there Canda? France? Any opions?
  • by TFloore ( 27278 ) on Friday August 30, 2002 @03:31PM (#4172314)
    I was too.

    Why, just yesterday I was watching Crossfire, and it was great entertainment listening to them basically saying Bush is an idiot.

    I want my civil liberties so I can keep laughing at my elected leaders in public.

    (In private, I cry because I helped elect some of them.)
  • Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday August 30, 2002 @03:53PM (#4172498)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 30, 2002 @04:22PM (#4172762)
    "We're different, now. Different from the guys who founded this country. You know, if you ever get around to reading about the actual events that led up to the Revolutionary War, the things that led farmers to take to the heights of Bunker Hill to fight the British and which eventually led to the Declaration of Independence and the War itself, they will seem, by today's standards, to be almost nothing. It was just a few unfair taxes, curtailment of some of our natural rights, and an unresponsive government. Americans today bear oppression hundreds of times worse with nary a protest. We've gotten used to it. And as we become accustomed to the abuses and incursions into our rights, what may be outrageous and unbearable today will become the norm tomorrow and new incursions will be made."

    "And anyone who complains, or points out that our federal government is illegal by the terms of the Constitution, is stereotyped and branded as a right wing extremist, a carper, or a complainer."

    http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/silveira77. html [backwoodshome.com]
  • by Black Parrot ( 19622 ) on Friday August 30, 2002 @04:33PM (#4172868)


    > Let me say this clearly: Bush sucks. He's a dangerous, arrogant man who's brother stole the election for him, and who's flushing our democracy down the toilet as fast as we will let him.

    Personally, I prefer to think of him as an idiot who was selected to serve as a cypher for interests far more extreme than himself. (Look how fast he accumulated a $70,000,000 war chest when he announced his candidacy.)

    The most dangerous people in the USA right now are Rumsfeld and Ashcroft, not Mr. Bush.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 30, 2002 @05:17PM (#4173176)
    I was about 3 blocks away from the WTC on September 11th and I go to College 4 blocks away (Pace University)! In the year that has now followed after that nightmare I can safely say that I feel no less free than I did before. What rights exactly has Ashcroft and Bush taken away? As a Political Science Major I can tell you that in terms of U.S laws not much has changed. Sure the Patriot Act is now law, but even here not much has changed. So what if the government can get wire taps and bank records easier now. They could have gotten them before. All thats changed is the number of judges and red tape they have to go through. Military courts are no big deal either. Ever watch JAG. Military courts have tried military personnel for centuries in this country. No U.S citizen can be tried by a military court, so unless your an emigrant I dont think you should care. Emigrants have NEVER had the same rights as U.S citizens and I dont think they should! Secret courts have also been around for decades and they arent really secret since its not hard to figure out what Senate appointed judges sit on them. These are also the same courts that have criticized some of Ashcrofts wire tap requests and have even accused him of lieing. I dont like Ashcroft since Im a liberal democrat and have spent my two summers in the employ of a Mr. Gore and Mr. Cuomo, but give the man a break he is no J. Edgar Hoover and no KGB Chekist he isn't looking to turn America into a totalitarian state and anybody who would suggest otherwise has been reading a bit to much Karl Marx. The problem in this country is a uneducated populace that doesnt know its own history well enough to talk. Or for that matter the history of other countries many of whom have gone through similiar times. Russia in 1999 went through a series of terrorist attacks before the second Chechen war, nobody really lost any civil rights (if you believe Russians ever had any) but Chechens and other groups from the Caucuses have been persecuted. The handling of the Chechen war has also been a huge fiasco because their is no civilian oversight of the military and they have no money! Even Russian journalists (even those working for state owned media) have been kept out of the region. Yet there have been no more large scale attacks against Russian civilians. Is the war over? Yes and no. The rebels cant defeat the Russian army and have no hope of ever defeating the 2 million+ men Russia can throw at them, the rebels resistance is growing weaker and weaker. They have resorted to shooting what few SA-7 missiles they still have at Russian transport helicopters because that is the only way they can hope of killing the Russians who have taken mostly to the air, sending in ground units only after leveling any known rebel positions. The rebels fight with horses! The Russians with relatively modern Mi-24 helicopters and Su-25 bombers. The Russians kill 50 Chechens for every 1 dead Russian! The numbers of Russian dead have fallen, but peace is probably years away since the Chechens have no plans of surrendering. Is that the kind of bloody war we want to get into if we invade Iraq? Thats the question we should be asking.
  • by Vesuvius_2 ( 605271 ) on Friday August 30, 2002 @06:07PM (#4173489)
    NOT A REAL QUOTE.
    look it up before you spout it off, it's about as legit as those nostradamus quotes from 9/11

    PS- want a real quote to spout off?

    "...of course the people don't want war....Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship...the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country (pp. 255-256) ...Education is dangerous...Every educated person is a future enemy"

    Hermann Goering,
    Reichsmarschall and Lufwaffe-Chief
    President of the Reichstag during the reign of Hitler.
    From Gilbert, G.M. (1947). Nuremberg diary. New York: Signet.
  • by TC (WC) ( 459050 ) on Friday August 30, 2002 @08:18PM (#4174223) Journal
    Eh, the poem's been bastardized so very many times that it doesn't matter what he's got anymore... as I understand it, the original was as follows (although I may be incorrect):

    'First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I said nothing. Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat, so I did nothing. Then came the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist. And then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did little. Then when they came for me, there was no one left to stand up for me.'

    Time magazine, doing an article on WWII in 1989 moved the Jews to the front and dropped Communists and Social Democrats (I assume since communists were evil and deserved it, or somesuch... silly cold war). Time also added Roman Catholics, and they are also included on the Boston Holocaust memorial. The Holocaust Musuem in the US also dropped communists.
  • by Dovregubbens Hall ( 583591 ) on Sunday September 01, 2002 @11:07AM (#4180408)
    This is what is going to happen: One night, just before US presidential elections, there is a nuclear bomb aboard a ship approaching a US harbor. The bomb is set off in the harbor, killing hundred thousand people if not more.

    Bush will declare that the election is postponed and the media will declare that all americans are firmly behind their president in time of crisis. Bush will be in direct command of US military forces. Effectively, he will have become a military dictator.

    I think this scenario is not all that unlikely, but what would you do if it happened?

Math is like love -- a simple idea but it can get complicated. -- R. Drabek

Working...