Bookseller Purges Records to Avoid PATRIOT Act

Skyshadow writes "Vermont Bookseller Bear Pond Books has announced that they will purge their sales records at the request of customers . This would effectively sidestep typically insideous a provision of the PATRIOT Act which allows government agencies to secretly seize sales records. The store's co-owner, Michael Katzenberg, put it this way: 'When the CIA comes and asks what you've read because they're suspicious of you, we can't tell them because we don't have it... That's just a basic right, to be able to read what you want without fear that somebody is looking over your shoulder to see what you're reading.' Now if only certain other booksellers would show that same conscience, we might have something here."

Law Enforcement

[jlrowe]

Why don't we just enforce the law in the USA. And the premier first set is the US Consitution and the amendments.

Vote some decent congressmen in and maybe we can win the country back!

Policies at my campus

[sludg-o]

I purge email logs over a week old

I don't keep squid (http cache) logs logs at all

In my humble opinion, Your admin shoud do the same

Farenheit 451 anyone?

[DarwinDan]

Does this remind anyone of Farenheit 451? You know, where they burn the books so people won't revolt against the government? This is a similar restriction [ala.org] placed upon our libraries and bookstores that silences any mention of a subpoena for a list of books a certain individual has purchased or borrowed.

I still don't understand how Mr. Ashcroft and his DoJ thugs [usdoj.gov] got PATRIOT through Congress. Oh wait, I forgot! Our US Congress was so freaked out by September 11 and thought that somehow if they took away Americans' right to privacy and freedom from harassment that this world would somehow be a better place!

This deserves more than a comment

[blair1q]

Where's a HERO tag when you need one?

Re:Obstruction of justice

[MrLint]

Well these days you aren't 'good' unless you are into creatitve law enforcement. I recall reading of a DA taht tried to prosecute someone for assault with a deadly weapon. What was the weapon you ask? A spitball.

Re:Amazon

[EugeneK]

That WOULD be great if you had some assurance of privacy.

This is a brilliant move by this small bookstore. People talk about Amazon driving small stores out of business. Amazon can't compete with this though.

Are you surprised by this?

[Black Rabbit]

Aren't you Americans glad you live in such a free country? Aren't you glad your beloved constitution actually MEANS something?

Welcome to the NEW New World Order. ...and don't worry...OUR fun loving Canadian government will follow right along in due course.

Good way to go.

[Pharmboy]

The Patriot Act is a violation of what my father fought for in Korea and Vietnam, and what I stood for while in the military.

I am upset that people are associating the Patriot Act with conservatism. Violation of my rights isn't conservative, its facism. Fellow conservatives need to speak up. We DO need some stronger laws and enforcement tools, and I do believe this is a passing problem, but only if we speak up.

Some may compare our current situation to that during the Civil War (oxymoron if there ever was one) when Lincoln suspended Habius Corpus, but I don't feel the two events can be compared in this way. The threat is real, more real than that era, but not as localized.

Until then, destroying sales records is a legal way to not comply with this over reaching Act. Hopefully, others will follow their lead.

This could be stupid...

[Stoutlimb]

Purging sales records is one way to get a government agency off your back. Unless it's the IRS.

I wonder if the management has thought through all the implications of their new policy.

an added clause here, a lost right, there

[dandelion_wine]

It wouldn't take much to add a provision (were it passed) to make retention of such records mandatory. Rather like walking in to see a psychologist here (Canada) and asking him/her not to keep records, knowing that they could be subject to subpoena -- they'll tell you they must by law keep records, with certain minimum information.

On another sobering note, in 1983 the Supreme Court of Canada allowed evidence of a newspaper clipping found in an accused's home as sufficiently probative to admit, despite the potential prejudice of propensity evidence -- aka: "See? He's the kind of person who would do this." He had been charged with heroin smuggling from Hong Kong. The article was titled: "The heroin trade moves to Pakistan." This flew in the face of all caselaw on that point, but has been followed since. The lesson being: what you read can be held against you! The case is R. v. Morris [1983] 2 S.C.R. 190, if anyone is interested.

Publicity Stunt

[$$$$$exyGal]

Bear Pond Books in Montpelier will purge purchase records for customers if they ask, and it has already dumped the names of books bought by its readers' club.

This is overall a great thing, but still an elaborate publicity stunt ;-). I'm pretty surprised that this made /. news, but then again.

--sex [slashdot.org]

Re:Except for one minor problem...

[Wingnut64]

That was 'fixed' by the USPA. [ratical.org]. Key quote:
"Section 901 of the USA PATRIOT Act would empower the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency ("DCI"), to establish the priorities for the collection and dissemination of intelligence information gathered in the U.S."

And I highly doubt they would be interested in what books a person reads, but that's just me.
Uh, they want to know if people entering the US asked for meals without pork [slashdot.org]...

This could be a subtle atempt to outlaw certain books. People would be scared away from 'subversive' material if they knew that the Gov't was watching their every move.

That would be nice but...

[ewhenn]

I think the problem is finding decent congressman. Remember, these people come from the population. The politicians don't suck, the population sucks if this is the best we have to offer. An ignorant population is easy to control. I bet the people who ran out and bought duct tape and plastic think the PATRIOT act is a great idea. Considering what it is the name, "PATRIOT act", makes me want to vomit.

I have com to the the conclusion that in general us Americans give up lots of our rights (think freedom) without a fight for the illusion of protection. We are no better protected than we were before this abomination to our freedom, American politics at its finest.

Think about that while you eat your red, white, and blue cake.

Re:Farenheit 451 anyone?

[Thu Anon Coward]

please don't equate American government with American people. remember, Gore got the popular vote, not Bush. most of us think Bush is a fucking moron. every time I go thru airport security I give them hell. last time I said they were profiling me and being discriminatory, they said "no way", I said "so how did you pick me out?", "oh based on your attitude", "Ah-Hah! so you are profiling based on attitude!" .... that shut them up

Re:Law Enforcement

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't need more voters, we need voters who actually understand the freaking issues. Increasing the number of uninformed fuckwits involved in politics won't get us anywhere.

Re:Very Respectable

[BFaucet]

What's really bad is that it's not a tradeoff. These right restrictions and constitutional violations will not give us extra security.

Re:Amazon

[ceejayoz]

Amazon can't compete with this though.

I'm sure Amazon will sorely miss the couple dozen paranoids who switch over.

Honestly, do you think the average consumer really cares about stuff like this?

Support your local retailer

[NineNine]

Yet another reason to support your local retailer, instead of some monstrous mega-billion dollar international conglomerate that pays people minimum wages and operates nothing more consumer friendly than giant warehouses wherever rent is cheap. There's no "community" when you buy from these giants. Stroll down to your local bookstore (or any small retail establishment). You'll be surprised at pricing, selection, and customer service.

Re:Good way to go.

[Parafilmus]

What is this "left-right scale" you speak of?

Is it something real, or is it just a way to file away ideas without actually thinking about them?

Buy local

[FattMattP]

How about buying from your local bookseller and paying cash?

Tinfoil Hat Syndrome

[jeramybsmith]

Let me be frank with you people, John Ashcroft could care less what you read. There is no clerk in the government right now fishing book sales records looking for the enemy within. Now, you can bet your ass that when they arrested the buffalo 6 they tried to find out what books they checked out from their local library or bought from a local book store. Why? The answer is of course, DUH. If they bought a bunch of books on chemistry that had information that could be used to make bombs, then they had better start busting their asses to figure ot if any had been made and where they went. Meanwhile, you and I have not had our civil liberties infringed one single bit. This is pure scaremongering on the parts of some groups and ignorant fear on the part of others. Ponder this, you have expose a terror cell and don't capture one of them. You find out at the local book store they were buying books on flying small aircraft. Ah ha! You have a lead! The level of paranoia some people have about patriot really perturbs me. Most of the patriot act was an excuse to update federal surveillance and evidence gathering to account for the computer age and also to close various loopholes that kept them from doing some no-brainer stuff. As a customer though, I feel good that a bookstore will toss my records. That is between them and me. However, I feel government should be able to access the records that are there if there is an imperative national security interest. Most of you would agree with that statement, and lo and behold that is what patriot does.

Re:Remember that AD?

[SN74S181]

That's what libraries in Iraq are like.

Thousands and thousands of people marched last weekend to uphold the right of the authorities in Iraq to stay in power.

Re:Obstruction of justice

[glitch!]

And what about when customer Bob wants to return his copy of "Road Ahead" ?

Assuming that Bob is willing to admit buying it in the first place ;-) Bob keeps his receipts, right? Well, the store can print an MD5 checksum of the important sales fields on the bottom of the receipt, signed by the store's private RSA key. When Bob wants a refund, he goes back to the store with his receipt, and the store can instantly verify that the receipt and its items are genuine. This protects the customer's privacy and still gives the store a way to verify old receipts. (If you object to the potential data entry, the receipt can have the critical info barcoded.)

Re:Right to privacy

[broken_bones]

Two quick thoughts (in no particular order):

First, I've always personally associated a right to be secure in my person, papers, home and effects (Ammendment 4) to be a reference to privacy of some sort. Maybe I'm just weird.

Second, when thinking about privacy issues we would, I think, do well to distinguish privacy and anonymity.

Re:It's of little comfort

[NineNine]

Well, either you can buy books from small retailers, who at the very least say that they don't keep records, or you can stop buying books altogether, aside from government approved books. If you want to let paranoia stop you from buying books, that's your decision. But I'll continue, and I'll buy locally.

Re:Farenheit 451 anyone?

[kfg]

Ah, therein lies part of the problem. "Pro-government" is a fashion, and changes with the tide, phase of the moon and every election.

Nothing is safe comrade. Nothing.

I think Jame Fennimore Cooper is fairly safe under any concievable future, but Twain is right out. ( If you can stomach Cooper, see Twain. Oh the irony).

KFG

Re:Tinfoil Hat Syndrome

[frdmfghtr]

That may be the case now...but the future situation may change.

Let's assume for the moment that you are right, and Ashcroft and Co. don't care what I am reading (and it is a good assumption I believe). That is not to say that in the FUTURE they wouldn't start scanning bookstore and library records, scanning for key words and tricky phrases. The order of events is now turned--they scan the records, THEN start pursuing individuals that have suspicious reading habits. I read up on the theory and evolution of the nuclear bomb because I find it scientifically interesting. I also happen to be working towards a pilot's license. Does this make me a terrorist? No, but it might raise a flag due to the key words "nuclear", "bomb", and "pilot." Now I have the Feds investigating me for no reason at all, other than my own intellectual curiousity. I am now viewed as "suspicious" for no reason.

I try to use PGP whenever I use e-mail. Do I have something to hide? No. Is my correspondence anybody else's business? No. You use an envelope when you mail a letter. If you have nothing to hide, why use it? Why not send a postcard? Simple answer: privacy. Just because you have nothing to hide doesn't mean you don't want your privacy.

It's far easier now to prevent such a precident from forming than fighting it after it has been set. An ounce of prevention and all that...is it a bit of paranoia? Maybe--I hardly think it is as intrusive or Orwellian as some make it out to be. BUT, you can't let it get that way. I'd rather be a bit paranoid and defend my civil liberties while I still have them than be complacent and have to try winning them back later on. You have to admit that our government isn't the most trustworthy or careful organization on the planet (Carnivore, lost laptops, Watergate, etc. etc.)

Would you rather defend your civil liberties or have to fight for their return?

1984!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

The patriot act is really only one step away from "thoughtcrime" with the ability of search and seizure without warrant and the replacement of trials with military tribunals...

I'm glad that bookstore is fighting against it.

GAAAAA! use the fourth!

[Erris]

Just because you're not specifically guaranteed the right to privacy anywhere, doesn't mean you don't have it.

Why not quote the 4th amendment? It's very clear about what circumstances are required for the government to invade your personal life:

Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. [archives.gov]

Indeed, the bookstore records should be considered "papers" and protected, so this whole business of "knocking down stovepipes" between government and private databases is FUCKING UNAMERICAN!

The language of the constitution is so clear and the intentions are so obvious, that it is equally obvious that it has been broken. You have the right to assemble, to say, pray, and publish what you will. You have the right to bear arms. You will not be put upon by the military. The government can't harrass you without real evidence you are a criminal. The court system will not be used to abuse you. You will have a jury if you are sued. Bail will not be used instead of a conviction. You will not be abused in jail. All of these things have been violated recently with perhaps the exception of the 3rd. I'm not aware of any involuntary quartering of troops, unless eminent domain aquisitions for military bases are considered.

Re:Good way to go.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, yeah, way to go. That'll convince people.

Ashcroft lost a race leading possibly due to a tragic accident of his competitors. It's called sympathy votes. No one, zero, zilch, can say what the true outcome of the race would have been if that accident had not occurred. Hell, Ashcroft as leading in the polls before that accident, but whose to say what would have occurred on election day.

So blindly flogging around in stating Ashcroft lost his Senate seat to a dead man as somehow pointing to his incompetence is so shockingly stupid, insensitive, and just plain irrelevant, it just undermines what little else you may have to say, valid or not.

Attack Ashcroft for what he's done. Attack Ashcroft's policies. His bills. His procedures. Laws he's past. His record.

Don't attack him because of another man's misfortunate. People complain of power grabs. What exactly do you think your gross grab at anything to put down a man does? It undermines you. How much of an idiot are you?

btw, I'm a conservative. I was for Ashcroft at the time of his appointment. Since then, I've looked at the "job" he's done, and find him insulting to the word and to our nation. I am solidly against him. So much so that if Bush runs in 2004 with him in his government still, George ain't getting my vote.

Ashcroft isn't diong this for revenge. He's doing it because he's in a position of power and misguided. It has nothing to do with a loss in an election, his opponent's death, or remorse or retribution for that loss. Get a freakin neuron.

Don't blame the people, blame the two parties

[ShatteredDream]

Both parties together represent the ideal combination of ideologies needed to create a system ripe for mass-control of the populace. The Democrats don't really represent the better parts of the left, they represent the worst and same for the Republicans on the Right. IMO our system would be a lot more (Classical) Liberal if it were a 3 way control by the Libertarian, Green and Reform parties.

The people have on paper usually two choices. Two choices isn't a choice, it's a coin flip and a mockery of representative republican values. Both parties have tried for years to convince the public that having 10-190 people officially registered on the ballot is irresponsible because it creates chaos somehow. Having two people on the ballot is akin to having only one choice in most races. Hell in my last congressional election, we had literally only one choice for the House.

The average slashdotter is too sheltered or politically and socially immature to see most of those points. Who here thinks a lot of the Right loves the PATRIOT Act? FreeRepublic is a very right wing website and when the PATRIOT part deux was discussed, no less than 85% of the posts were calling for Bush and Ashcroft's heads on pikes out on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue if they seriously pushed it.

Re:That would be nice but...

[fishbowl]

>Remember, these people come from the population.

Congressmen come from State and local politicians.
These are elected based on apathy, and the jobs are not considered to be worth much except as starting points for national politics.

If we would simply be involved in local government, by actually voting, and by developing personal relationships with the politicians and party staff, we would end up with national politicians who actually represent the will of the people.

Another view, which terrifies me, is that we ARE doing this, and the national politicians DO represent the will of the people. We are greedy, insular hawks who know or care nothing of world politics or domestic diversity.

Re:Right to privacy

[Loki_1929]

Amendment XI should have been, "Any leader caught violating any of the first 10 amendments shall be set afire as to cause unimaginably painful death."

Perhaps then we wouldn't continuously get ourselves into cycles of Constitution shredding/rebuilding. What's missing from the US Constitution is, quite frankly, consequences. There's no provision for punishing a bad, or abusive sitting government. What's worse, in today's surveillance society, a good old fashion revolution is downright impossible. Since when is it treasonous to save your country from your government?

Re:Law Enforcement

[Poeir]

The late Douglas Adams put it rather well: "Those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made president should on no account be allowed to do the job." And he's right. Just look at Bush.

Re:Farenheit 451 anyone?

[Melantha_Bacchae]

Mark (ph'x) wrote:

> Im Australian...

I'm a US citizen.

> its not my problem when the US takes
> away your basic rights under the guise of 'protecting
> freedom'

It becomes your problem should Bush and his posse decide that one of your fellow Australians is a terrorist. But then your prime minister Howard thought Australia should have the same privilege to go after terrorists in another country after the Bali bombing (my sympathies, by the way).

> HOWEVER.. it is my problem when your arrogant
> government and big business industries (read RIAA/
> MPAA) try to force your legislation on my country. if the
> US wants to try and get its copyright and DMCA law
> mirrored over here in aus, then at least let me vote in
> your elections ffs

Voting in our elections would do you no good, you wouldn't have any more control over the passing of bad laws like the DMCA than we do. The only people here who seem to have the power to get the laws they want are the president and those big business industries. Dare to protest, and you get what they got in New York City: put into pens, trampled by police horses, hit with night sticks and sprayed with pepper spray.

If you don't want the DMCA style laws in your country, your best bet would be to tell Hollywood and the big five record labels where to take their business. Band together with your like-minded (at least on IP issues) neighbors, and make your own music and movie industries with local talent, and your own laws about them. The big studios and labels no longer have a monopoly on movie and music making technology. Take advantage of new technologies and go where you want to go with them.

Who knows, you might just wind up with popular singers that can sing on key. Boy, is that ever a revolutionary concept! ;)

> Im sick of 'America - Land of the Free'... its a misnomer...
> its BS.

It is supposed to be "land of the free". If it were still "home of the brave" it would be "land of the free" because we would fire the idiots trying to make it not free. After all, their official job description includes "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" (US Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 8) which is the document that lays out our freedoms.

Unfortunately, it is mostly "land of the chicken" at the moment. Well, "chicken" and "chicken-hawk".

> I turned down a well paid job in the US a month back...
> because as an IT admin, it would be frankly dangerous to
> work over there.

I've worked in the industry in the US for fifteen years. Chief danger I have encountered: layoffs. Followed by traffic accidents. I have been a victim of both.

> Im sure the US will try to stop dealing with countries
> without a DMCA equivalent.

Well our government might, considering how childish they are being over France and Germany disagreeing over Iraq. But there is also a good chance we might be able to get the DMCA repealed (in part or whole) in Congress, and the companies behind it aren't all that healthy these days.

> Eventually the US will be economically affected by these
> restrictions, and its citizens will start to ask questions.

Hello, we already have had the DMCA in effect in this country since 1996. We have noticed it, did the question phase, and are in the "fighting tooth and nail to get rid of it" phase. It is a bad, bad law, we want it off the books, and we don't want to share it with you.

> Unfortunately... as of course 'American Values' are good
> enough for all... we are likely to see 'peaceful non-
> agression military' solution to their problems.

Not as long as your Mr. Howard keeps trying to be mini-Bush. One would hope Bush wouldn't attack one of the "willing".

Let's hope come 2004 that the US gets a president willing to return to America's traditional values of liberty and justice, and after Mr. Howard retires, Australia gets a good prime minister that lets Australia be Australia and not a carbon copy of the US. It sounds to me like that would make us both happy.

"The path of peace is yours to discover for eternity."
Japanese version of "Mothra" (1961)

Re:Don't blame the people, blame the two parties

[Fulcrum of Evil]

FreeRepublic is a very right wing website and when the PATRIOT part deux was discussed, no less than 85% of the posts were calling for Bush and Ashcroft's heads on pikes out on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue if they seriously pushed it.

And thus was hope restored to my world.

That's a cheap shot at Amazon

[31 Flavas]

Now if only certain [barnesandnoble.com] other [amazon.com] booksellers would show that same conscience, we might have something here.

What keeps me coming back to Amazon.com (and countless more people) is their record keeping.

Every order is organized by year newest to oldest. Every order is clickable to bring up the exact specifics of what was ordered: the number of shipments, the tracking numbers, what was order, it's price, and totals (shipping, tax, subtotal, grand total).

Attack the source problem *cough* Patriot Act *cough* not Amazon.com, BarnesandNoble.com, or whoever you want to smear because of some hivemind mentality.

If you don't want even record of the sale you need not shop at all, online or offline.

There is always going to be some paper trail; no matter if its a reciept, a CC statment, or the cashier remembering you.

Aint gonna happen...

[Embedded Geek]

...if only certain other booksellers would show that same conscience...

<redundant rant>

A business in this era of consolidation purging it's records, thus disabling itself from selling you more crap in the future via Spam or (at a minimum) junk mail? The only way that would work is if they were only in the business of selling books. That isn't going to happen as long as they can afford a consultant who can whisper fairy tales about that mythic beast "synergy" in the CEO's ear.

Face it. Most businesses these days are not what they claim to be on their signs - booksellers, grocers, bakers. They're many businesses lumped together under one roof that are just as comfortable selling you your morning coffe or a cemetary plot. Thanks to consolidation, only multiheaded hydras survive. And sometimes, the customers suffer instead of benefiting.

</redundant rant>

Re:Law Enforcement

[namespan]

I'm with ya! How about first getting people to actually VOTE in our elections, huh? Then we can focus on getting the decent politicians back where they belong -- in power.

Only if they vote in a studied, deliberate manner, rather than simply taking in traditional campaign rhetoric. If you vote just to vote, you're adding noise to the signal of people who did study carefully. And if you choose a candidate on some litmus-test issue -- like abortion or gun rights, as many do now -- then you get... well, a system much like we do now, where it's all partisan perception and no real policy and statecraft.

We don't need more voters, we need better voters. [metafilter.com] That's what Thomas Sowell thinks, and I think I'd have to agree.

Re:Tinfoil Hat Syndrome

[ArizonaBay]

Here is your tinfoil hat. Thanks for demonstrating my point. What part of the patriot act lets them search bookstore records warrantless outside of a terror threat again?

What exactly is your point? You seem to be acknowledging the fact that the Patriot Act allows the FBI to search bookstore records without a warrant to find out what people are reading.. Your only defense of this clear infringement upon of our civil liberties is "they're only going to use it in cases related to 'terror threats'".

So what? Anyone can become SUSPECTED (please notice this oh-so-important adjective) of being a 'terror threat' and therefore everyone should be concerned about it.

You still hold this notion that people concerned about this have 'tinfoil hat syndrome'. In your first post, you said it was because that this specific provision of the Patriot Act did not infringe upon our civil liberties 'one single bit'. In your second post, however, you seem to concede that you were wrong about this, but yet you still throw around this "tin foil hat" nonsense?

Wearing a 'tin foil hat' is a reference to someone who is extremely paranoid about threadbare conspiracies and imaginary threats. That is clearly not the case in this instance. The threat, as you have now acknowledged, is real and they're doing it right in front of our faces. If you feel that giving up these civil liberties is worth fighting ambigious 'terror threats', that's fine; make a reasonable argument for it. Please, however, don't throw around erroneous insults intended to stonewall debate.

-Arizona Bay
..Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me...

Protecting Peggy's privacy.

[I am Jack's username]

"Peggy Bresee was in Bear Pond Books recently to buy "

War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning" and "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" as birthday gifts for a son who lives in Utah. She had the store purge the purchase records." - Vt. bookseller purges files to avoid potential `Patriot Act' searches [sfgate.com]

Searching google now not only reveals what books Peggy has bought her son, but also her home address, telephone number, job description, and a recent anti-war petition she signed.

Radio Shack

[upt1me]

Is this going to cause Radio Shack to start asking our name, address & phone number again when we purchase a few led lights.

Re:Good way to go.

[benzapp]

The Patriot Act is a violation of what my father fought for in Korea and Vietnam, and what I stood for while in the military.

Bullshit. The military is nothing more than a gigantic make work program, to keep nitwits from causing trouble. We have wars to make people content with bad economic times and to make people accept a temporary command economy. I won't even get into the supposed economic benefits of redirecting wealth to irrelevant industries to produce war related shit we don't need. Every single war of the 20th century was simply a tool of social control, nothing more.

You and your father were nothing more than willing participants in a gigantic scheme akin to prison, except the illusion of freedom is maintained.

Violation of my rights isn't conservative, its facism

I have got news for you, standing armies, forced schooling, government directed industry, those are all the tools of every fascist regime.

It all goes back to Germany. After Napolean's defeat of the Prussian army in 1807, a huge transformation took place. You see, Germany's primary source of revenue back then was renting their huge mercenary army. Remember the British sending the Hessian soldiers to America? To see the world's foremost professional army defeated by Napolean's peasant army was unbelievable.

When Germany regained their independence, their entire society was transformed into a military machine. Prior to this, forced schooling didn't exist anywhere in the world outside of caste schools in India and to a lesser extent in China. Children were ripped from the families, and drilled in the mindless art of discipline all in order to make them better soldiers. Eventually, the entire society conformed to a hierarchical military system.

Perhaps you aren't aware of the huge influx of German immigrants from 1830-1880. There wasn't a place for the independent farmer of tradesman in that military machine, so they left and came to the US. Thats why, they just wanted to be left alone. This is also why the trades died far more quickly in Germany than the US. While in the US, fathers taught their sons their art, in Germany that pretty muched ceased by 1880. Thus, shit modern architecture can be quite ancient there.

Anyway, the legacy of this is our own military society. Every company is structured like a military. The classic bussinessmen's suit is a copy of late 19th century military style. Classroom schools are the same size as typical military units. Discipline is the goal, rather than education. There is a reason schools make people stupid and passive. Soldiers are not particularlly good at taking orders when they have the ability to question them.

Anyway, look into. You have been duped into believing you are free, but you have been spending your entire life doing what you were trained to do: Take orders, and do so willingly.

Heil Hitler!

Re:Law Enforcement

[rppp01]

And, damn it, pick people other than Old, Rich, White Lifetime politicians.

I have been thinking of Cincinattus of late, how he was called upon by the people of Rome to leave his farm, become the dictator and lead the Romans to war against the Truscans (I think). He does so, leads his people, defeats his enemies, and then returns to his farm after the war has ended.

I want a leader like that! Well, multiple leaders. I agree here, select people who at least have some education. President Cletus may get us into a war with Alabama simply because his sister's name has been desicrated on a water tower.

At the same time, get the hell rid of those people who are lifetime people in government. Those that serve who ever is in power, and help with the status quo.

oh man if the founding fathers were alive today

[Anonymous Coward]

Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. -Thomas Jefferson

Re:Don't blame the people, blame the two parties

[johnjay]

Having easier registration rules is only one part of the solution, and won't really fix much in the current system. Because the most states have a "winner take all" system, any candidate that doesn't have enormous numbers of backers to begin with isn't going to win anyways. The rest of the solution to this is to have representational voting and runoff elections.

If you are voting in Massachusetts or Texas, and you vote against the state-wide party bias, your vote is thrown away. The winner takes all the electoral seats in the state and you wasted your time voting. (The electoral college, by the way, should go, too, but it's small fry compared to the other problems). This is the main reason the two parties are still in power.

The problem with proportional voting, is that the winner may not have a mandate (not that that has stopped Bush, but in theory it should be a problem). So, if no candidate gets a majority, you have a run-off among the top contenders.

Think of how this would have worked in the last election. The people who were on the fence about Nader vs. Gore would have voted for Nader. Nader would have won somewhere between 5-15% of the vote, enough to be an obvious contender instead of being covered up with statistics (he got no electoral votes, he couldn't have had an important position). Then, Bush and Gore would have had a run-off, with a Dem/Rep winning. So far, it's business as usual. In 2004, Nader's party would have much more clout since they got somewhere between 1/9th to 1/3rd of the votes that the major parties got. They would be able to get more air-time and respect instead of having to start over from basically zero. A multiparty system would appear within 4 election cycles.

Now that I think about it, getting rid of the electoral college would have the same effect as insisting on proportional represntation of electoral college seats. If 15m people live in a state, and 13m votes go to the Republican candidate, the other 2m would protest if their votes were also counted as votes for the Republican. However, since there is this "electoral college" gimick, people don't seem to notice/care that they aren't represented.

Re:Law Enforcement

[hazem]

Term limits are not the answer. We recently swtiched to term limits in Oregon. The problem now is that nothing gets done because nobody really has an f*cking clue how to get anything done (procedurally and culturally). They go in as idealogues and don't understand how to compromise and negotiate.

Even worse, you end up with all the lobbyists having more "seniority" than the representatives. The lobbyists, simply by having greater institutional knowledge, end up being very powerful.

How effective would a corporation be if you fired everyone in it every two years?

The answer is to have an *educated* voting citizenry. Too many people simply vote party-line or without considering the issues thoughtfully.

Re:Don't blame the people, blame the two parties

[Jonny Ringo]

People are content even when things are some what bad not to venture into changing the system.

This says it all right here. Why should I give a fuck if I can drive my SUV, possibly buy a house, not be hungry etc...

I don't see any suffering in this world so it probably can't be that bad.

Never mind the fact that we have killed more inocent civilains in Afganastan than those that died in the towers. Are their lifes some how less important?

Funny how suposedly libertarians and Greens are "extreme" when yet the average joe has no fucking clue what are CIA does or what it has done. Their is no accountability for the elite members of our country. When oaklahoma city gets blown up what do we do? Reward the FBI with more money of course, but yet that isn't enough to stop 911. So of course lets give them more money, but you know what? That amount won't be enough either.

The war on terrism is going to be like the war on drugs. Since the war on drugs, we have more drugs in this country. See a pattern? Get ready for a police state.

watch: http://www.guerrillanews.com/crack/

Fyi: I vote for both the Green party and the libertarian party. How strange that I'm on both sides of the fence huh?

Re:oh man if the founding fathers were alive today

[SuiteSisterMary]

I trust you don't have a lock on your door? If so, you're sacrificing a little bit of liberty for a little bit of security, and therefore deserve neither.

I trust you're legally allowed to kill anybody who annoys you? No? Because then they'd be able to do the same to you? Ooops...liberty for security.

Just because a dead white man says something, and you (mis)quote (and mis-attribute, but that's beside the point) it, out of context, no less, does NOT make it the wisdom of the ages.

Re:Don't blame the people, blame the two parties

[ChristTrekker]

Another problem is that third parties have a hard time getting on state ballots.

Yup. Many states' ballot access laws blatantly favor incumbents. "If you were on the ballot last time, pay a $15 fee. If you weren't, go collect a million signatures that meet the qualifications of the secretary of state." This keeps third parties out, and with them any chance of really reforming government. Make everyone follow the same rules. If it's fair for you, it's fair for me.

Between ballot access restrictions and plurality voting, the "two-party system" concept becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. You'll find coalitions of parties as diverse as the Constitution, Green, and Libertarians working together to change these laws - that's got to tell you something. All they want is a fair chance.

Exactly.

[ratamacue]

To put it another way, the individuals most likely to strive for political power are those with a desire to control others and reduce personal liberty. Those who just want to live their lives in peace, according to their own will, are those least likely to strive for political power. And there we have the reason why, as time progresses, the US government becomes more expensive, more corrupt, and more oppressive.