Congress to Make PATRIOT Act Permanent 1601
955301 writes "As if it was unexpected, the New York Times (free reg...) has an article on attempts by our Congressional Republicans to eliminate the expiration of the Patriot Act. Everyone may thank Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah for getting this 9/11 snowball rolling, and the general population for our current leadership." There's another story in the SF Chronicle.
I am confident (Score:5, Insightful)
That's if you'll retain the right to challenge it (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:God willing. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:That's if you'll retain the right to challenge (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh wait...
Re:I am confident (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:God willing. (Score:2, Insightful)
Not a joke either (Score:3, Insightful)
a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin
Re:Patriot Act seems to have worked. (Score:5, Insightful)
So how do you come to the conclusion that the Patriot Act works?
Slashdot's Liberal Bias (Score:-1, Insightful)
Re:Patriot Act seems to have worked. (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a rock that keeps tigers away. I haven't seen any tigers lately, so it must be working fairly well.
Best Quote (Score:5, Insightful)
Riiight. So you will only speak on the condition of anonymity but all ordinary citizens are expected to forfeit that right? I'm sure the irony of that situation will go unchecked.
Re:God willing. (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, wait. I said WAI......
For those that haven't done so already... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you have problems with it, you have to let your representative know how you feel. They can't read your minds. And I doubt many of them read Slashdot.
How wrong, reminds me of Star Wars (Score:4, Insightful)
You Assume Too Much... (Score:1, Insightful)
Simply linking to someone else's work and putting a spin on it is NOT journalism!
Success??? (Score:2, Insightful)
Somehow I don't feel any safer.
survey says... (Score:3, Insightful)
But didn't the general population vote for Gore?
Patriot Act bans Franklin? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I am confident (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Reg-free link to article and full text: (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a good name for it.
Re:Not A Joke (Score:5, Insightful)
Rights like the access to a fair trial in a reasonable amount of time. To be represented in court with a competent lawyer in the field. To be proven of guilt by a jury of peers.
Rights like anonymous freedom of speech. Anonymous freedom of association. And anonymous dissemination and learning of information.
What rights we lose now we will eventually regain in the mass deaths of some group. But that's just a "terrorist" act in and of itself.
Re:Patriot Act seems to have worked. (Score:5, Insightful)
I doubt it. This thing is here to stay. Until some progressive leadership realizes our immigrant population is dwindling because of harassment. "Thank God" the nationalists cry. But lets not forget, these are the people are outrank us in any tests of the maths and sciences, and they include some of the best entrepreneurs we have.
Why not outsource then? If I can pay for the same skills overseas, I'll take it. Not all skills are outsourcable, I've commented on this already. What a great help to the EU and Asia! We're going to pump more corporate dollars overseas, meanwhile we try to shut down the surreptitious church funds and money transfer shops. Ironic.
We're closing ours doors through fear. The effects are going to be subtle and long-felt. There's a marketing aspect here. Each time, regardless of usage, the Ashcrofts of the administration argue for "war time infrigements", we're fueling a isolationist platform. History has proven these moves to be limiting to only growth, and not much good otherwise.
mug
Libby's libbys libbys on the label, label, label.. (Score:2, Insightful)
grab a speech by Joe McCarthy (Score:4, Insightful)
s/communism/terrorism;
s/USSR/Al Qaeda;
s/Russia/Iraq;
and you will see what the United States is about to become again.
Re:God willing. (Score:2, Insightful)
God willing it will Disappear! (Score:5, Insightful)
We cannot allow this to continue. I will be writing my Congressmen and saking others to do the same. Laws like this are how Hitler, Mussolini, and numerous other dictators got started. Law is built on precedence, so if we allow this to continue the envelope will be pushed until new even more intrusive laws are allowed. Seriously, if we are allowed to treat non-citizens like lawbreakers without reprisal, how long will it be before we are allowed to treat citizens like lawbreakers mere for speaking against the government? Oregon is already proposing legislature that would allow peace protestors to be arrested on terrorism charges. How long before this is carried nationwide?
Our rights are under serious threat from a government led by certain people that thirst for power. If we don't act now, it may well be illegal to act later. Call your reps and senators, spread the word, and let's try to kill this thing now before it becomes permanent law.
Re:Now might be a good time to.... (Score:3, Insightful)
You misunderstand the purpose of the ACLU. They defend civil liberties equally for Americans of all races and religions. If you are a member of religion X and the government does something that (likely uses your money) to endorse religion Y, you have a problem. This is where the ACLU steps in.
I assume you're Christian, so I imagine you would be offended if the government insisted that public schools engage in Buddhist meditations every morning. Now imagine how a Buddhist would feel if he had to participate in Christian prayers every morning. You get the picture yet?
The ACLU interprets the Constitution and the rights and liberties protected by it. They work to support it without bias. One of those freedoms is freedom of (and from) religion.
Re:Q: What's the difference between Hitler and Bus (Score:2, Insightful)
Here in Parallel Logic Land (Score:5, Insightful)
Christian Churches were banned because they were breeders of Terrorists.
White Men with short haircuts were interviewed by the CIA to determine their Official Level of Loyalty.
The military was disbanded because it gave Would-be-Terrorists skills and training to do their work.
???
.sig
Oh wait, back in Reality, Totalitarianism and Fear Mongering only works when the boogie-man is OUTSIDE the borders and easily picked-out...
America has always loved to rally in hate against an Enemy, how lucky this new one is so Evil(tm). Read my
Title doesn't say it all (Score:3, Insightful)
Well that's not at all accurate.
It's not been voted on. Hell all the articles about this story state clearly "the move is likely to touch off strong objections from many Democrats and even some Republicans in Congress." Or that "Congressional Republicans, working with the Bush administration, are maneuvering to make permanent."
Where are we at in this process? Is the President signing it? Hell no it's being discussed. Discussed, not being voted on as we speak, discussed.
The best part is down at the bottom of the SF Gate piece.
"But political jockeying over separate, bipartisan legislation sponsored by Sens. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., and Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., appears to have given Hatch the chance to move on the issue much earlier than expected. The Kyl-Schumer measure would eliminate the need for federal agents seeking secret surveillance warrants to show that a suspect is affiliated with a foreign power or agent, such as a terrorist group."
No terrorist acts??? (Score:3, Insightful)
What about the DC sniper?? Those dudes ran around a highly populated metro for nearly a month before they got nabbed on a lucky break.
Neither was prevented by this act that was SPECIFICALLY designed to combat this type of "lone wolf" terrorists.
And, BTW, I don't care what the media calls them; these two examples are terrorist acts.
Re:Slashdot's Liberal Bias (Score:4, Insightful)
If that wasn't enough-- (Score:5, Insightful)
Another secret warrant law, this one to help speed the capture of "lone wolves," that is, terrorists who work without affiliation to a terrorist group. See the problem here? This is all about targeting individuals and making it even more secretive than it already is.
The decent into madness continues, unabated.
------
I like the assumption.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Congress IS NOT going to make PATRIOT permanent (Score:5, Insightful)
For those who don't have time/inclination to read the article: Congress is not making the PATRIOT act permanent. The article says that Orrin Hatch is attempting to make the act permanent. Many Congressmen agree; many disagree. Let your representatives know what you think. But know that this is not in the works already. This article's title is horribly misleading.
If you're tired, try FOX (Score:4, Insightful)
Liberal bias in Slashdot. Bah. Set up another straw man, I'm tired of hearing about liberal bias. Have you looked out the window recently? This country is so far right, we can't see left from here.
If it's really a burden for you, there are plenty of sources for you. I would recomend FOX and CNN for starters. They are very right-friendly, and you will feel very comfy there. No one will question government motives, no one will ask embarrasing questions about corporations. You can safely dream that this is the same country portrayed in "Leave it To Beaver."
Thanks for stopping by, and sorry for making all this liberal noise about rights & privacy. I mean really, what were we thinking?
As a final note, I'd caution you about the internet, it's a rough neighborhood, and you may bump into some ideas that aren't the same as yours. I wouldn't worry though, It'll all be cleaned up in a couple of years. I hear Disney's buying it.
Re:My God. (Score:3, Insightful)
While I do not agree with many things in the PATRIOT act, I am getting pretty disgusted with the abuse the Supreme Court is taking on the election. Face it, they were given a no win situation. Half of the people were going to be mad at whatever decision they made.
In the end, they may be the ones who have to review the PATRIOT act. And I don't believe that the election decision is the one to look at to see how they will decide on this issue.
Re:Not a joke either (Score:2, Insightful)
A peaceful, free society depends on rules and guidelines to keep it so. Deciding on what laws to pass is a continual balancing act between the two extremes of anarchy and dictatorship. Either the Franklin quote has been taken out of context, or it's about time someone said that Ben was talking out of his ass.
Review != not renewed (Score:3, Insightful)
They act as if sunset provisions = not caring about the law. Quite the opposite, I think. Sunset provisions mean that a law is so important that it is worth coming back to, over and over again. Is it such a hard thing to ask that Congress spend at least as much time on "Review of Changes to Civil Liberties and Constitutional Rights in Response to Terrorism" once a year as they do to "What Shall We Call Deep Fried Potato Strips In Our Cafeteria?"? Or that they spend as much time each year reviewing it as they did in passing it in the first place? (which was, unfortunately, just a few hours as I recall: Congresspersons didn't even get a chance to read it, not all 300+ pages)
Re:Now might be a good time to.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Care to back this up? I've witnessed several Christian groups forming at my school, without difficulty. They were simply not school sanctioned, which is good. I've never seen reports otherwise.
When someone wants to post porn of 5 year old kids on the internet, the ACLU will fight tooth and nail to defend their freedoms.
When the ACLU engages in battles like this, they are not defending the perpetrator's freedoms and they are certainly not defending the perpetrator. They are defending the person's right to due process. Law enforcement is often overzealous in dealing with particularly disgusting cases. But in a free state, even the most disgusting of crimes demands due process be follwed within the bounds of the law, and not the mind of enraged law enforcement.
The ACLU is not for freedom, they are for anything Anti-Christian.
Unsubstantiated.
Re:I am confident (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I am confident (Score:3, Insightful)
A burning cross is ``an instrument of terror,'' they say, so First Amendment protection is not available.
If the First Amendment does not protect ``terrorists,'' how will it be able to overturn the PATRIOT act?
Re:Patriot Act seems to have worked. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I am confident (Score:5, Insightful)
Looks like the Supreme Court is becoming the first resort of the opponents of a law, be it the DMCA or the PATRIOT act. This is wrong.
The way things are supposed to work is to voice and consider these concerns before it is signed into law. Before it affects the life, liberty, and happiness of actual people. This is done by constituents voicing their concerns, and representatives acting on behalf of those concerns. The Supreme Court is not supposed to be in the business of correcting legislative stupidities (and in fact refrained from doing so in the Eldred case). The proper role of the Supreme Court is to clarify a law where lower courts have each reasonably come to different interpretations. They are, if you will, legal scholars with a final say.
You've basically replaced the rightful and designed role of hundreds of elected representatives with the peripheral role of a dozen justices appointed by Presidents. While I understand your frustration and lack of faith in your representatives, the risks here should be obvious.
Learn from Europe, fools! (Score:3, Insightful)
The difference is pretty moot.
Re:Not general population's fault (Score:3, Insightful)
Nope.
Gore won Florida, and with it, the election. Florida was, however, declared as being a Bush win. When the recount was about to show that Gore did win, the Supreme Court stopped the recount, saying it would 'make things very difficult for Bush to go on with his presidency.' Paraphrase, but that's the idea.
An independant recount by media, later, showed that Gore won.
Also, when the Dems tried to point things out like, oh, most of the military absentee ballots were illegally cast, the Republicans would cry foul; 'How dare you try to deny our fighting men and women of their votes?'
Folks, Bush ain't your president.
Re:My God. (Score:3, Insightful)
As for the second amendment
In socialist canada, bears arm YOU!
Re:i know how we look (Score:5, Insightful)
you are close. go visit a slaughter house and watch the cows marching in to their doom. they AREN'T forced they happily line up and walk in to their death because they are conditioned to their entire lives.
This is the general american public.
welcome to america.. Mooooooooo.
Re:I am confident (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not A Joke (Score:5, Insightful)
I assume by the "crazy leftwing ideas" that you're either a troll or a Repugnican, but here we go anyways:
Historical precedent. The American Heritage Dictionary defines fascism as "a system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism." Just on its surface, the Bush regime is following the above definition. Witness the parade of corporate CEOs that now populates the president's cabinet and key advisory bodies. Observe how the Bushistas attack the patriotism of anyone who challenges their politics.
Similarly to Hitler's "emergency powers" after the burning of the Reichstag, the Bush administration is attempting to re-write or re-interpret laws that have afforded American citizens and legal residents civil rights protection for two centuries, while moving to stack the courts with judges that will uphold the new anti-terrorist (read: anti-citizen) laws. An important characteristic of totalitarian regimes is their working to make the legal system a tool of state power.
Another one of the hallmarks of totalitarianism is the need to have permanent enemies and scapegoats to blame for national misfortunes. In Soviet Russia, we saw an endless parade of fascists, Socialists, Trotskyites, and "reactionaries" used as justification for massive military expenditures, arrests, executions, and "re-education" camps. Francisco Franco branded as "Communist" any group that fought his hard-right suppression of Spanish democracy. The Nazis raised scapegoating to the ultimate horror in their mass extermination facilities for Jews, gypsies, and anyone else blamed for debasing the German kultur.
At present Saddam Hussein is the Enemy, although Iraqis have done nothing since the 1991 Gulf War to provoke the U.S. When Saddam is no longer credible as the enemy, another will take his place, as he took the place of Osama Bin Laden. The Nazis were pioneers in using a linkage of popular broadcasting and print media to spread their twisted propaganda. We still acknowledge Josef Goebbels for his observation that a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth. And so it is today, with Fox news, the Washington Times, The Standard, and other right-wing media outlets spewing false stories and twisted statistics so that "average" tax cut amounts apply to everyone.
Then there is the well-known fascist preoccupation with the use of military force. The Nazi leaders could hardly wait to blood their storm troops in a real war. Hitler was "relieved" that the Poles decided to fight him instead of capitulating to German demands. Mussolini sent his forces gleefully to war against Ethiopia for no better reason than wanting to beat up a sixth-rate military power. The obvious allusions to the behavior of our current regime in Washington would be funny if the expected outcome of their policy was not so tragic.
A final, somewhat depressing observation about fascism: to fascist leaders, the masses of people they lead are disposable assets. That offers a possible explanation why the Bush administration does not show much concern for the jobless or those whose retirements are threatened by collapsed 401Ks. It also explains Donald Rumsfeld's blithely calling Vietnam veterans "what was left" after the best and brightest found a way to dodge military service.
Citizens of the United States must oppose against American fascism on the airwaves, in the print media, on the campuses, in the legislatures, the courts, the Congress, and on the streets. There is no place ro run, I'm afraid.
Re:Not general population's fault (Score:5, Insightful)
All of you had the chance to vote out any and every House member that supported the USA PATRIOT Act. Many of you also had the ability to get rid of any Senator. And yet you don't want any of the blame, you want to blame the Supreme Court that "appointed" President Bush, the very same president that has yet to veto anything Congress gave him since his term began. If you quit bitching about the 2000 election for five minutes and realized that this White House has literally allowed Congress to do whatever it damned well pleased, you might have seen this law coming to begin with.
I also find it amusing that you blame the Electoral College, when the people, allowed to vote without thinking thanks to the Seventeenth Amendment, were the ones that overwhelimingly supported the incumbents that composed and passed the USA PATRIOT Act to begin with. Hey, it's not like over 90% of the folks you got to elect directly supported the bill or anything...
No, what we have here is not a "break down" of democracy. The USA PATRIOT Act happened because of democracy! Both chambers of Congress are full of people who got their position not because of merit, but because they looked good on TV and had catchy campaign slogans. Why should they avoid knee-jerk reactions when they're there because of knee-jerk reactions? For the USA PATRIOT Act, you can thank both yourselves and your 1913 compatriots that gave you the ability to shoot yourselves in the foot like this to begin with [friendsforamerica.com].
Did you even vote last year?
Re:Q: What's the difference between Hitler and Bus (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not a joke either (Score:3, Insightful)
# food handing regulations, along with restaurant inspections
# environmental legislation
# regulations governing the handling of explosives, hazardous chemicals, biological agents and radioactive materials
[sigh]
Nothing you've listed involves restricting basic human rights. There is nothing in the Constitution about hazardous materials or operating a restaurant, but PLENTY about freedom from unfair or arbitrary detention or punishment.
Liberty == inalienable rights.
Liberty != everything under the sun you feel like doing.
Re:What does this say about the "war on terrorism" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not a joke either (Score:1, Insightful)
In the end this will all have been a great living history lesson. Growing up, I never could imagine how a society could allow slavery, the massacre of indigenous people, or internment of its own citizens. Now I see how truly evil the tide of complacency can be. I mean, as long as it's not me, right?
TOO MUCH FUD FOR ME! (Score:2, Insightful)
Please tell me where in the patriot act they did away with the ENTIRE CONSTITUTION? I found nothing in my reading of it that says persons may be detained indefinately without charge. I noticed that there is an increase in wiretap ability of the government, but anything that says you can be held without charge indefinately is not only ludicrous (sp?), but facially unconstitutional.
Yes, it is clear that the powers of the government to spy via this law are greatly expanded, and may not be constitutional. However, I simply do not buy into the FUD that so many have that the US can just whisk you away in the middle of the night on secret charges, and do it legally. This is not communist russia.
Re:Not A Joke (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If you're tired, try FOX (Score:3, Insightful)
I my opinion, we have a two party system in name only. I practice, we are sliding toward an aristocracy (at best), and facism at worst. Democrats are Republicans that live in working class districts. My hope for them died when their spines surrendered to their wallets.
For every cancer cell inyour body, I can point to ten helthy cells. Horray for you.
Capitalism works great...for those with the capital. Just like freedom of the press is great for the owner of the presses. Not so great for the poor. Or, the unemployed. Any of those hanging out on
The great 90's economy of the Clinton Era (since you seem to like talking him) was a big shell game pulled off on the backs of the retirement accounts of the working poor & middle class. That we're only noticing this now is nobody's fault but our own. But hey...the War Show is on...who got time to pay attention to all this hand-waving?
Bye bye karma...it was fun while it lasted...};^)
Re:Patriot Act bans Franklin? (Score:5, Insightful)
In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. ;-)
The question remains, what liberties are you referring to?
Amendment 1: Free speech.
Amendment 4: Privacy
Ever hear of the Total Information Awareness program, for instance?
Or can you name none?
The main problem with it is that it continues (not starts) down the slippery slope of eliminating important Constitutional freedoms.
How will you feel when the government installs a video camera at the bottom of your driveway...just to make sure you're not involved with any terrorist activities? Or when GPS-enabled cell phones become mandatory so your location can be tracked at all times if the phone is used? Or when you must submit a DNA sample to the government so your identity can be verified at any later date? Or the government begins tracking all your purchases and finances to ensure you're not involved with terrorism? Or when the government monitors all domestic phone conversations and email for suspicious phrases? You don't have anything to hide do you?
America was NOT founded with that type of lifestyle in mind...quite the opposite! We'd better nip this kind of thing in the bud if we don't want lose our basic freedoms. Especially when losing those freedoms most likely will do little, if anything, to effectively deal with terrorism.
For my money, one of the most effective ways to deal with terrorism would be to get the highest possible percentage of the population to carry concealed weapons...but perhaps that's just me. ;-)
I'll finish off with two more quotes:
"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."
--Thomas Jefferson
"Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death"
--Patrick Henry
Re:I am confident (Score:4, Insightful)
Wait! A bunch of people ARE doing that... and guess what? They are creating a government that is an expression of their will!
If you have not been a part of that process, it is your fault. If you don't vote, your vote is for "whoever wins" which is distinct from a vote for "nobody". If you don't participate in a party organization, the party assumes the candidates they select are just hunky dory with you, and that you support whatever policies and platforms they decide to run with.
Too many people seem to have this idea that the political process begins and ends with a presidential ballot whenever the race comes around, and they don't even bother with it. The idea that the government is the net result of MANY, MANY smaller elections that they also did not participate in, is lost on them.
So, when the government that they didn't participate in goes in a direction they disagree with, the only thing they can think to do is protest. The understanding that the current government is the result of decades of work by people who have actively pursued it is lost in the noise of the notion that the entire US government is the result of a single botched presidential election. So people delude themselves with the fallacious notion that removing the president will fix everything. They choose not to recognize just how limited the president's powers actually are -- because then they would be forced to acknolwedge just how many OTHER people are in government that disagree with their views.
And then they don't show up for their mayor, state legislature, or bond elections... And they wonder why the government doesn't express the will of the people..
I say "it DOES."
Re:Not a joke either (Score:2, Insightful)
-Mark
How to stop this from happening (Score:2, Insightful)
Do we need a reason? Nope : cite the Patriot act.
The unlimited detainment period need only last until after the bill gets crushed like the rights of the people under it.
People will say that's an abuse of the Act and we'll win by demonstration of the very thing we're protesting against. If they don't complain then the bill will vetoed anyways. It's a win-win situation.
Re:I am confident (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree. I'm just saying that voting them away is the designed solution to the problem. Relying on a side effect of an undesigned solution such as the Supreme Court means that things like the Eldred case get punted back to the Legislature.
Anyone who voted in favor of a bill that's declared unconstitutional should be removed from office because they've violated the oath of office.
Well, some laws live right on the border, so this is not a good solution, either. You need to consider that things like Affirmative Action, for example, may have been passed with the best intentions even though they are arguably unconstitutional.
Point is, people who look to the Supreme Court to correct bad laws are looking for short term solutions. This is bad because by the time a law does get struck down, it's already affected many people. Worse, many bad laws won't get struck down. What you really need to do is to either fix your representation system, or fix your citizenry so that they are less apathetic or ignorant.
The political system, like any system, needs maintenance. Your post hints at setting up an ideal automatic system (remove legislators who propose unconstitutional laws), and can only work as well as our foresight allows - which is to say, never as well as we'd like. Vigilance really is the price here.
Why bother with a atory? (Score:1, Insightful)
As much as i hate the Patriot Act it was BIPARTISAN that means both parties were for it and the majority of both voted for it in Congress. Even now, according to the story, Schumer (D-NY) is in on making this shit permament.
And while your slaming the Dept. of Homeland Security as a Republican Gestapo remember that the department was proposed by a Democrat (Leiberman) and the Republicans were initially against it but gave in on it because they knew it would be political suicide to oppose it at the time.
I hate the patriot act and i'm not in favor of the Homeland Security Department either but you can't lay this at the feet of just one party, both are responsible. Call your elected representatives and tell them you are against the extension of the Patriot Act and Patriot Act II instead of sitting around whining about how Bush "stole" the election.
A serious question (Score:4, Insightful)
How do you justify the word "almost" in that sentence? In the USA today, the government can make people simply disappear. The USA already imprisons a larger fraction of its population than any other developed country, and the Patriot Act has barely started to have an effect. What more do you want before you are willing to describe the USA as a police state?
Sometimes... (Score:2, Insightful)
Most Americans don't know what its like to live in a Police State. I do, I lived in one for the first dozen years of my life, and let me tell you, they get you started with nationalism (or patriotism depending on your definition), and take away your right to think freely, by declaring it unpatriotic... then they kill a few people close to you, mostly for thinking for themselves and not buying the bullshit. Then they declare martial law, and enforce curfews and other bullshit "for your protection". Eventually things like PATRIOT and TIA seem like eggs in a much bigger corporate sponsored basket... but don't you worry, you won't see it coming because you people have lived sheltered lives, and all the history you know has been thoroughly filtered to allow minutiae of truth. Most of you don't know how to spot surveillance and violations of human rights unless Ari Fleischer tells you on TV. Cuz if its on TV it must be true... *right* ???
I support the troops but I've no respect for King George's buyout of our elections. Nor his actions, cowardice, lies and coverups, before and since. He will get his eventually but NOT in this world, perhaps in the next... unless God's also easy to buy out with PACs, softmoney and oil shares... then he's set.
-DaedalusHKX
General population?? (Score:2, Insightful)
"...and the general population for our current leadership..."
Excuse me! Didn't the "general population" ask for a different [electgore.com] leader of the free world??
The dope currently at the head of the US was appointed by the Supreme Court. Don't blame the rest of us for any messes him and his fascist puppetmasters have gotten us into.
Re:survey says... (Score:4, Insightful)
Judging by the voter turnout [fairvote.org], the general population voted to sit on the couch and watch the results on TV, as usual.
Re:Trust Big Brother! (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's a brief rundown - it's the idea that people are important. That by being a member of society, you have an obligation to all the other members of that society. That people should work together to provide for the common good. You would be dead right now if it weren't for the things you're poo-pooing. You didn't educate yourself - nobody does. You can't.
I DO work 60 hours a week (often) with no overtime. I'm forced into that work model because this country treats people as a resource rather than citizens, and thus I'm expected to compete to keep my job. I'm sure your father is a very worthwhile person, but it's a simple fact of economics that not everyone can be successfull - in fact most people can't. Think about it sometime. And, to a liberal, that fact means that we have an obligation to make sure that our own ambition doesn't take the food from anyone elses mouth or the roof from over thier head.
I don't have any solid figures, but I would be astonished if I were wrong when I said that 90% of the people making over, say, 100k a year (not rich, but upper middle class) came from (at least) lower middle class backgrounds. This is where your taxes go - to provide opportunities for people without rich parents.
Now, it's not done perfectly and I'm as annoyed as you with the amount of taxes taken out of my check, although military spending accounts for more of it than anything else, so if you support that you might want to re-think your ranting. But the principles, the concepts that lead to this sort of thing, are perfectlly sound, and, in fact, are one of the reasons our country even still exists. Take a look at history, with the massive gap (far more than in America today, although it's growing) in the standard of living between the upper class and the poor. The American Dream was the rise of the middle class.
Guessing from the synopsis of your life story, I'd bet that you've never been truly poor - that while you may have worked hard, you've never needed to make choices like whether to feed your children or clothe them. Those are hard choices - the kind that nobody should ever have to make, and they pretty much take the wind right our of arguments like "work harder and everything will be okay".
If you were TRULY a libertarian, you'd want to do away with inheritence. Think you have what it takes to make it on your own? How about, at birth, all children are placed in a big pit (we can use Texas) and only the strongest are able to dig themselves out. That way, your parents won't provide you with anything. Your success won't be measured by the accidents of your birth.
Lastly, let me just address this little tidbit of bullcrap: ""Liberals" believe that the government should take care of the people, and the people should thank and worship the government."
Bunk. Liberals believe that the goverment should take care of the people, period. It's that simple. I certainly don't worship or thank my government, but my social beliefs are liberal by any definition. I believe it's my obligation, as it is yours, that by being a member of society, and a citizen of this nation, to support everyone. To provide for common education. To provide a path for people to better themselves. The "free market" does not and cannot do any of this, because it inherently does not produce a profit.
Re:My God. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm with you on the conclusion, but respectfully must argue about the idea that soldiers and guns gave us freedom.
Long-haired intellectuals with spongy muscles created the document that enumerated our freedoms. Hippy peacenik idealists. Romantics.
Soldiers, for all their bravery and patriotism, are walking guns that do what they are told. They rarely fight for civil rights -- it's not their job, and frankly they are members of an organization that does not prize dissent at any level. And it shows in their politics.
Without the hated intellectual liberals creating the basis for our freedoms, and fighting for them every day in the courts, the soldiers would only exist to make us do what we are told. Patriotism doesn't make you free. Saddam's soldiers are patriots -- but they never were free.
Guns don't make you free either. 70% of the Iraqi population owns a firearm. Didn't help them much.
It takes brains -- courage -- to fight conformity, which is the real enemy of freedom.
Soldiers will shoot whomever they are conditioned to shoot. It takes "libertarians" (when did that become an epithet?) to create a government that cannot use the guns of the soldiers to create domestic political power.
'Sides, if guns and troops were the answer, then we could get rid of the Constitution and have the Defense Department and the President rule over us.
Oh -- wait. Oops.
Re:I am confident (Score:3, Insightful)
They were elected for mostly three reasons:
- Their party
- Their looks
- Their catchy campaign slogan
If you're looking for somebody to uphold the US Constitution, you're obviously looking in the wrong place.They want what we want... (Score:2, Insightful)
Funny how these senior officials demand the same right to anonymity that they wish to take from us.
Re:Screw the ACLU, they help NAMBLA (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:My God. (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact they really didn't have much business hearing the case at all. So, yes, in short, they deserve every bit of flak they get and then some.
The fact that they even heard it proves that they will tow the party line. It was truly a sad sad day for the rep of SCOTUS when they agreed to hear it.
This is just a distraction. (Score:3, Insightful)
The negotiations are happening up-front in congress:
"we almost had the votes for this, we can probably accomplish that."
and more deceptively in the public:
"Look how we compromised! There's three awful bills we didn't even pass!"
This, of course is like a murderer saying, "I'm not a bad guy, look at all the people I didn't shoot!"
I like the poster that referenced a bumper sticker:
I love my country. Its the government I'm afraid of.
-Zipwow
Re:My God. (Score:3, Insightful)
No, seriously [cic.gc.ca], how's the job market up there?
People here can joke all they want, and make their flag-wavin'-'merikun "love-it-or-leave-it" snide remarks about Canadian immigration, but the way our country's been going lately has make me take a hard look at immigration.
I'm older, and making a life change like this would be very difficult, but I'm sick and tired of all the bile out of the so-called "patriots" who've backed this so-called "administration". GWB and his cronies are looking more like Saddam than not. All this talk of "If you're not with us, you're against us", and "...all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do..." is starting to sound a lot more fascist than democratic.
Re:My God. (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe economics has become a much more powerful force in the modern world than soldiers, with access to information close behind. The best way to fight dictators, if possible, is to make their dictatorships unprofitable by comparison.
Unfortunately it's a long term strategy, and people aren't that patient any more - they want change fast as a speeding bullet.
Re:What does this say about the "war on terrorism" (Score:4, Insightful)
The War on Drugs is a dismal failure. Drug use has not abated. The War or Terror(ism) will also be a failure. It will not make the world a safer place. But neither of these "wars" was meant to do what they told us they were for.
Re:Congress IS NOT going to make PATRIOT permanent (Score:3, Insightful)
Through the snow; into the forest. (Score:1, Insightful)
I was a peace protestor until I realized the peace protestors were becoming extremists in their own right, for once the war started, not having a war or simply stopping the war became unrealistic options. But they continue protesting for no war instead of moving on to the next fight. We lost that battle. The best we can do now is win the war and mobilize all that now-wasted energy into fighting to get the power to wage war back into the hands of the people... and the senate.
The great thing about Clinton was that he didn't really do much other than go around the world smiling, as if he was on tour, and telling everybody how great things were. What better for a president to do! He let the larger body of congress make decisions and went about his business in the oval office.
Ah, but that was before 9-11 you say. The same 9-11 perpetrated by mainly Saudi Arabians? Led by a former CIA weapons recipient cum revolutionary? The same 9-11 in which airliners were out of range for over a 1/2 hour before the disaster when common protocol is to intercept those out of contact for 10 minutes? The same 9-11 in which all the scrape was sent off so fast as to make an investigation impossible? The same 9-11 that was to be investigated by an unprosectucted war criminal? The same 9-11 timed to hit symbolic targets on a symbolic day?
Sorry big brother, I do not love you (props to Orwell). This country, with movies that average several cuts a second and an internet that allows for instant access to everything, has forgotten how to synthesize information horizontally. Sure, we can understand an electron and scale that up to a supercomputer, but... well, connect the dots.
One of the most profitable periods in world history. Tons of money was moved around. The
A power crisis orchestrated by Texans.
An election in which the results were very very close... so close, the supreme court had to call it in favor of the losing candidate (popular votes).
The largest bankruptcy in history without a solid investigation. A bankruptcy connected to the White House.
The bubble bursts. Tons of people are out of work. Bad for the people, great for businesses.
A spectre of campaign financing reform with a very important gap, "soft money", left out.
9/11. the stock market is closed. America stops.
When it restarts:
Patriot Act, allowing for people to disappear.
A War on afghanistan (central in a pipeline from the mideast to the far east/russia)
Labeling countries moving the the Euro as a backing of their economy as an Axis of Evil.
Invading Iraq.
Missles astray in Iran.
How many pieces do you people need?
We operate on a worldwide interconnected network where everything can be traced. Cell phones (which are more personal than a home phone), the internet, email, ODBCII (the car stuff that keeps service records)... 1984 is here. I was in san francisco and counted 26 cameras from the Hilton to the convention center. And your not going to tell me that those cameras are all on secure networks.
The Patriot Act and it's part II are just the next in a long line of bullshit, living under the guise of patriotism.
Free thought is dangerous to control, hence why we have schools that don't teach as much as acclimate people for the business world. When I went through college, my ideas mattered less than if they were in on time. Be a good worker. Pay your taxes. Shop. Consume.
Do you see a pattern?
We had the control, until we stopped voting becuase the political action campaigns promised to corrupt whomever we voted for.
And the best part? We foot the bill for our own enslavement in the form of 28% or more of our weekly paychecks... while the elected loot social security.
I respect homeless people who choose to be homeless (other than by drugs or situation). They at least have go
Re:My God. (Score:5, Insightful)
Most generals have given into the temptation of being dictator-for-life; he didn't. He knew what he was fighting for.
Re:I am confident (Score:1, Insightful)
Let me translate this for you folks. By that he means white christian republicans. everybody else hates america and is a terrorist.
Re:My God its full of stars! (Score:1, Insightful)
Riight... it's obvious which glass of cool-aid YOU drank. If you really believe that, ask yourself where your last two presedents were when the country was calling for them. If serving in the forces and fighting in far off lands is such an act of patriotism, why do all the successful americans (ie: the rich ones) avoid it like the plague? Shouldn't they be proud to serve their country and pay back for all it gave them?
Re:My God. (Score:3, Insightful)
The political hacks were in the Florida Supreme Court. They set aside perfectly reasonable Florida election law because they wanted the election to turn out differently. The SCOTUS rightly smacked their pimply bee-hinds.
You've got to be joking. (Score:3, Insightful)
Long-haired intellectuals with spongy muscles created the document that enumerated our freedoms. Hippy peacenik idealists. Romantics.
Soldiers, for all their bravery and patriotism, are walking guns that do what they are told. They rarely fight for civil rights --
Really, if you're going to recite all of this spongy idealist as superior crap, you're really going to have to look at the ultimate freaking outcome of their idealistic actions. Read a history book. Never, ever did a penstroke for freedom come at zero cost. Ask the Colonial Americans about that. Ask the French peasants. Ask almost any nation that was trying to get out from under a king. You're an idiot if you think these documents are secured by (using your words): Long-haired intellectuals, Hippy peacenik idealists. Romantics. Thought up, yes. Given to us by the hippies? Please. Give me a break. It was the people that stood up and took it from the oppressors.
So keep your celebrity artist influenced ideas where they belong... in the arts. The arts, of course being thought, war, of course, the opposite, being where the rubber meets the road.
When airhead celebrities get booed in a crowd... they deserved it. They wanted their happiness fantasies to make action in the world. They just got their opinions tested openly on the public in America. That response shows that they lost. That is true democracy. That is your public rule. By the way, 78% of Americans support this war. If you need to read several polls, go right ahead. It's all there.
Romantics are all and good, but slagging someone's dead American grandfather they never met because you want to get pissy about current events not matching your personal mental utopia... well that gets you a well deserved ass kickin' where I come from. I would never marginalize the Iraqi dead any more than I would joke about the American dead. War is ugly. Period. I would never slight your dead ancestors, or their beliefs and hopes.
Thought is all great and good. But you have to back that thought with action. Otherwise you are just another sign waver. Another sideline nation. The whiny fat kid at the back of the bus. Another "too much thought and too little guts" nation like lil' old France. So prove you care about the Iraqis. Prove this is not just some political crap to you. Prove it is all not talk.
Let's use your example: I assume you are talking about one of my personal idols, a Mr. T. Jefferson. Yes, he and his cronies thought up some new takes on the Magna Carta, and a Mr. M. Luther's ideas. BUT- YOU ARE NOT LOOKING AT HISTORY... remember what the hell happened after they made these documents? War! And they needed soldiers. French independence? Won by soldiers. Next question please.
So keep your head about you and realize that action, not thought about action, makes the difference. That sometimes gets very violent in the short term for the betterment of the future.
Soldiering is the last job I would ever want, and the first one I would take if my country asked it of me. I see the Iraqis dancing in the street, and I wish that I could have helped them more.
Just remebered something... (Score:4, Insightful)
Soldiers, for all their bravery and patriotism, are walking guns that do what they are told. They rarely fight for civil rights -- it's not their job, and frankly they are members of an organization that does not prize dissent at any level. And it shows in their politics.
I am a newsman in Nashville, Tn. I have been reporting at Ft. Campbell (home of the 5th SOG, 101st Airborne and the Rakkasans) more times than I can remember. To respond for them I say this:
I was at a free concert event one day where a lot of really good bands were about to play... suddenly three unit leaders walked on stage and started reading the original articles of the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights. It took forever. The bands waited. They read the classics. States rights, etc. Swear to God they were bookin' through it but it took a while.
Then all of the soldiers stood up and saluted, and swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Just like they do when they are sworn in as US servicemen. This was before a concert.
Kinda shoots holes in your theory that they are all idiots that don't care about the US Constitution and how important it is. And that they don't stand for it.
You do realize, of course, that they swear allegiance to the ideals of the US before they swear allegiance to the government, don't you?
Re:Just remebered something... (Score:4, Insightful)
And then we look at the My Lai massacare, and the fact that George Washington was offered the presidency. No one's saying that soliders are idiots. But "all the soliders stood up and saluted"; how many considered that they were saluting the fact that Congress didn't have the right to stop the slave trade during the first years of our country? That the people could not be trusted to elect their senators? The fact that a slave is only 3/5 a person? The soliders stood up and saluted patriotism, not any thoughtful concept of what they had just been read. There were no dissenters, nessecary for a healthy democracy; no one refused to stand for a document that endorsed slavery, that permitted the white man west of the Applalations to take someone else's land.
You do realize, of course, that they swear allegiance to the ideals of the US before they swear allegiance to the government, don't you?
This is after they go through a several month indoctrination, chanting kill-kill-kill and get punished for hesitating to carry out any order given to them. A fifteen-second pledge versus months of indoctrination.
Re:My God. (Score:3, Insightful)
The SC *had* to take the case because if they didn't, legislatures would seize the precedent to shove the judiciary into the background.
Re:A serious question (Score:1, Insightful)
You mean like in Florida last time?
Re:You've got to be joking. (Score:2, Insightful)
This is what bothers me about America. We place all this stock into our great democracy, such a wonderful concept, that we have a nation not about liberty and equality, but about mob rule. Democracy only gets you so far. Just because most of the people in the country think Bush knows something, and blindly trust his decision to go to war, doesn't make it right. Remember slavery? Most of the (voting) people in this country once believed slavery was a good idea.
The problem with mob rule is that it doesn't prevent the majority of people from trampling the rights of the minority. No matter what 78% of Americans think, there still needs to be some check in the system to make sure those other 22% still have some rights left, and that our actions really are in the best interest of our supposed ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Judging by some of the laws passed in this country, it seems the Constitution is nothing more than suggested reading for our lawmakers.
Interesting situation (Score:4, Insightful)
In summary: the Constitution is hard to amend because the founding fathers realized that few of their sucessors would be up to the task of changing such an important document. Only those that can convience not only a majority that voted for them, but most of those that didn't as well, should be able to make such a change. Only those people are qualified enough to do so.
Re:You've got to be joking. (Score:2, Insightful)
In all three cases mentioned here, people used non-violent means to radically change the course of history.
I agree with you that an idea alone is not enough, but guns are not the only way to support an idea. In all three instances I mention here, there are specific texts that outline how to move forward in a non-violent fashion. (See Ghandhi's writings, King's speeches, and the New Testament.)
Contrary to what many people suppose, it takes enormous personal bravery to really support a non-violent solution to a problem. In all three cases mentioned here, people ended up giving up their lives for their cause, and in many cases they were fully aware that they were laying their lives on the line, and yet the proceeded.
Lone Wolf (Score:3, Insightful)
Lone wolf, better known as "common criminal".
Opps, correction: Lone wolf suspect, better known as a suspect. For any given crime you gererally have several suspects. Therefore most suspects are in fact innocent. Also note that they they are particularly interested in targeting people in advance of a crime that may or may not occure at some point in the future.
The primary effect of the antiterrorism bill would be to make it easier for the government to use secret surveillance warrants against innocent people.
-