Want Freedom? 1084
Xenopax writes "According to this story on the Sacramento Bee Americans are now more willing to throw away their first amendment rights for the false feeling of security than ever before. In fact many believe that the First amendment goes too far with its protection and think we should allow monitoring of religious groups for national security. Also many people believe the media shouldn't be allowed to question the government in times of war. One has to wonder if anyone cares about their constitutional rights any more, or if everyone would be happier living in 1984." The study is conducted by the Freedom Forum every year and is available for download.
One of my favourite quotes... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:One of my favourite quotes... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:One of my favourite quotes... (Score:5, Insightful)
That rhetoric developed in the 18th and 19th centuries, mostly during wars.
During the Revolutionary War (1776), with the most powerful navy in the world anchored in NY harbor (the British), Jefferson wrote,
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, overnments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
The First Amendment, the subject of this article, was writting ~1790, not during war but not exactly a time of peace and harmony.
During the Civil War, in the mid-18th century, at perhaps the lowest, most dangerous moment in our nations history (the Battle of Gettysburg), Lincoln said,
Makes us look like wusses, throwing it all away in the face of the relatively very minor threats we face in 2002.
Who you calling "us"? (Score:3, Interesting)
Who you calling "us"?
The bulk of the population was ALWAYS willing to throw this stuff away - even (perhaps especially) during the period where those documents were composed. The revolution was run by a tiny fraction of the population even then.
The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights were largely put there by a coalition of radical (for the time) pressure groups and state legislators. These people were the "anti-federalist" faction of the Founding Fathers and were concerned that the Federalists were staging a coup and setting up a super-state by hijacking an articles-of-confederation-revision committee of the Continental Congress.
The pressure for the freedom of religion clause came primarily from protestant ministers - concerned that the government might select a state religion - other than theirs - and restart the religious wars that led to the founding of several of the colonies by refugees of various religious factions.
Interestingly, Moslems were common in the former colonies (especially near the seaports - lots of sailors). Islam was the canonical example of a non-Christian religion that produced moral people, used in the debates whenever the question of whether "freedom to chose a Christian religion" was what was meant.
The Bill of Rights exists EXPLICITLY to protect unpopular rights of unpopular minorities from trampling by a hostile-to-indifferent majority. And these days the establishment-of-religion clause of the First Amendment has been used for everything from defending abortionists to blocking the Pledge of Allegiance and moments-of-silence in public schools. And the country is still reeling from an act of war by a political sect attempting to start a religious war. Yet a poll finds less than half of the population polled will say "The First Amendment goes too far".
Seems to me that the current US population is MUCH more understanding of, and in favor of, the ideas behind our freedom than the population at the time of the revolution.
Re:One of my favourite quotes... (Score:4, Interesting)
What are we sacrificing for now? Merely security for the majority? Every tinpot dictator in history has provided that.
Re:One of my favourite quotes... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but we were at War - an official declaration had been made. We are not currently at war, and any rights being suspended now are being suspended indefinately. A citizen of the US should be able to plan out, including diagrams and timetables, how to blow up the WTC. Many have, as a matter of fact, and published the results, both in fiction form and essay form in underground magazines. Should the FBI follow the latter? Sure. Should they arrest them? No.
However, when war is declared, an act of Congress which can be temporarily enacted by the president, all bets are off. Normal rights are suspended, and the nation enters a state of martial law, with curfews, search and seizue laws being rewritten, etc. Do I have a problem with this? No. It's the nature of the situation. But it will end and things will be reverted back to full liberties and rights when the war ends.
The problem is, there is no declaration of war - just a removal of rights with no endpoint in sight. That's what upsets quite a few people about this situation. Wartime restriction of rights is one thing, removing rights for a nebulous, never ending situation sounds a little like 1984 and a lot like Joe McCarthy's witchhunts.
--
Evan (no reference)
Re:One of my favourite quotes... (Score:3, Informative)
Later declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, I might add. See Ex parte Milligan. [uchicago.edu] For the lazy, Ex parte Milligan was a declaration by the Supreme Court following the Civil War which stated a number of things, not the least of which were: the military cannot act as a judiciary in any place where the courts are able to function, no one (not even the President) may suspend Habeus Corpus so long as there is a functional government, and last but not least - the military cannot try a citizen who is not connected with the military.
This is, of course, something that was overlooked when Jose [time.com] Padilla [wsws.org], who is an American citizen, and supposedly has some rights [cornell.edu], was transferred to a military brig [cnsnews.com] with little more than casual remarks from the government (Bush called him a "bad guy" - yes, he really did use those words).
Re:What is Habeas Corpus?? (Score:3, Informative)
The interpretation has been left up to the Courts and Congress. There are rules in different parts of the country but usually if you can prove you are a citizen you won't be held more than 3 days under normal circumstances, or 10 days or so if there is a riot or flood or some other act of god, without being charged with a crime. The idea being that you can't defend yourself if you aren't accused of anything.
The US constitution allows the president to suspend Habeas Corpus if Congress declares war. This is a bit of a controversy in the States right now because Congress refused to declare war in the early days after Sept 11, but instead gave Bush some extraordinary powers indefinately and others that needed to be renewed in a few years. Congress purposely didn't give him a suspension of Habeas Corpus, but apparently he has been holding lots of people more than the 10 day or so maximum, more or less since Sept 11, without being charged with any crime. Most of the people arrested pleaded to some minor offense to get released, but many have either not been offered that option or refused it. It's hard to know since they aren't allowed lawyers and their names and number are unknown. Even if there had been a declaration of war it would be illegal to not allow someone to contact any governement approved lawyer.
Re:One of my favourite quotes... (Score:3, Insightful)
Given that there are billions of Saudi dollars invested in the US economy you are risking a serious economic slowdown if you do this. Unless of course you actually steal that money by freezing it (which I am sure no republican would object to)
"Give consistent moral support Israel's efforts to wipe out Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Al Aksa Martyr's. "
How would that be different then what we do now? We don't even object or raise a fuss when the Israeli govt kills or tortures american citizens who are arabs. Imagine of some other countries military killed or tortured white christian american citizens. As things stand now Sharon tells Dubya what he is going to do and dubya says "yes sir how much money do you need".
"Declare war against Iraq and remove the Baath party from power. "
Iraq has never done anything to the US. They were not involved in 9-11, they have never attacked US soil. They were our proxies in the US war against iran. All this despite the fact there has never been a 6 month period in the last 10 years that we did not drop at least one bomb on iraqui soil.
Do you really want to be the first democratic country in the history of the world to declare a unilateral war on another country without provocation?
"Tell the current Iranian regime that they will be next unless they turn over anyone involved in or planning attacks against the U.S. or its citizens."
I think they know this already. Nobody thinks dubyas war against the infidels (muslims) is going to stop in iraq. Iran. syria, somalia, libya, yemen, saudi arabia all know they are "next".
Re:One of my favourite quotes... (Score:3, Insightful)
No it isn't because it's a fucking joke. Exactly what attempt was made on the president? did anybody actually fire a bullet. What is your definition of "attemped assasination"? Does wishing that Bush senior was dead count as "attempted assassination"?
"There are also several bits of evidence connecting Iraq to the 9/11 attacks (Iraqi intelligence meeting with Mohommad Atta is one)"
This is a lie so please stop perpetuating it. The CIA even admits it's a lie. BTW repeating a lie never makes it the truth.
"Constantly moving anti-aircraft guns/missles into the no-fly zones (UN mandated) to target US/allied aircraft."
God forbid a sovereign nation moves defensive equipment within their own country.
"It's not like Saddam has initated two wars of aggression or anything."
We encouraged both of those actions. We also provided them with weapons, intelligence and money during their war against iran. "There are also several bits of evidence" that the Iraq checked with the US and a nod of approval before invading kuwait but did not realize they were being set up.
Re:One of my favourite quotes... (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't 'formally declare war' against Al Qaeda. I'm not sure why this is so hard for you people to get through your heads, but try;
Al Qaeda is not a country. OK?
What you're asking for is something completely idiotic, in the same vein as declaring war against members of the Britney Spears Official Fan Club. Look at what gdict says about war;
A contest between nations or states, carried on by force, whether for defence, for revenging insults and redressing wrongs, for the extension of commerce, for the acquisition of territory, for obtaining and establishing the superiority and dominion of one over the other, or for any other purpose; armed conflict of sovereign powers; declared and open hostilities.
To complete the definition, it might help you to know that a 'nation' is
The body of inhabitants of a country, united under an independent government of their own,
whilst a 'state' is
A political body, or body politic; the whole body of people who are united, one government, whatever may be the form of the government; a nation.
In case it isn't abundantly clear by now, Al Qaeda is neither of the above. It has been described as a 'diffuse grouping driven more by conviction than leadership', a 'loose coalition of groups operating across continents', and so on. It has cells all over the place - take a look at this quote from the US DefenseLINK
Al Qaeda has cells in Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Turkey, Jordan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Syria, China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Burma, Indonesia, the Philippines, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Yemen, Libya, Tunisia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya, Dagestan, Sudan, Somalia, Kenya, Tanzania, Azerbaijan, Eritrea, Uganda, Ethiopia and in the West Bank and Gaza. The events of Sept. 11 indicate there are cells in the United States. Published reports estimate Al Qaeda has about 3,000 members worldwide.
What are you going to do, declare war on Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Turkey, Jordan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Syria, China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Burma, Indonesia, the Philippines, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Yemen, Libya, Tunisia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya, Dagestan, Sudan, Somalia, Kenya, Tanzania, Azerbaijan, Eritrea, Uganda, Ethiopia, the West Bank and Gaza? The combined population of all of these countries is, in millions: 29 + 58 + 28 + 63 + 4.3 + 5.8 + 25 + 16 + 1295 + 142 + 124 +20+ 45 + 228 + 82 + 4.3 +17 + 22 + 2 + 0.6 +17.5 + 5 + 9.7 + 3.9 + 2 + 0.86+ 2 + 27 + 6 + 28 + 33 + 7.7 + 3.9 + 24 + 64 + 3.
You feeling big enough to go to war with, collectively, 2384.56 million people? Or were you planning to magically develop an Al Qaeda detector van and just drive around checking for those 3,000 terrorists?
You'll find that it's quite difficult justifying going to war on, collectively, something like half the population of the world, just in order to find and execute 3,000 people. Sorry.
I'm tired of you people thinking you can just go to war with anything you dislike. War is a very specific thing, ok? You can't usefully declare war against anything but foreign countries; 'war against drugs' should have been a metaphor for 'forceful action', much like 'war against obesity'.
Get the hint; unfortunately, most countries have a terrorist problem, not least the ones whose terrorists are US-funded (like the UK...), but that certainly doesn't justify war. Sorry. If September 11th had been the act of a nation/state, in the way that dropping bombs on, say, Afghanistan was, then sure, go to war - you know who's responsible. If, as was the case, it was a terrorist organisation, then I'm afraid you're SOL.
Of course, you can ask countries, such as Iran, whether they might happen to know of any terrorists living within their borders, but in all honesty I'd be very surprised if their administration could answer, even if there are shadowy groups within the administration who know the answer - after all, the CIA, for example, wouldn't admit to some of the stuff they do/know, even to the government. Neither would they keep publicly accessible databases that you can just search with SELECT * FROM CITIZENS WHERE OCCUPATION='TERRORIST' AND ORGANISATION='AL QAEDA'.
I wonder how you guys would feel if the other countries in the world with a terrorist problem all decided to exterminate the inhabitants of the countries in question, en masse (in the example of the UK, let's declare war on Ireland! they're harboring terrorists!) This has been said before, I realise, but nonetheless you obviously haven't picked up on it yet. Al-Quada are an organisation relatively independent of any one nation, despite the fact that several nations have sympathy with their aims. I know it's upsetting to cope with the fact that September 11 happened because some extraordinarily rich private individuals took it on as a personal endeavor. Still, that's how terrorism works. Blaming the people with the same dress sense/accent as the terrorists is generally considered bad form.
Re:Uh, hello, you're wrong....what about WWII? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:One of my favourite quotes... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:One of my favourite quotes... (Score:4, Funny)
By the way, I came across this quote recently:
The very stability of a free nation is based almost entirely upon the ability of the distributors of artistic works to carefully and tightly control the distribution of those works, charging whatever price they deem reasonable and fair, and acting with swift impunity in punishing, with our without the official sanction of the government, those who infringe on their rights to control those works. It is the essence of democracy that both the artists and the distributors of artistic works be paid substantially for each copy of a work, lest we fall into tyrrany. I know this, because I am George Washington, and that is how we founded this great and noble nation.
--George Washington.
I'm not entirely sure if George Washington said that, but hey, somebody said it, and it is applicable to an issue currently being discussed, so it must be important.
Another good quote.. (Score:3, Funny)
of course... (Score:5, Funny)
(for the sarcasm impaired: that is not my real belief).
And the religion is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do you ask the question but not provide the answer?
The word is treason (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know of anyone that thinks the government should be required to be entirely truthful about ongoing operations in times of war. If a reporter discovers classified information and shares it, it is not a matter of the first amendment. It is a matter of treason, as if they'd discovered documents and sold them directly to a foreign power.
Just because you belong to the press corps doesn't make you above the law.
Re:The word is treason (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The word is treason (Score:2)
The government also has the right not to answer. Perhaps I'm mistaken, I read that as "media demanding information" not as "media voicing dissent."
Re:The word is treason (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The word is treason (Well, not really...) (Score:2, Insightful)
Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
You don't what is reported, so you call it treason. Views like this are a threat to all of us.
I'm not a huge fan of the press, but they are hardly treasonous, and do act to protect our rights, if only for selfish reasons.
Re:The word is treason (Well, not really...) (Score:2)
The press knew of the Cuban Missile crisis beofre the public did, the government knew before the press. Should the government have todl the press? No. Should the press have told the public? No. Creating widespread pandimonium is not bennificial to anyone except your enemies.
Re:The word is treason (Score:2, Insightful)
Just for the record I would like to point out that we are not at war. War requires a formal decoration by Congress, not by the President. I don't know what to call this.
Re:The word is treason (Score:2)
However, If I were in the media and decided to say. I don't support Bush going to war in Iraq because it will draw support for Iraq's current government amoung the people in Iraq, and because the majority of the world seems to favor an alternative option other than war "ie more sanctions" and such.
Should I be labeled as a "Benedict Arnlold"? I don't think so. This is what I think the issue is. I don't think anyone is saying the Media should be above the law (or at least I hope not).
What were the questions? (Score:2, Insightful)
For example, if you ask, "In a time of war, do you think there is a limit to the amount of information that should be disseminated to the press?", you'll likely get a high positive response. However if you ask, "Should the government hide information from the press?", you'll end up with a much lower positive response.
Franklin said: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Franklin said: (Score:4, Insightful)
Just because Franklin said it, doesn't make it true. Appeal to authority is a very weak form of argument.
Giving up some freedom can in fact give you some security, and we all do it all the time. I am not allowed to go around shooting people - if I do the cops come and arrest me. This is a compromise of my absolute freedom, but one that I (and the vast majority of other people) are very happy to make.
The question is not should we give up freedom for security, but how much and for how long, and what are we getting in return. These are the right questions to be asking. We should be very careful not to compromise any more freedom than is necessary and we should make sure that we get it all back once the threat has subsided. Freedom is a precious and important thing that we should not give up lightly.
Any system that is taken to its absolute conclusion is dangerous. Have we learnt nothing of the danger when any view is taken to its extreme? I would have thought the example of Islamic fundamentalism was only too painfully clear.
Re:Franklin said: (Score:2)
However, since your reference to communism was to imply censorship, any government is capable of that.
If you want to talk censorship just look around at what our government is doing for "national security" or what businesses are doing for "intellectual property rights".
Censorship is born out of a selfishness desire to control... It has nothing to do with economic systems.
"I wasn't using my civil liberties, anyway" (Score:5, Funny)
Re:"I wasn't using my civil liberties, anyway" (Score:3, Interesting)
Why, just yesterday I was watching Crossfire, and it was great entertainment listening to them basically saying Bush is an idiot.
I want my civil liberties so I can keep laughing at my elected leaders in public.
(In private, I cry because I helped elect some of them.)
Freedom Forum? (Score:2, Insightful)
and a "study" like this is a great way for them to get in the spotlight and receive additional funding.
There is no such thing as "nonpartisan". Ever. Be skeptical of everything you see/hear/read.
Americans throw away freedom for capitalism (Score:4, Insightful)
Intellectual property and copyright law in the digital era = censorship.
The computer is a communications tool which is an extention and enhancement to our ability to communicate and express ourselves, source code is the method of expression, 1s and 0s are the output of this expression.
However current intellectual property law is designed to reduce our abilities to express ourselves via code or even to copy a file.
Copyright and Intellectual property is out of control right now and its slowly removing our freedomm of speech and our right to expression.
Why is it ok to censor people in the name of capitalism, no one but rogue pirates dare step forward and say what we all know is happening.
Freenet, GNU, etc etc, its all about freedom of speech. Alot of people claim "well if you are going to have freedom to be open source you should also have freedom not to be"
However when you arent open source and you support the patent system you support censorship. Its very funny how Americans can jump to complain about China and the evils of Communism, claiming USA is all about freedom, claiming the constitution, but its all bullshit.
USA is about Capitalism right now, not freedom. While we are more free than China, we are only more free than China for now, eventually Capitalism will remove all freedom from us due to our own greed.
Re:Americans throw away freedom for SOCIALISM (Score:4, Insightful)
In a true capitalist system, government can NEVER subsidize, tariff, or embargo companies. They can't regulate or control. They can't tax.
In America, our government protects its friendly businesses with subsidies, while harming the competitors to its friends with tariffs and regulations.
Its not Capitalism that hurts our country (greed helps EVERYONE, not just the greedy), its excessive government regulations and subsidies that hurt us.
Re:Americans throw away freedom for SOCIALISM (Score:2)
I'm also critical of farm subsidies on the part of Europe and the US - I think that form of government protection is preventing the best of globalism from actually developing and hurting third world economies considerably - but capitalism, especially complex high-tech highly-interdependent late-capitalism, will always rely on a non-trivial legal and political framework, and on elements of infrastructure that are publically supported (transportation, utilities, financial institutions like the FDIC).
Exactly (Score:4, Insightful)
There will never be a pure anything for a long long time.
Currently the best we can do is have a mix of Capitalism and Socialism.
Socialism to give everyone universal benifits, the right to have the military protect them for example, the right to get an education, etc
People arent always born with the money to go to private school, buy a shitload of machine guns, pay their own personal doctor, and so on.
And if people did have to do this, doctors would make less money on average because people wouldnt have any money to pay them with, teachers would be working for pennies literally and poor students would never have access to good teachers, etc etc.
People can argue all they want for a pure Capitalist world but its just impossible, just like a pure Socialist world is impossible, the only way we could have a world like this is to have a utopia where everyone is responsible,mature, intelligent, and we have a perfect democracy.
When we have a Utopia then we can decide if we want it to be a Capitalist Utopia or A Socialist Utopia.
Right now we arent there yet.
Socialism is all that works for information (Score:5, Insightful)
And we are becoming more and more an information based economy.
True Capitalism couldnt work in the real world just like true Socialism cant work. Theres a reason we are a mixture of both, because this is the only thing that could work.
Without public schools, police, government, etc we'd have complete chaos because the people in this country arent intelligent enough, arent responsible enough, and they arent mature enough to successfully govern themselves.
Greed helps everyone? Thats not even logical, Greed only helps you, it doesnt always have to harm everyone else, but it only helps YOU.
Greed helps you. Depending on how you make your money decides how many people you help or harm.
I could say Socialism helps everyone too, you go to the police when you need them, you depend on the military to defend you from al qaeda, without socialism you wouldnt even have the internet, we would have never gone to the moon, we wouldnt have big industries.
Look, pure capitlaism can never work, its a pipe dream, pure socialism most likely can never work either, the best we can do is have a mixture of both, as the economy becomes less labor based and more information based, and we dont have to work as hard, we'll become more socialist, progression forces socialism because you cant sell something when theres unlimited amounts of it.
Capitalism if it was pure, it could work if it were 100 percent fair capitalism, this means capitalism without globalism, this means forcing companies to raise the minimum wage they pay their workers along with the amount of money the company brings in, meaning dynamic salary which increases when companies do good and decreases when they do bad, equal salary for everyone in the company this means the CEO shouldnt make billions and everyone else thousands unless the CEO actually is working the hardest and has been working there the longest.
Enron and Worldcom situations should not be tolerated at all, a person should go to jail for life and their assets removed from them.
Globalism cannot work in pure Capitalism because Capitalism is all about small businesses not big businesses, big businesses are like governments and we dont need this.
No tax? Theres always going to be a tax because people always have to pool their money together to pay for say military forces or hospitals, however by making paying the tax a choice such as a donation you could still have pure capitalism while increasing freedom.
Re:Socialism is all that works for information (Score:4, Insightful)
"True" capitalism CAN work, and it DID work in America's most prosperous era (from the founding until the Civil War, when Lincoln's many fascist treasons corrupted the whole political system).
If people aren't smart enough to save money to educate their children, then they'll need to LEARN responsibility over the generations when they're poor. That's what's great about this country -- the unintelligent "darwinistically" fall by the wayside, and the MOST intelligent from other countries immigrate to our country to make the society stronger.
I know I'm a solo voice, but the hopes for liberty ARE growing, and I can only hope that people eventually see the fallacy that we "NEED" public education, or that we "NEED" minimum wage laws (laws that have removed 500,000+ jobs from the market, and hurt minorities and the young). Pick up one of those two books, settle in for a long week, and learn why Government Doesn't Work.
USA never had true capitalism (Score:3, Insightful)
True" capitalism CAN work, and it DID work in America's most prosperous era (from the founding until the Civil War, when Lincoln's many fascist treasons corrupted the whole political system)"
Oh so using slaves to do all the work and just sitting and taking their money is pure capitalism? If you believe its Capitalism I suppose you also support reperations? After all if slaves did all this work shouldnt they be paid the money your pure capitalist ancestors "earned"?
Like I said, We have never had pure capitalism, and for pure capitalism to work it has to be fair. This means no slavery or other forms of cheating.
"If people aren't smart enough to save money to educate their children, then they'll need to LEARN responsibility over the generations when they're poor. That's what's great about this country -- the unintelligent "darwinistically" fall by the wayside, and the MOST intelligent from other countries immigrate to our country to make the society stronger."
They wont live for generations. Poor people die quickly, or become criminals which your tax dollars use to build their prisons, face it what you are saying is that only successful people should survive. People who arent born into success will be poor and uneducated, lets say this was you, lets say you had nothing, no parents, no money, and you were homeless, how would you turn this around with no free education?
Also I dont support darwins theory, Darwin was talking about the competition between species in terms of evolution when resources are limited and competition for these resources are required.
The world is not like highlander, or at least it doesnt have to be, we dont need to fight over resources when theres enough food to feed everyone, it becomes a self destruction process,Sure you can have capitalism but it has to work for everyone rich or poor.
I know I'm a solo voice, but the hopes for liberty ARE growing, and I can only hope that people eventually see the fallacy that we "NEED" public education, or that we "NEED" minimum wage laws (laws that have removed 500,000+ jobs from the market, and hurt minorities and the young). Pick up one of those two books, settle in for a long week, and learn why Government Doesn't Work.
You arent a solo voice, you are a typical upper class rich white male, most likely single, who had a mother and a father put you in a private school and provide all you needed to be successful.
What you dont realize is, not everyone in this country has what you have and gets a fair start, people who start with nothing and people who start with everything are in two diffrent worlds.
Capitalism as you mentioned cant work for this simple reason, if you are poor, and you dont have any support from family, you cannot get an education, so you cannot get a legit job, so you go to crime and end up in prison because in your society theres absolutely no other option.
How exactly do you move up in the class system if theres absolutely no free services to help you do it? There has to be a way up if theres a way down.
Options, provide the same wage for everyone and make education not matter at all (yeah right)
or
Make education free for everyone and use education to decide wage, allowing people rich or poor to be able to benifit from Capitalism.
Why do we need minimum wage? Alot of people cant work 3 jobs and raise kids.
Alot of people have to work 2 jobs now just to survive onn their own WITH minimum wage, without minimum wage more people would have jobs, less people would be on welfare, but the poverty would be much more extreme than it is now.
Extreme Poverty becomes Extreme Crime, alot of pregnant teenage women will be robbing people and begging on the streets, because they arent educated enough to get a good job.
And lets not even try to imagine how the kid would turn out if they had to live on the streets with a mother who works 3 jobs and still cant afford anything, I guess you'll have to remove the child labor laws so kids can go to work and they can survive.
Re:Socialism is all that works for information (Score:5, Insightful)
That is a typical elitist approach to government. The basic premise of the government is that it is one of the people. Your argument against capitalism doesn't even make sense. Capitalism and socialism are economic systems, while the government services you cite are not economic in nature. Governments exist to provide at least a few basic services, among which are protection from invasion and law enforcement, for which the military and police are required. Using these entities as a "proof" that government is socialist is absurd; by your argument every government is socialist in nature. (Which, I suppose, was your intention all along).
Capitalism if it was pure, it could work if it were 100 percent fair capitalism, this means capitalism without globalism, this means forcing companies to raise the minimum wage they pay their workers along with the amount of money the company brings in, meaning dynamic salary which increases when companies do good and decreases when they do bad, equal salary for everyone in the company this means the CEO shouldnt make billions and everyone else thousands unless the CEO actually is working the hardest and has been working there the longest.
I don't know where you get this at all. Actually, I do; this is pure Marxist philosophy where Labor = Profit = Worth. No amount of work on a mud pie is going to increase its value. You would certainly refuse to pay $100 for a mud pie that I worked on for 20 hours, and you would certainly complain if you, as, let's say, a computer technician, made the same wage as the unskilled laborer handing out flyers on the street corner. There is more demand for higher skills, which makes them more valuable. If not, why bother going to get an education? You'll be making the same as everybody else anyway.
Your run-on sentence even contradicts itself in the middle: equal salary for everyone in the company...unless the CEO is actually working the hardest. Well, duh. The people who work harder and who are in demand are worth more. That's capitalism.
Enron and Worldcom situations should not be tolerated at all
Here I agree completely. I am all for minimal government involvement in business, but law enforcement should be ever present, which, in this case, means prosecution of fraud.
No tax? Theres always going to be a tax because people always have to pool their money together to pay for say military forces or hospitals, however by making paying the tax a choice such as a donation you could still have pure capitalism while increasing freedom.
I agree with the necessity of taxation as well. Making the tax optional is an interesting idea, but doomed to failure because too many will exploit the system. However, taxation for military and law enforcement do not make the system socialist because they are not economic in nature; they are part of the basic function of government.
Re:Americans throw away freedom for capitalism (Score:2)
proposition (Score:2)
religion (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem is that not every religion will be treated equaly... Bush will surely not mess with his friends of the christian right...
Apples and Oranges (Score:2, Troll)
How are "freedom of speech" as mentioned in the first amendment and the neo-liberal concept of "freedom of expression" remotely related? I support the freedom of speech unconditionally - I do not support the "freedom of expression" - first of all, there's no such thing. Second of all, it's ridiculous to consider phyical actions as speech.
When was the first time "freedom of speech" got misconstrued into "freedom of expression"? Where did that term come from, the same place as "underprivileged"?
Re:Apples and Oranges (Score:4, Insightful)
And if you pose for a camera, that's not speech, nor is letting your words be recorded on videotape. Speak all you like, but if the words end up in a fixed format, then damn you, you seditious criminal.
And if you want to wear a black armband to school during wartime, as a peaceful non-disruptive protest, then that "expression" is surely a crime too, and I hope you burn in hell.
Language and communication aren't limited to vocal sounds. As long as the action is without doubt, communication only, who are you to claim it's not protected?
Burning the US flag might be wrong, but only because it's the one country in the world where you are guaranteed the right to do it.
Revoking people's right to complain? (Score:2)
Its the turning point (Score:2, Insightful)
The past events were a turning point just like WW2 was. So these insecurities and talk about changing rights and all is a phase.
Slowly things will go to optimum levels. We humans are not digital circuit, it takes time.
Many feel that ciivil liberties are being jepordized and many feel that the laws allow too much. To be honest the laws allow a bit too much. So now swing will be the other way, no more privacy, big brother watching and all that, and then the pendulum will start swinging the other way again.
Actually the civillizations which reduce the amplitude of swinging pendulum survive longest, others wither away or are replaced by something else.
Currently everybody is at crossroads, unsure... they had the first amendment, freedoms etc., and the tragedies happened, no all these will be curbed to some extent. In fact it is very necessary to change things from within. Someday america will find the in between point, but then transition is always painful isnt it.
Thankfully, this is no democracy (Score:3, Interesting)
Our Constitution was set forth in order to protect our God given rights from destruction by an insane majority. As you can now see, the insane majority is here.
I will only vote for those who push legislation for smaller government. In Illinois, we will have libertarians on almost every ballot position, and that's how I will make my statement.
Of course, if we do find more infrindgements on our liberties, I will be one of the first to move to Costa Rica, or another country where their freedoms are GROWING, and because those countries aren't fighting "wars on everything," the standard of living is just as high as it is here (for entrepreneurs), but the tax burden and liberty loss is less.
Don't accept this mess. Vote to end government/business orgies and socialist schemes -- VOTE LIBERTARIAN [lp.org].
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise (Score:3, Funny)
They needed a survey to find this out?
Aren't you convinced by the survey? (Score:2)
Tell people others want something and maybe you can convince them.
It's called marketing.
Now who woud be promoting such a thing? Lil' Hitler Bush and company?
Nice to know (Score:2)
Remember what Hitler said "If you give them victory, they won't question your honesty".
The fact that the US media have such a huge impact will prevent the government from doing crazy things.
oof.. propaganda? (Score:2)
Here are the statistical qualifications of the study:
1000 people surveyed, +/- 3 percentage points.
Who exactly did they ask? If they asked 1000 people in San Fransisco, they would get a much different answer than if they asked 1000 people in Birmingham, Alabama.
Propaganda alert??? If I were a left-winger, I would question Uconn about the study, and I would suspect the hand of Ashcroft and the GOP sympathizers (er, Snowball) behind it.
But I then again, I AM somewhat of a conspiracy theorist.
Re:oof.. propaganda? (Score:2)
Allen Neuharth [horatioalger.com]
He ran "USA Today" and Gannet (bilboard/advertising company). So he is a media mogul, but is he a low-fat, hi-fiber mogul?
Good margin (Score:2)
That's is still a wide margin from the 2/3's of both Houses and 3/4 of the states needed to make an amendment.
We could use this study to reduce our reliance on foreign oil (and the Saudi's) by using the spinning of the Founding Fathers in their graves to generate electricity.
Well, I guess that's how Fascism takes root.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me.
- Martin Niemöller
Let me say this clearly: Bush sucks. He's a dangerous, arrogant man who's brother stole the election for him, and who's flushing our democracy down the toilet as fast as we will let him.
Unanswered Questions about 9/11 [unansweredquestions.org]
Re:Well, I guess that's how Fascism takes root.... (Score:3, Interesting)
> Let me say this clearly: Bush sucks. He's a dangerous, arrogant man who's brother stole the election for him, and who's flushing our democracy down the toilet as fast as we will let him.
Personally, I prefer to think of him as an idiot who was selected to serve as a cypher for interests far more extreme than himself. (Look how fast he accumulated a $70,000,000 war chest when he announced his candidacy.)
The most dangerous people in the USA right now are Rumsfeld and Ashcroft, not Mr. Bush.
With apologies to Jello Biafra... (Score:5, Insightful)
We interupt your surfing session with a special bulletin:
The Internet is now under martial law. All constitutional rights have been suspended. Stay in your homes! Do not attempt to contact loved ones, science fiction authors, or software developers.
SHUT UP!
Do not attempt to think, or depresion may occur. Stay in your homes. Curfew is at 7 pm sharp after work. Anyone transferring content on ports other than those allowed by their subdivision router - will - be - shot.
(Remain calm.)
Do not panic. Your neighborhood Digital Rights Inspector will be around to collect access logs in the morning. Anyone caught interfering with the collection of access logs - will - be - shot.
Stay in your homes! Remain calm! The number one enemy of progress is questions! The security of Hollywood's business model is more important that individual will!
(All sports broadcasts will proceed as normal.)
No more than two people may discuss programming techniques without permission! Write only the code prescribed by your boss or supervisor!
SHUT UP!
BE HAPPY!
Obey all orders without question!
The comfort you've demanded is now mandatory!
BE HAPPY!
At last, everything is done for you...
Freedom and the USA (Score:3, Insightful)
A question. Why is it that there seem to be many Americans that believe that the USA invented the concepts of democracy, freedom and liberty? The issue comes up time and time again. Is it something that is taught in schools in the USA?
It is suprising (not to say a little annoying) for many outside the US to hear this opinion expressed repeatedly by Americans. Democracy, feedom and liberty are ideas have been around since the Greeks, and probably before. There have been democratic governments in parts of Europe for over 800 years.
So can we please drop this idea that America invented freedom? It's just a tad irritating.
Re:Freedom and the USA (Score:3, Informative)
We didn't invent it, and I don't think anybody here of any reasonable nature would say that. What's taught here, though, is exactly what you said: the Republic/Democracy is a direct descendent of the Greeks.
The American ideal is just that, a grand conception that quite often is not lived up to and is interpreted differently by different folks. Is the American ideal wrong because it is sometimes ignored by its own citizens? No, no more than any ideal should be discarded because some of its adherents forget what it's all about.
We can debate and talk about those Americans who forgot or are forgetting, but please don't set up straw men in order to make derisive comments with no basis in reality.
Re:Freedom and the USA (Score:5, Funny)
.
Re:Freedom and the USA (Score:4, Interesting)
Why is it that there seem to be many Americans that believe that the USA invented the concepts of democracy, freedom and liberty? The issue comes up time and time again. Is it something that is taught in schools in the USA?
Nope. The usual party line is that the Greeks invented Democracy, Freedom, and Liberty; and that the Americans re-established it after getting sick and tired of Monarchy.
That's the party line anyway. The reality is probably more complex, involving a mix of Masonic ideals, romantic ideals about the Greeks and Romans, and English corporate traditions.
I do think it's safe to say that The American Revolution inspired (or was one of the inspirations for) the French Revolution, which laid the foundation for the spread of Liberal Democratic ideals throughout the world. At least, that's my rather provincial, and admittedly somewhat chauvanistic, take on the matter.
Of course, what's going on now, IMO, is laying the foundation for the spread of tyrrany throughout the world.
Re:Freedom and the USA (Score:3, Insightful)
freedom to express my opinions without fear of harrassment by the authorities.
Unless you live in Germany, and want to express your opinion that the holocaust didn't happen (that opinion is illegal, by the way).
Unless you live in France and want to use English words in a French broadcast, or want to own Nazi memoribilia.
Then we could talk about the freedom to buy medical care, or the economic freedom of reasonable taxation, or the freedom to own personal firearms.
Hell, it wasn't until recently that the UK finally got rid of election-by-birthright in the house of lords.
djibouti (Score:3, Funny)
The post intended to illustrate American insularity because we hadn't yet the privilege of your peevish reply as an example.
Re:Oh yeah, and... (Score:3, Informative)
Plato was a Greek was he not? Thought he was the one who wrote "The Republic"... That would seem more the basis of the US system than the Romans. Come to think of it, we *act* a bit like Romans...
(Slashcode) (Score:2)
Who's on First? (Score:2)
Simple solution. (Score:2)
Media (Score:2)
1984? More of a Brave New World (Score:4, Interesting)
In a society where creature comforts are increasingly easy to come by for the average man, there's an increasing willingness/tendency to sacrifice - or ignore - everybody else. So a few of those funny towel-heads get harassed - what of it? So a few lazy bums are on the streets - not my problem. So long as I get my multiple television channels, eh?
Most people just don't care all that much about their freedom - they view 'freedom' as the right to watch tv, drink a beer, see a football game. Even on Slashdot, there are always people who are happy to espouse the free software alternative right up to the point at which they want to play a Windows-only, proprietary computer game. Is it really surprising that most of us don't know what our rights are? We don't need or want to know - and such rights are threatening, particularly in the hands of _other people_.
Just a quick rant.
religious groups (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm sure this problem exists everywhere, but it seems to be really bad here in the U.S.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin
Polls == who gives a shit? (Score:2)
Actually that's my problem with all of the posts of this genre: where's the substance at? "People might do this!" "People say they would be willing to do this!"
How about some "Government/Corporations doing this." topics. And not only that, but how about some constructive solutions to what can be done instead of sitting around beating off.
Things like the DMCA I can understand: that is law. It exists. It matters. But all this hypothetical FUD and backlash is so fucking Junior High. The same damn quotes from Ben Franklin. The same damn stuff about capitalism or the evils of the Bush Empire. Hell, why not throw in some Microsoft trolling while your at it?
Man, I wish for more people like Bruce Perens. At least he actively tried... something that the other 99.9% of
devil's advocate (Score:2)
Even the difference between protected free speech and outright threats / persuasion to violence can be a blurry one. Should antiabortion groups feel free to publish websites with the names, addresses, family makeup, typical commuting hours, and bullet resistant building materials usage of abortion doctors and people who've received abortions? With a note saying "jeez, wouldn't it be *awful* if something happened to these folks?"
Frankly, I'm glad that cryptography for non-sales-transaction communication isn't ubiquitous. (In the ways in which I'm a scofflaw, I take a calculated risk, and kind of assume safety in numbers, sort of like speeding.) If PGP emails with bomb planting plans aren't lost in a sea of PGP emails of people just saying Hi, I wonder if we aren't better off.
The Constitution doesn't need amending (Score:5, Interesting)
From the above, it has been inferred that any kind of prayer in public schools is unconstitutional, that putting the 10 Commandments on public property is unconstitutional, that pr0n is legal, that a woman has the right to privacy and, consequently, the right to terminate pregnancy, that public libraries may not filter web sites, and so on and so forth.
The point I'm making is that we have become accustomed to reading an awful lot into that one small amendment. As a student of political science, however, I find it both amusing and disturbing that the first five words of the amendment are the ones most frequently ignored: "Congress shall pass no law..."
Taken literally (and as the Founding Fathers intended!) this means that most of these freedoms we take for granted were never intended to be freedoms at the level they are, but rather issues left to the individual states!
I don't know exactly what that means for us today, but it is food for thought.
Re:The Constitution doesn't need amending (Score:3, Insightful)
Has anyone noticed... (Score:5, Insightful)
That on average, citizens of countries with more freedom tend to be much safer than citizens of countries with less?
Think of the world's non-democratic countries, like Iraq, or Argentina under the fascists. Are the people there safe? NO! People are taken from their homes in the middle of the night, imprisoned, tortured, and killed. Why? Because people arent' free to question and criticise the government. Because people either believe that their government cannot be opposed, or that opposing it would weaken their country.
Your freedom doesn't harm your safety. It guarantees it. Freedom exists to protect the individual's right to life, liberty, and security of person.
And as soon as you try to trade your freedom for safety, you will find that you've lost them both.
Appropriate response (Score:4, Insightful)
"Shut up."
people, we is not wrapped tight (Score:3, Interesting)
The sad truth is that the average person is dumb, and half the population is even dumber than that.
Thus, it doesn't surprise me when 4 out of 10 people say that they don't think the press and the academic community should be allowed to criticize government plans -- they're the 4 who are dumber than average.
Looking closely... (Score:4, Interesting)
The question the article makes a lot of noise over (question 2.) Question 2 is basically a recitation of the text of the first amendment, followed by the text:
"Based on your own feelings about the First Amendment, please tell me whether you agree or disagree with the following statement: The First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees.'
In this context, more people agreed than disagreed (by 2 points) that the First Amendment goes to far.
Now, if you look at questions 3-9, each of which ask the interviewee to rate the importance of each freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment individually, there's a solid and vociferous defense for the freedoms guaranteed (on average, between 65% and 80% of people feel that any given freedom is 'essential'.)
What does this tell us? It tells me that there is an effective lobby against "The First Amendment", and that, when the freedoms are disassociated from "The First Amendment", Americans are rabidly supportive of their First Amendment rights. This leads me to hope that, while First Amendment attacks are en vogue in a number of circles today, that the people will lash back should the Frist Amendment face too concerted of an attack.
If we want to draw attention to the erosion of First Amendment rights, we need to step away from the "XXXXX is taking away our First Amendment rights" argument and approach the problem from an "XXXXX is taking away your (right to assemble/right to practice religion/right to privacy/right to speak your mind)."
Sadly, it seems that people cherish the First Amendment considerably less than they cherish the rights that amendment provides.
(My views are my own. They do not reflect those of my employer. I am not a real political analyst, I just work with them.)
Your rights won't be taken away (Score:5, Insightful)
The state can't give you free speech, and the state can't take it away. You're born with it, like your eyes, like your ears. Like old Campbell said, 'Freedom is something you assume. Then you wait for someone to try to take it away from you. The degree to which you resist is the degree to which you are free.' - Utah Phillips
How would the world react. . . (Score:3, Interesting)
If the US government was openly and violently suppressing the American people, what do you think the rest of the world would do? Would the Europeans come to our aide? Would the Africans laugh at our disgrace? Would China just go on with its business of becoming the next super-power?
Would the French help an American resistance movement? Would the British sell the people arms? Or would there be endless talk and admonitions of human rights violations? I really can't imagine that anyone would help us.
I really do believe that the greatest threat to American citizens is not terrorism, but our own government. That might be paranoid, but it's how I feel about it. And everyday I become more and more concerned. And then I wonder, who would help us? What would the world do?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:How would the world react. . . (Score:4, Funny)
Congratulations! You're on our new list!
Love,
The FBI
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"One issue" GWB voters are the reason. (Score:3, Interesting)
While I have nothing against the bible or people reading it, living it or whatever. I DO NOT want people telling me what I can, or can't do based on their 'bible beliefs'. The regression of free speech is a sad tale of repressed morality, and low IQ. When I hear that a book/movie/music is banned, people are being put on 'probably going to be a crimminal' lists and held for no legal reason, and when GWB decides to go to war all by himself, I ask, "Where are the dissenting voices?"
The DMCA, U.S Patent Office, the Patriot act, Carnivore, Echelon, M$ allowed monopoly, the lack of worker rights in the workplace, **AAs, DRM, SSCCA, the isolationism of the USA and our resulting lack of support for the Kyoto treaty, the lack of difference between political parties, Senator Disney and his Club, Campaign Reform (not), CAFE standards, war oil oil war, Alaskan Reserve, Enron, Halburton, Worldcom, The Office of Homeland Security.
Are these things NOT fucked up? Am I missing something?
I don't fear the terrorists. I fear my own well meaning, scared, righteous, incompetent citizens will continue to support a Government that is plainly out of control.
I'm now in the list.
well you know (Score:3, Funny)
Well you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know you can count me out
Don't you know it's gonna be alright
Alright Alright
You say you got a real solution
Well you know
We'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well you know
We're doing what we can
But when you want money for people with minds that hate
All I can tell you is brother you have to wait
Don't you know it's gonna be alright
Alright Alright
You say you'll change the constitution
Well you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well you know
You better free your mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow
Don't you know know it's gonna be alright
Alright Alright
we got what we asked for (Score:3)
I remember when the presidential election was under way, there was a parody site about Bush. And he hated being made fun of, and tried to shut it down (with lawyers? does anyone remember?). When the press asked about it, he said, "there ought to be limits to free speech."
Well, we elected him, and now a good number of people in this country are starting to think there ought to be limits to free speech. Gee. How could that happen? And sarcasm aside, how could we, the people, elect someone who is openly hostile to the Constitutional principles the country was founded upon? What were we thinking?
in that case... (Score:3, Insightful)
And how many throw away their Second... (Score:3, Insightful)
Free Speech is just as dangerous as a gun - anybody who has seen a riot (or a lynch mob) being incited will attest to that.
The Founding Fathers held the right to free expression and the right to self defense as inalienable rights (as in, you cannot be forced to surrender those rights under any circumstances). This was because they knew that without the ability to defend them, by force if necessary, we would lose them.
And look at what is happening. Little by little we are deprived of our freedom of expression, and denied any peaceful means to oppose this.
I don't want to see violence be the only alternative. I don't want to see violence be used. But if we lose the option, and then we lose all other alternatives....
From the article: (Score:3, Funny)
What exactly are we supposed to do to dispose of old flags then? Dump them in the trash?
Morons.
Very scary. (Score:5, Insightful)
It is very scary to me that even more people in this survey think that government criticism should be prohibited.
It also sickens me that there are plenty of people who think that the government should be able to spy on religious practices. People think that their religion will be safe because they aren't muslim. They think: "Only muslims are terrorists, after all."
I have news for these ignorant people. Every major religion has terrorist groups associated with it. This includes ultra-right-wing psuedo-christian groups who think it is okay blow up abortion clinics. This includes the IRA. This even includes some fringe Jewish groups who plan mosque bombings.
The government WILL eventually use groups like these as an excuse to spy on everybody's church if given the opportunity.
You have to stand up for our rights, period. When the government starts raiding mosques routinely, don't just think "Oh, they're just going after the muslims. Everyone knows that only muslims are terrorists, so won't affect me." It will.
It would also help to get your ass up on election day and go vote.
In An Unrelated Story... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Why just the Bill of Rights? (Score:2)
Chilling Effect, anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)
copyright and IP are not constitutional. (Score:2)
Because patents and copyright restrict speech.
Post the source code to DCSS? Go to jail.
Transmit a file to a user on P2P? Go to jail.
Freedom of speech is being removed by Capitalism, Greed is destroying the constitution. If you want to claim the USA is all about freedom, and hype the USA up to China and Communist countries, saying USA is the greatest country in the world.
On paper USA is the greatest country in the world, however we dont even follow our own rules! Constitution says freedom of speech rules above capitalism, so why are we allowing capitalism to remove universal rights?
If you are going to have freedom of speech there are no special case senarios, this means no source code can be copyrighted, and everything on the net we should have the right to share and copy freely.
Saying we cant share this, we cant copy that, we cant use certain source code, and we cant even mention how the code works in public, theres no free speech left on the net. I fear there wont be any off the net either after everything is patented.
Re:duh (Score:3, Funny)
Buying a gun, getting the floorplans to the building, etc would be enoughto lock you up under consipirsy charges. Mearly saying you'd like to isn't enough.
Hey, perhaps losing the 1st Am. isn't so bad if we get to throw Ann Coulter in jail [thismodernworld.com]!
P.S.: This is a joke. It's not worth it, not even for such a noble cause.
Re:Its a rollercoaster. (Score:2)
Everytime a study is made saying something slightly bad is NOT a time to freak out and get out your tinfoil hats.
It's too bad the parent was modded as flamebait -- I think it's pretty close to on target (well, except for the flame at the bottom..ok, maybe it deserved to be flamebait). I don't think this study is showing a change in trend on what we think of the First Amendment -- I think it's showing the backlash of our fears. Questions can be phrased such that you'll agree with them, even if at the core you don't.
Take, for example, this statement:
With a poll error of +/- 3% this statement basically reflects our fear of radical Muslim attacks. [note, I understand calling them Muslim is a hypocrisy to the Muslim faith, it's just how they've been labeled in the media] Newsflash: no kidding. We know this already. Had the question been phrased "Do you believe YOUR religious activities should be monitored by the government", and specified just how it would be done, I wonder if the answer would be different.Far more interesting will be to look 20 years down the road and see how the opinions shift. As far as I'm concerned, this is only a blip on the radar -- it may be something, but it's not worth sending out the armed forces yet.
Re:Its a rollercoaster. (Score:2)
Re:Who's right is it anyway? (Score:2)
I didn't read the whole Patriot Act, and it's mostyle faded from memory, but I don't remember seeing "Muslims" spelled out anywhere in there, and if it's not, that means it applies to EVERYBODY for now, until they review it in however many years they decided on. Would you like to spend X years in prison until somebody actually listens to you?
Re:give away my rights? (Score:4, Interesting)
Me: Should the government be allowed to read suspicous people's email without a warrent?
Her: Yes.
Me: Should the government be allowed to stop media that they view as a threat?
Her: Yes.
Me: Should the government be allowed to hold suspected terrorists without trial?
Her: Yes.
Me: Should the government be allowed to censor the internet?
Her: Yes.
Me: Should the government be allowed to put cameras looking into suspected terrorists houses?
Her: Yes.
Me: Should people give up any liberties to make our country safer?
Her: NO!!!!
exactly.