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


Forgot your password?
Privacy Technology Your Rights Online

Airships to Patrol Venezuela's Skies 451

bprime writes "The BBC reports that officials in the Venezuelan capital, Caracas, have bought three airship UAVs to keep tabs on the local populace. From the article: 'The 15 metre (49 foot) long air ships are emblazoned with government slogans. Written in bright red are the words, We watch over you for your security.' They're not exactly black helicopters, but how long do you think until we see similar measures in high-crime American cities?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Airships to Patrol Venezuela's Skies

Comments Filter:
  • Damn! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Romancer ( 19668 ) <romancer@deathsdoo[ ]om ['r.c' in gap]> on Friday April 20, 2007 @03:23PM (#18815503) Journal
    And I thought that I was in a rational century without totalitarian governments that have the capabilities to do things like this.

    Isn't this out of some SCI-Fi movie?
  • by Organic Brain Damage ( 863655 ) on Friday April 20, 2007 @03:24PM (#18815517)
    ...and it'll be accurate.

    At leat the blimps won't make as much noise as the police helicopters over much of LA in the night.
  • by netbuzz ( 955038 ) on Friday April 20, 2007 @03:25PM (#18815533) Homepage
    Here's my guess: Better not be until after the repeal of the Second Amendment.
  • Hmmm, (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jimbobborg ( 128330 ) on Friday April 20, 2007 @03:25PM (#18815537)
    New Socialist government, airships with slogans. The Venezuelans wanted this guy in power, so they got what they wanted.
  • Re:Damn! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Attila Dimedici ( 1036002 ) on Friday April 20, 2007 @03:28PM (#18815581)
    You obviously have been living under a rock for your whole life. Haven't you heard of Hugo Chavez's (President for life of Venezuela) hero, Fidel Castro. Fidel has been running a totalitarian government in Cuba for over 40 years now. And of course there is always China. If I spent a little more time I could probably come up with a few more obvious totalitarian governments.
  • lol (Score:2, Insightful)

    by KalaNag ( 871736 ) on Friday April 20, 2007 @03:29PM (#18815595)
    I'm Venezuelan, and didn't know anything until I read it here... Anyway, like almost everything that this government does, it's pretty sure that this will be used more for political/social control than crime prevention. And I can see the "control room" dismantled in a few months, all of the equipment broken/stolen and the ships rusting...
  • by ArcherB ( 796902 ) * on Friday April 20, 2007 @03:29PM (#18815601) Journal
    They're not exactly black helicopters, but how long do you think until we see similar measures in high-crime American cities?"

    First of all, why try to make this into some kind of "America bad" diatribe? Does everything have to end up connecting with the supposed lost liberties in America? This has nothing to with the US.

    Next, it already has happened in America at least once that I'm aware of. There was a Fuji blimp in the air 24/7 over NY during the Republican National Convention in 2004. Rumor had it that it was there for security, both against terrorism and all the protesters that were trying to "brownshirt" the convention.

    Finally, how is this any different than all the cameras on every street corner in cities like London?

  • Re:Damn! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Romancer ( 19668 ) <romancer@deathsdoo[ ]om ['r.c' in gap]> on Friday April 20, 2007 @03:30PM (#18815631) Journal
    And how does this stop any of the crime that happens under a roof or overhang. Do these people think that the criminals will just hang around while the things take pictures of them? Isn't most crime committed in a place where the criminal has some sort of cover/disguise/privacy from view?

    I know that I haven't seen mention of that many crimes where the person didn't avoid some obvious camera or wittiness.
    Unless the criminals are really really dumb, this thing is just another officer with a camera patrolling along and I think the exact same reaction will take place as does now when a highway patrol vehicle is seen by the drivers on the road.

    They'll act good until it passes.
  • Re:Damn! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 20, 2007 @03:32PM (#18815643)
    Democratically elected Hugo Chavez? Or does democracy only count when you like the guy who won?
  • Yeah but (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jhines ( 82154 ) <> on Friday April 20, 2007 @03:35PM (#18815685) Homepage
    In the US of A, advertising slogans would be far more likely.
  • typo (Score:4, Insightful)

    by fyoder ( 857358 ) on Friday April 20, 2007 @03:38PM (#18815731) Homepage Journal

    We watch over you for your security

    There's a misplaced 'y' at the beginning of the 2nd last word, but we shouldn't come down too hard on them for it. It's something a spell checker wouldn't catch.

  • by 0rbit4l ( 669001 ) on Friday April 20, 2007 @03:39PM (#18815749)
    Wait, the British Broadcasting Company is reporting about some other country's recent foray into domestic surveillance, even invoking "Big Brother"? Isn't this quite an extreme example of the pot calling the kettle black? I mean, I'm glad that they're reporting about it, but where was the critical reporting about the national rollout of CCTV in their own home country?! Instead, we heard no end of "balanced" reports offering apologist explanations regarding the countering of thug violence, terrorism, and antisocial behavior.

    Britain in particular hasn't a leg to stand on when it comes to offering a critical view of others' domestic surveillance.

  • by Ungrounded Lightning ( 62228 ) on Friday April 20, 2007 @03:44PM (#18815829) Journal
    ... how long do you think until we see similar measures in high-crime American cities?

    Never. ... Because ours actually ARE black helicopters.

    Naw. As soon as a major city has a big enough RICO siezure to buy 'em.

    Helicopters cost a LOT to operate. They spend over an hour in the shop for every hour in the air. They MUST be maintained because there are a LOT of moving parts that are single points of failure - most involving a crash if they fail.

    Airships can be very redundant and even if they crash they tend to do so gently (unless you paint them with thermite and fill them with hydrogen).

    It's easy for police departments to buy big ticket items with RICO money. But their ongoing upkeep has to keep paying off, so it helps to keep that low.

    Helicopters are good for point work - like assisting chases or patrolling highways during rush hour. But for ongoing surveillance they're expensive. And noisy, which tends to heisenberg ongoing crime out of their view.
  • Ah, but this time it's done by teh t0talitar14n g0vernm3nt of commun1st ch4vezz!!one!!!! See?? there's no privacy in venezuela!!!

    I still think this sucks, but I'm getting tired of this kind of "we're the civilized world, the light, people that have different socioeconomic/politic views than us are obviously wrong, so they must have come to power by force, they're terrorists/dictators/communists/liberals (which are of course all the same), and therefore inherently evil" bullshit.

    (sorry, I'm having a bad day)
  • Re:Damn! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mr. Underbridge ( 666784 ) on Friday April 20, 2007 @03:48PM (#18815895)

    And I thought that I was in a rational century without totalitarian governments that have the capabilities to do things like this.

    That was naive. I'll assume you don't mean 2000-2007, as that's not much of a century. I'll also assume you're restricting yourself to the last 50 years, getting around Hitler. Of course then you still have Stalin, so that pushes you into the 60s. Then you get Pol Pot. Idi Amin. The ayatollah. Sadaam. Milosevic. Etc.

    Even now, you've got Mugabe, Qadaffi, Chavez, Castro, Putin (that's no democracy, friends), Kim Jong Il, etc.

    It's not necessarily irrational to want to be a tyrant. Possibly psychotic, but not irrational. The only question is whether you can pull it off.

  • Re:Damn! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by arivanov ( 12034 ) on Friday April 20, 2007 @03:51PM (#18815959) Homepage
    With all due respect, Mr Chavez is a copycat.

    El presidente Antonio Bliar's big brother government bought Predator UAV for police use in the Tyneside area 2 years before Mr Chavez 144.stm [].

    LA Police deployed them 1 year before him: stm [].

    And overall we are much closer to the stage of "Blue thunder, do you copy..." than Mr Chavez. You are giving him too much credit.
  • by vivaoporto ( 1064484 ) on Friday April 20, 2007 @03:53PM (#18815969)
    How long until you see similar measures? You already have it, don't be hypocritical.

    'Eyes in the sky' for homeland security []. (Date: Aug. 27, 2005) From blimps to do-it-yourself unmanned vehicles, a trend takes flight.

    (...)That's okay, a lot of people do, says George Spyrou, president of Airship Management Services, whose blimps are leased to the likes of Fuji Film and have been used as air surveillance and security platforms by the New York Police Department, the U.S. Secret Service and the Athens police during last year's summer Olympic Games.

    But there is more:

    Fuji Blimp Helps With Convention Security [] (Date: Aug. 30, 2004), on CNN [] also.

    (...)At the closely guarded Republican National Convention, even the Fujifilm Blimp has a role in security. Fuji Photo Film USA Inc., the Valhalla, N.Y.-based U.S. arm of the Japanese film maker, is allowing the New York Police Department use of the blimp to bolster aerial patrols above Madison Square Garden.

    Caracas is no HappyLand. It has a high crime rate, just like Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (that by the way has its own surveillance blimp too). Surveillance is necessary, no, condition sine qua non to allow common people to live their lives without fear to be shot by a pair of Nike shoes (happens a lot in some Brazilian cities, just so you know). That's the situation is most Latin America.

    Now, is not it hypocritical that 1) this is BBC reporting, coming straight from the country with the most ubiquitous surveillance system in the world 2) people are so desperate to find something to nail Hugo Chavez for that they need to resort to such FUD because they got nothing else. This is a move by the City of Caracas, not the country of Venezuela, just like the blimps on U.S. are a move from the NYPD, not the Federal Government.

    Now stop talking about things you guys don't know about, and quit spreading fud. Come on, "keeping tab on the population".
  • Re:Damn! (Score:0, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 20, 2007 @04:06PM (#18816191)
    No, it only counts when it's real democracy and not a dog and pony show.
  • Re:Damn! (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Attila Dimedici ( 1036002 ) on Friday April 20, 2007 @04:09PM (#18816247)
    I don't know how you would know if it it was "Ok with the people". The current government of Venezuela is a dictatorship. Not a "dictatorship" like in the US where President Bush will surrender power in just under 2 years, but a real, true to the meaning of the word Dictatorship, where Hugo Chavez has twice (maybe three times) changed the constitution to allow him to continue serving. I believe that the last change means he will serve the rest of his life or until he chooses to retire(although maybe that change has only been proposed, not actually implemented yet).
  • by Nicolas MONNET ( 4727 ) <nicoaltiva AT gmail DOT com> on Friday April 20, 2007 @04:27PM (#18816523) Journal
    Just a little fact check considering all the bullshit I see .

    Noam Chomsky made a very interesting point,as he usually does: public trust in governments, as measured through opinion polls, is going down worldwide, and particularly accross america.

    Guess where it's currently the highest? That's right, Venezuela.

    CNN and other corporate US medias -- including Associated Press! -- call Chavez a dictator. It's the word they use in headline, litterally, no exageration on my part. That's hilariously, if not completely revolting, libellous. Chavez was democratically elected and re-elected, his numbers going UP from one election to the next. They've been validated by international organisations, including Pdt. Carter's organisation. Compare this Florida '00 for good measure.

  • Re:Hmmm, (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rei ( 128717 ) on Friday April 20, 2007 @04:27PM (#18816527) Homepage
    he keeps cheating in elections

    Elections audited by Centre for Electoral Consultation and Promotion of the Inter-American Institute on Human Rights and certified by the Carter Center, a Dutch parliamentary delegation, and the Organization of American States. And he pulled this off with his opponents running almost all of the country's media and the US funding the opposition.

    You can fairly say a lot of critical things about Chavez and how he's running the country, but that he doesn't have major support from a majority of the country isn't one of them. That's one thing about democracy; it doesn't always swing in the way that the pushers of it want to, and when it doesn't, either your democratic prinicples or your willingness to accept leaders that oppose you has to give.
  • Re:Damn! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Rei ( 128717 ) on Friday April 20, 2007 @04:38PM (#18816727) Homepage
    His crackdown had them in cages for public display. His crackdown saw what was pretty much the obliteration of the organization that had been running amock for a decade. It was harsh, it was brutal, and it was effective.

    As I mentioned, it's easy to throw stones when you're not living in the thick of it. The more I hear about what her life was like, growing up, the more I can understand how a normally liberal-minded person could support harsh tactics in an "end justifies the means" situation. The "end" was, from her perspective, such a big improvement that the "means" seemed to be trivial violations by comparison.

    Picture an America which was attacked on 9/11 (but not again), and a government that responded with the Patriot Act and spying, both at home and abroad. Seems like a huge overreaction to many here, myself definitely included.

    Now picture an America which was attacked on 9/11, and every day again, over and over, all over the country, by shadowy groups both here and abroad. An America in which you had lost friends and family members to terrorism, in which entire towns near you had been all but wiped out, and you knew yours could be next. Would a Patriot Act and spying seem like such a huge overreaction? I'd think they'd seem an underreaction. I'm not normally the biggest fan of the military, but if that was our reality, I'd want martial law, too. Civil liberties are no use to you when you're dead.
  • Re:Damn! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by IgnoramusMaximus ( 692000 ) on Friday April 20, 2007 @04:45PM (#18816863)

    I've lived in Venezuela. The shenanigans of our politicians have nothing on Venezuelan politicians. Hugo Chavez was behind two failed coups against then president Perez back in 1992. I doubt if he's above keeping power any way he can.

    Which of course the opposition repayed in full by having their own attempted coup staged.

    Sure, Venezuela's "democracy" is a sham. So is USA's, Canada's, France's, UK's etc. It is just a matter of how bold and unapologetic the participants of the sham are. Our Western equivalents simply conduct their crookery with much fancier PR.

  • by Infonaut ( 96956 ) <> on Friday April 20, 2007 @04:48PM (#18816915) Homepage Journal

    So she believed that the ends justified the means.

    In the US, the government has tremendous power, so it is a smart idea to keep tabs on it to make sure it doesn't grab more than it already has. But when you live in an environment where criminals and terrorists run the show, your most obvious threat isn't the government. It's the people who are stealing, killing, and terrorizing.

    Fujimori obviously isn't going to go down in history as a promoter of the rule of law. But paradoxically he seems to have paved the way for the rule of law by wiping out the Sendaro Luminoso.

  • Re:Damn! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ncc74656 ( 45571 ) * <> on Friday April 20, 2007 @05:13PM (#18817319) Homepage Journal

    Oh, that's right... it's better to have half a million people in Washington DC with no voting representation in our federal government.

    There's a process [] they could follow if they cared enough to do things the right way. That they don't says much about them, none of it good...and to think they accuse their opponents of "shredding the Constitution!" Pot, meet kettle.

  • Re:Damn! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Martin Blank ( 154261 ) on Friday April 20, 2007 @05:16PM (#18817363) Homepage Journal
    I'm happy to give them a voting representative in Congress if and when the area that they are in is declared a state, or when the Constitution is changed to provide that DC gets voting representation. The Constitution does not provide for DC to get a representative in the House or any Senators, and until changed it should not.

    I'd be happier making DC a no-residence zone, though it's too late for that, considering the number of people who live there.
  • Re:Damn! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rbanffy ( 584143 ) on Friday April 20, 2007 @05:26PM (#18817513) Homepage Journal
    Many dictators start by being elected.

    They then proceed to castrate all balances and increase their own power by playing the system and other elected officials so that laws perpetuate the new status quo.

    This more or less describes present day Venezuela.
  • Re:Damn! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by fredrated ( 639554 ) on Friday April 20, 2007 @05:27PM (#18817531) Journal
    How do I get to be an arbiter of what is a dog and pony show and what isn't, like you?
  • by c6gunner ( 950153 ) on Friday April 20, 2007 @05:35PM (#18817633)
    As far as I'm aware, most of the "video cameras placed in urban areas" are privately owned and in no way linked to the government. And the "automated telecom snooping" is used only for calls to or from other countries, right?

    I just find it interesting that people are so eager to blow out of proportion any surveillance program in a free, progressive nation like the US, while downplaying much worse measures in Venezuela - a country which shows every sign of descending into a Cuba-like dictatorship. Ofcourse, this is, ironically enough, probably a product of the advanced nature of US surveillance. When people aren't able to clearly see the governments attempts to control and observe them, they retreat into their own little fantasy world of conspiracy theories and black helicopters. It's quite possible that if the US were more public about it's programs, it would actually receive less criticism.

    And yes, the most interesting thing for me too was the combination of surveillance and crude propaganda. Definitely reminiscent of "1984".
  • by KlomDark ( 6370 ) on Friday April 20, 2007 @05:41PM (#18817693) Homepage Journal
    We fight them there or we fight them here?

    While it makes for a nice soundbite, it's a complete delusion.

    So going over there and fucking with them somehow stops them from coming over here? Are you serious? On the flip side, you're saying if we totally leave them alone, they'll just come over here for the hell of it? Oh yes, the tired old line "they hate our freedoms", right? They are still human, basic human nature is "Don't fuck with me, I won't fuck with you." So I don't buy your argument.

    What's to stop them from sneaking over here while we're fighting over there? Not much. How many people come through the Mexican border every day? Think the boogeyman terrorists can't make it through there too? Oh, wait, we're fighting them 'over there', so we're all safe here.

    Terrorism knows no boundaries, yet we need to fight them over 'there'? I thought it didn't know any boundaries.

    We fight them there? What, all disgruntled religious freaks have suddenly moved to Iraq? Well hell, that's nice and overly simplistic. Is the set of 'terrorists' fully encapsulated by 'Iraq'? No? Hmmmm... So not all terrorists are Iraqi? So are all terrorists Arabic? No? Hmmmm.... So all Terrorists are Muslim? No? Hmmm... So all terrorists are human and live on Earth? Yes?

    Oh shit! They're here!! They're everywhere? Shit shit shit! Let's run in circles and panic! Agggghhhh! The boogeyman is gonna get me. HolyFuckingShit!

    Was that guy in at Virgina Tech an Iraqi? Arabic? Muslim? Human? Well then why didn't our fighting 'over there', stop him from killing 32 people 'over here'? Oh, that's right, you are talking out of your ass, blindly parroting bullshit feel-good nonsense you heard on TV, again, aren't you?

    It gives me a migraine headache, thinking down to your level. (In the words of the great prophet, Dave Mustaine)
  • by zogger ( 617870 ) on Friday April 20, 2007 @06:22PM (#18818165) Homepage Journal
    ...allegedly, has the top two political parties conspire to not only not include any other candidates on the forum for the so called national and official presidential debate, but actually threatens them with arrest if they have tickets and try to just sit in the audience-I'd call that a dog and pony show. And when the controlled lapdog press goes along with it, another part of the show. When two cooperating parties basically hijack the government and just divide the spoils, and it is clear both of these parties have full compliments of crooks, thieves, liars, bribe takers and assorted scum, yet nothing substantial happens overall, that's a dog and pony show. When both parties are run by globalist millionaires at the top, even to the point of running so called "opposition" candidates from the same billionaire boys club fraternity secret society, that's a joke, a dog and pony show. Candidates who are so far removed from the productive middle class electorate, so much so that they don't even know what a loaf of bread or a gallon of milk really costs-that's a dog and pony show political system, a farce. When elected leaders come from hereditary political dynasties-basically an elite aristocracy- including the ex head of the "secret police", that's a sham, a dog and pony show. When you have overwhelming smoking gun evidence that the "electronic" elections have been hacked and compromised, that quite possibly whomever is in office shouldn't be there, yet nothing happens, and no one gets into any trouble over it-it goes beyond a dog and pony show and starts to look like any other banana republic dictatorship, just with two "wings" instead of one to give the illusion of "free and honest elections". When you have an overwhelmingly large violent "incident", that pushes forth a radical anti freedom agenda, and there is enough credible evidence with literally dozens of quite peculiar characteristics that don't jibe in any manner whatsoever with the "official story of what happened", and there are no actual honest and open investigations, instead they push forth an obvious whitewash/coverup/ignore the evidence that doesn't fit commission-you have to ask yourself, when can a violent coup be called a coup?

    The US has been in a slow and steady gradual takeover by shadowy elements very powerful inside and outside of government, ever since an actual brave and thoughtful president-Ike- thought it necessary to warn the people during his retirement speech that it could and would happen if we weren't careful. Later on, the folks he was warning about managed to get rid of one elected person who was getting wise to them and was seeking to limit their power. Then they eliminated his brother, who looked likely to carry the torch on for his fallen sibling-yet nothing has happened about it. It's gotten worse since then, until now, we have only the faintest mirage of real freedom as it was originally designed to be, and that mirage is fading fast, with various "patriotic enabling acts" and "signing statements" that clearly show that only one agenda will go forward and the people and their wishes be damned, with big wars completely based on proven lies, wars which still will not end even when the lies are finally admitted to, and nothing happens to the proven liars.

    Calling it a "dog and pony show" is being excessively *polite* and minimalistic near as I can see.
  • by Aliks ( 530618 ) on Friday April 20, 2007 @06:28PM (#18818223)
    The article actually says that the airships are to crack down on crime.

    The Slashdot summary talks about keeping tabs on local populace.

    The Slashdot comments talk about Chevez and Bush politics.

    It seems like everyone has their preconceived views on Venezuela and puts their own spin on the story. Is Slashdot so set in its thinking?

    3 airships is hardly likely to change the social fabric of Caracas. Most police forces have helicopters to chase criminals and I would think the UK has many more than 3 available, without anyone talking about overtones of surveillance society.

    C'mon lets see moderators pick out the interesting comments about this story, not the precanned predecided views on Venezuela.
  • Re:Damn! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by vandan ( 151516 ) on Friday April 20, 2007 @07:47PM (#18819051) Homepage
    Chavez's victory in each election he's one has been quite clear cut, especially when compared to Emperor Dubya's so-called 'victories'. If you want to criticize sham elections, try looking closer to home.
  • Re:Damn! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by IgnoramusMaximus ( 692000 ) on Friday April 20, 2007 @10:04PM (#18820099)

    What you lack for this are two things. First, an educated and well informed populace. Second, a populace that desires to educate and inform itself.

    This is of course one of the pillars supporting my argument. To add further to this, even with an educated and informed populace no one can speak of a "real" democracy when the voter turnout is routinely around 20-30% or some such.

  • Re:Damn! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by IgnoramusMaximus ( 692000 ) on Friday April 20, 2007 @10:36PM (#18820365)

    That's a very pessimistic view.

    I believe this to be a realistic view. Sugercoating the truth is usually not very helpful in the long term.

    I tend to see things, at least here in the US, with a little more hope. Of course, I'm a glass is half-full kind of guy. I just think there is a serious difference in the degree and not just the finesse of the politicians.

    Of course there are a lot of other differences, I simply mentioned one of the major ones for brevity.

    I cannot however understand how can you see the "glass" being half full in the US when you are faced with a rendition of "democracy" where the choices are permanently limited to pro-elite party A vs pro-elite party B. In order for any politician in the US to become "mainstream" i.e. to receive a blessing from the true rulers of your country: the upper crusts of your society, the moneymen who control all the finances of the electoral process and who also own the so-called "mainstream" media not to mention who also rule the mutual-admiration clubs which each of the party memebers must become a member of to become "viable".

    You are reduced to a pathetic excercise of choosing between your rulers' representatives whose range of political views is so narrow that even the idea of universal healthcare, which all the other OECD countries have implemented out fear of the peons revolting, represents "extreme looney left".

    Its the slaves voting on the color of their masters' whips.

  • Re:Damn! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ccmay ( 116316 ) on Saturday April 21, 2007 @01:36AM (#18821421)
    no one can speak of a "real" democracy when the voter turnout is routinely around 20-30% or some such.

    This is a feature, not a bug. I don't want to be ruled by people for whom Jerry Springer Show reruns are more important than getting off their fat asses to vote.


  • Re:Damn! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TheLink ( 130905 ) on Saturday April 21, 2007 @02:17AM (#18821655) Journal
    Well, given the US voting system only supports "voting for X", it could mean that those people staying away are just voting "none of the above".

    I propose you just do a simple change where people can choose to "vote against" instead of "vote for" - and it counts as a negative vote.

    Then may the candidate with the least negative score win.

    That'll be worth getting off your butt wouldn't it? Imagine the interview questions - so what do you think of your win with a score of -14423? It's better than the other candidate's -33456 but what sort of "mandate" is that?

    Even if it's still the same old bunch leading, at least it'll be more entertaining.
  • how "rights" work (Score:3, Insightful)

    by zogger ( 617870 ) on Saturday April 21, 2007 @10:51AM (#18823717) Homepage Journal
    OK, this is the theory, it is different from today's practice (unfortunately, IMO), but I will attempt to correct a misconception about the US Constitution which is widespread and totally incorrect.

    Basic data point you REALLY need to grok. chew on this until you "get it". This is very important and something I notice almost all foreigners and very few people inside the US for that matter really understand, because the elites don't want them to understand it, so they go way out of their way to brainwash people against it starting the first week in school.

      The Constitution does NOT grant any individual rights to people, zero.

      We are BORN with them.

      If the constitution didn't exist, we would still have those rights (as do all peoples, but most places the government will not recognize that because it cuts into their controlling turf scene).

    The Bill of Rights-the first ten "amendments", are a very basic minimal and partial list that was written up PRECISELY to give some examples so that the original meaning could never be lost or altered. The Constitution is by and large a list of stuff the "government" is never supposed to infringe upon. By default, all rights reside with "we, the People", and we the people granted government certain limited functions and duties, WE granted THEM some "rights", which they are supposed to strictly adhere to.

    It's bass-ackwards now, "government" assumes they have all the rights, and sells or offers "permission" back to the people to do this or that.

    And that's what's wrong in a nutshell.

    The US is the only nation-to this day the ONLY nation- ever to adopt the concept of the sovereign individual, as opposed to some ruling class who are the sovereigns. It is that simple. I propose a return to that concept, and elimination of today's current political reality, which I have termed "Technofeudalism".

"This is lemma 1.1. We start a new chapter so the numbers all go back to one." -- Prof. Seager, C&O 351