Slashdot Mirror
Bill Could Restrict Freedom of the Press
WerewolfOfVulcan writes "The Washington Post is carrying an article about a disturbing Senate bill that could make it illegal to publicly disclose even the existence of US domestic spying programs (i.e. NSA wiretaps)." An aide to the bill's author assures us it's not aimed at reporters, but the language is ambiguous at best. From the article: "Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, said the measure is broader than any existing laws. She said, for example, the language does not specify that the information has to be harmful to national security or classified. 'The bill would make it a crime to tell the American people that the president is breaking the law, and the bill could make it a crime for the newspapers to publish that fact,' said Martin, a civil liberties advocate."
I hope you people are willing to exercise your 2nd amendment rights in order to protect the 1st. But for some reason, I doubt it.
So what is all this "Land of the free" I keep hearing about?
I for one am planning to write a letter of protest and sending it to every member of he Senate.
Like this comment? I accept Bitcoin! - 153sc8UUBXyp12ofQqfAWDmJrzyiKCYC1x
Welcome to the Soviet States of America! All your free speech are belong to us!
Your's kindly,
George W. Bush
While not perfect, the media is a crucial factor in the check and balances system. Once the media is supressed, branches of the government have free reign. -- Jim http://www.runfatboy.net/
An aide to the bill's author assures us it's not aimed at reporters
And the patriot act wasn't aimed at drug enforcement, but that certainly didn't stop it for being used for exactly that purpose.
Even if by some fluke it actually gets passed as a law, it would be shot down SO fast by the courts that it would make their heads spin. We're talking about a HUGE fight with the multi-billion dollar news industry behind it.
What gets me mad is that congress wastes their time and my money on this flag-waving "look-how-patriotic-I-am" bullshit that wouldn't have a chance in HELL of passing through the courts. Like the idiotic flag burning ban they were talking about some years ago...that went no where of course. They just want to stand up there and say "Look at me! I'm an American! Vote for me next time!".
Pathetic.
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
The big brother attitude by the US government is annoying. They want to have all the information that is out there. First it was google. I really feel that there are somethings on the internet that are supposed to be confidential.
...that makes it illegal to make bills like this illegal one because they are trying to legalize the concealment of illegal activities.
Orwell, eat your heart out!
Authority questions you. Return the favor.
Would people object if it was limited to leakers? If it excluded reporters, including blogger?
Only Women Bleed (Sex, Sharia remix)
Six or seven years ago, if I were able to read today's headlines, maybe I'd think that a Coup d'etat had occurred in the states.
you mixed up "bill" and then almost typed "frist" typing about it :)
"...except some are more equal than others." --George Orwell, Animal Farm
I suppose the next thing the will want to do is confescate all of our "controband" and "propganda".
If this is the future of America then I suggest a scishim and a sucession from the Imperial American Empire! Save the REAL United States of America from the New World Order.
The Rapture is NOT an exit strategy.
I will confess my initial reaction was pure shock and horror, however the worst case scenarios pictured in both the article and slashdotters' heads don't seem likely. It's a clear violation of the first amendment right to free speech to abridge political speech, and NO supreme court, conservative or liberal, would interpret otherwise. I will say, I'm shocked at how Republicans in Congress are pandering to this administration's bizarre and invasive agenda.
MacroHard - Boning you in a big way! (TM)
...think "Gates" when they read the title? :P
Anyone can "stand up for what they believe", but it takes a very brave individual to change what they believe. - Loundry
Talk about stupid. Hopefully the Supreme Court would see fit to nuke this bill from orbit (should the US suffer the misfortune of this insane bill not being stillborn).
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Even if Media is excluded from the language of the bill, it will still have negative consequences. Primarily, I wonder how it could not stiffle or discourage whistle blowing, if said whistleblower feared running afowl of this new law. Leaks are often bad, but they are often important---otherwise the public would have no knowledge of bad policy. I would doubt, with all the trouble the patriot act had passing, that this would pass as well. Unfortunately, though, the past 20 years we've relied more and more on the courts to protect our freedoms. I wish it didn't come to that, because sometimes they mess up too (imminent domain anyone?
Yea it seems everyday Microsft has filed for a patent and alot of Congressman and Senators in Washington Seattle are pushing for easier laws for computer and software makers.
Stephanie Sexton
.. you will have to address the president as 'Mullah Bush'.
This government is just as scary as those folkes they are trying to eliminate in the Middle East.
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
But anybody who tells them about the illegal spy program is going to end up in jail -- and the reporter will end up in jail on contempt of court charges for not ratting out his/her informant.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
And people wonder why I'm an expatriate. Is it still too late to buy an island and create your own nation?
1) the Supreme Court has been dodgy on both sides of the political spectrum for a long time.
2) It is easier to lobby congress not to pass the law now than it would be to overturn the law later. 1 oz. prevention - 1 lb. cure and all that.
...It is a threat to America!
In Soviet America, Domestic Spying Programs expose YOU!
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
Most of them voted to renew the Patriot Act, and for a minute there I thought there was hope they'd make a big enough stink to get a few Republicans to disobey their leaders.
If George wants this one, it'll pass too, probably with half of the Democrats voting for it.
Doesn't the last 5 years seem almost surreal? WTF happened to our country?
Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
That someone had the guts to propose it. It's not so much that the supreme court could shoot it down as unconstitutional (with a supreme court being lined up with "loyal" judges... but let's imagine for a moment that the system still works) that bothers me, it's that someone actually thinks this should be a law.
And the more of those censorship bills are proposed, the higher the chance that one of them will finally make it into law. It's simply a matter of statistics. Yes, 999 out of 1000 bills like this will be canceled as unconstitutional. It's the 1000th you have to worry about.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I knew Diana Ross was big, but I really didn't know she was that big. ;-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Supremes
"i.e." stands for "id est" and means "that is [to say]".
"e.g." stands for "exempli gratia" and means "for example".
The article summary should have used e.g. instead of i.e. I see this mistake all the time and it irritates me.
All the rest are cowering sycophants who place politics far, far ahead of principles. They may twist in the wind for all that I care, and for all that they care about their constituent's liberties.
Feingold, however, is the Eliot Spitzer of the halls of Congress. The guy should run for Emperor, errr Potentate, errr... what's Bush's title today?
Remember that what's inside of you doesn't matter because nobody can see it.
Hey, why not? The NSA domestic spying already violates the 4th Amendment. And the Republican Congress is willing to violate the spirit of the 9th, "no ex post facto laws", to change the law just to try to make Bush's crimes, breaking the FISA and Constutiotion, "go away".
--
make install -not war
Anyone familiar with the term should know what I'm talking about. I hereby propose we (the people) stop f'in around and propose a new amendment to the Constitution(tm) and: I. Criticism of the Government(R) is now a felony and will be tried as treason. II. Disagreement with the above statement shall be considered Terrorism(R). III. Disenting views shall be subject to provisions I. and II. above. IV. Buy more stuff. All in favor? I believe in one man, one vote. I'm the man, ergo I get the vote. All complaints subject to above four provisions
I'd rather have the press required to provide footnotes and references for their articles. IMHO, there's too much bullshit being made up by lazy reporters.
An aide to the bill's author assures us it's not aimed at reporters
And the Patriot Act is only used against terrorists.
First, this proposed law will get shot pretty much instantly by the courts should it pass the senate (which it wont). This proposed law pretty much pisses on the first amendment, something that should be clear to senate, and something that is certainly clear to the courts. I really am not the least bit worried.
That said, I think that this law inspires me to want a law of my own. Let's call my new law the "three strikes, now stop fucking with the constitution" law. Any congressman that votes for three laws that are later over turned on the grounds of it being unconstitutional should have their seat revoked for their absolute and utter incompetence in upholding the constitution of the United States.
These worthless fuckers have sworn an oath to the constitution, and it really fucking pisses me off when they promptly turn around and drop one of these shit for laws. Not only does it piss me off that they are so incompetent as to not see the clear violation of the constitution that they are proposing, but it also pisses me off that my tax money has to be pissed away overturning these steaming piles of shit.
Would a "three strikes, now STFU and stop messing with the constitution law" be great? Sure. It won't happen, so let's do the next best thing. STOP VOTING FOR THESE DUMB FUCKER. I am not sure who to be more pissed off at, the spineless incompetent politicians that seem to think that upholding the constitution is optional, or the worthless and lazy voters that blindly support their parties candidate and vote for these dumb fucker.
Bah. This crap will be shot down. Thankfully, the court system still mostly works and takes its responsibility to the constitution seriously. It still pisses me off though that it even needs to go that far.
Preferentially stifling debate is even worse than wholesale gag orders.
I may not agree with a word you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. Ring a bell? It bloody well should, unless you're a big fan of Franco, Mussolini, and Stalin.
If any of our countrymen's freedoms are being taken away, whether we agree or disagree with them and their views, we are all poorer and less free for it. Silencing dissent weakens the commonwealth by encouraging ignorance and mindless assent. It is time to take a stand, and not budge one micron until the traitors who propose this have been excised from the fabric of the legislature.
Remember that what's inside of you doesn't matter because nobody can see it.
The president shouldn't have anything to worry about if he's innocent, so there's no need for this law.
So either the "innocent people have nothing to fear" argument is flawed for the surveillance program, or the US president is far from innocent...
I thought the article was about some new DRM from Microsoft.
I mean, we could spend all year talking about what some theoretical bill "could" make illegal, if it only had a chance to pass Congress, the President and the Supremes.
Right, like the PATRIOT Act. I'm glad no one got all upset about that bill before it passed. Thank GOD, we have the PATRIOT Act to protect us from Terrorists <font size=-7>and other miscreants, or anyone else that the executive branch can find a justification for using it against them</font>
I am unamerican, and proud of it!
The reason why you let the citizens of a nation arm themselves isn't so that you can shoot politicians when they piss you off (no matter how appealing that might sound at times). The reason why you let citizens arm themselves is two fold.
First, bad guys will arm themselves like it not. Making arms illegal hampers their ability to arm, but they will always find their ways. Honest citizens who do not break the law on the other hand, and so when firearms are made illegal it leaves the criminals armed and the honest citizens unarmed. This is hardly an ideal state of affairs.
Second, allowing your citizenry to arm prevents the police from holding a monopoly on force. A citizen should not have to wait for the police to show up to save them if a criminal is breaking into their house or threatening to harm them. A citizen should have the means to defend themselves, and the truth is that a firearm is pretty much it when it comes to self defense. Only a gun is going to allow a 100 pound woman be able to fight off a 200 pound man. Certainly not all citizens will choose to arm themselves, and this is of course fine, but if someone feels that their life is in danger and they do not trust the police protect them, they should have the option of defending themselves. Banning firearms is in affect telling your citizens that they can not defend themselves against criminals in any other manner then waiting for the police to show up.
As far as revolution and the like, an armed citizenry is a populace that can inspire a little fear in politicians. In this day and age that means almost nothing because, as much as we like to bitch, our government is pretty evenhanded and fair. Most people have the things that they need to survive (and then some) and the thought of 'revolution' in the violent sense of the word is about as far from anyone's mind as you can imagine. We still have plenty of political options sitting around that we have yet to use to change things if we really want to. When the constitution was being framed this really was not true. The threat of an outside force conquering the country or even an internal force mucking things up was real. It certainly could be a real threat again in the not-so-foreseeable future.
I consider the need for revolution remote and really don't weight it much in the gun issue. The simple right to self defense is a far more important issue to me then the need for the tools of an unlikely revolution. But, as the grand parent poster pointed out in his own lovable red neck NRA fan way, it isn't a bad thing to keep a few guns around... just in case.
Are you sure? Just a minute, I gotta check this...
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
But then the question arise -- how can a reporter out this "detail" before the politicians writing the bill does?
If this is intentional to sneak in a mechanism to protect the government, it's really bad, but how bad is it if they'd be incompetent enough to unintentionally formulate a bill that had this major loophole that could be exploited in the future?
I can't find any respect for the US government for this regardless how I look at it.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Come to think of it, outsourcing a government to India is not such a bad idea.
Signature has left the building.
You see, not only is this the "land of the free", much to the surprise and horror of tyrants everywhere, it is also "land of the lawyers and civil societies" who love nothing more then a good old fashion 1st amendment smack down.
This law will not make it out of committee.
This law will not make it through the House.
This law will make it to the president's desk.
Should this law actually somehow become law, it absolutely will contested and struck down by the courts.
It is convenient for people to have you think that the press is free, because it is convenient for you to be suitably mislead.
The press is being lead around by the nose. Remember folks that these days the press (and other reporting media) are not primary there to bring you the truth. They are there to provide infotainment to piull in the advertising revenue etc. Need nice snappy "news" to compete against all those other things trying to get a slice of your time. So what happens? Reporters that don't play the game soon get blacklisted. Nothing openly stated. Just a few extra minutes delay in returning your call (so your story gets scooped) or instead of being embedded with frontline troops giving scenic footage of night rocket attacks you get embedded in the crew washing trucks down at the transport park (makes for real high viewer rating footage!).
Engineering is the art of compromise.
I believe they are engineered to fall that way so they cause as little damage as possible to the surrounding buildings.
You think the people that built those towers didn't plan ahead for potential plane crash at all? Sure, the building materials could have been improved to protect against the burning fuel but that would have driven costs through the roof for buildings of that size, and not to mention I doubt many materials would remain strong while being heated to such high temperatures like that.
I'm not a construction worker or anything, but this is how I see it.
Well, disclosing that there are secret domestic wiretaps is aiding and abetting the enemy. You know...the American People!
Jory
Under President Reagan, Yeah this is a bad joke.
Under President George Sr., Yeah This is a bad joke
Under President Clinton, Yeah this is a bad joke
Under Emporeror Bush, this fucking scares me.
A fitting quote from Sid Myer's Alpha Centaury
"As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last loose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master." -- Commissioner Pravin Lal, "Librarian's Preface"
The single minded focus with which our liberites are being stripped precludes the possibility of this being confluence of multiple inept executive and legislative decisions. Wake up. Wouldn't you rather be a bit paranoid before it's too late than sorry after?
Don't attribute to stupidity what can be attributed to malice, or else you'll end up making excuses for these people. It's very unlikely that someone would be so consistently stupid in a way that leads up to fascism.
It has to be said: I, for one, welcome your new Bush ovelords. Perhaps it will wake the fuck up the morons who still think you have a functioning democracy. Nothing else does.
It's not like you have one. Democrats or Republicans. Shooting or hanging. Does it matter?
You can't even go ahead and form your own party. I mean, you can, but it's quite pointless. It's a 2 party dictatorship instead of just one, so you have the imagination that you can actually choose who's gonna rule you. In fact, you can't.
And since the voting system makes sure that either party has only one rival, neither of them has any interest in changing this system.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
> Because leaker, like the bad guy who brought Nixon down, are always evil.
The question is whether they are ever evil.
How about a law to explicitly protect whistleblowers within the government, even in cases of national security. When government officials break the law, people who release this information should be protected and cherished. Corruption and crime are not patriotism.
I think the problem is that people don't have enough information about what the politicians they are voting for are planning to do. It would be nice to have some way (a website, perhaps?) of finding a politician that you are able to vote for who will stand up for the issues that are important to you.
Right now, how am I supposed to find out this information? By searching for politicians that I can vote for, and then researching each one? Most people are not willing to do any research before voting. Lessening the amount of research people need to do in order to vote for the politician that best represents them is a first step toward fixing political problems in America, and the rest of the world, if Australia is anything to go by. (I think Australians care even less about political issues than Americans do, something the Howard government is enjoying taking advantage of!)
While I agree with many of the points you've made, I don't agree with the bill itself. Why should the intelligence community within the United States ever feel threatened by leaks to the press? Leaks are possible, yes, but only when your control over your own espionage programs is so poor that sensitive info is getting leaked to outside sources on a regular basis.
The mere fact that media groups and press agencies learned about "domestic" wiretapping by the NSA and black sites in Eastern Europe tells me that the Bush administration is doing an exceptionally poor job of covering up classified secrets. Punishing reporters for exploiting weaknesses within the executive branch will not make the executive branch any stronger. Properly concealing state secrets WILL make the executive branch stronger.
Even if we can keep leaked information out of the papers and off the TV, it'll still find its way into the hands of our enemies. Stop the leaks, not the nosy reporters.
Actually thanks to a recent pact the uk government has with ussa there is now a fast track for any 'criminals' the ussa wants with little to no comeback. If they think that someone in the uk has committed a crime then they will be shipped over to go through the american legal system and if found inocent will still have to foot the bill with no legal aid from anyone.
However if an american comits a crime against the uk then your pretty safe the american senate blocked the pact on the off chance we might want to prosecute the irish terrorists hiding over there.
Then... 2004. Having been lumbered with that idiot for a president, with his cabal of fascist hangers-on pulling the strings, and having seen the horrors they perpetrated together on America, and on America's global standing, and on the world in general, what did the American people do?
They voted him in. For real this time. No question about it, Bush won that election. They looked at the record of Bush's first term and said 'Yes. This is what we want from our Presidents. We like Bush and approve of what he has done, and want four more years of the same.'
At which point you can't blame a corrupt fascist takeover. The fascists sneaked into office via a very dodgy election, but you had the chance to get them out. But you endorsed them and voted them in again with an authentic mandate.
It's your own stupid fault now. And the world knows it. What America does now, the ordinary American people can be directly and personally blamed for.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Why would a patriot attack those things when there are better targets? It is not a contest of damage. Firearms are not used to destroy other weapons.
I read about a page of comments all basically saying the same thing "I hate this" "Bush's fault" "It won't get past the courts, move along" etc etc. Too bad there weren't any "why I hate this" comments backing up their opinions.
I wish the Washington Post had included a link to the original wording of this proposed bill. But they didn't so all we had was this:
Meaning, the law would make it illegal to disclose information that might harm ongoing legal investigations. How is that a bad thing? It would still be legal to report surveillance that is being preformed illegally. The key words are "conducted under a 1978 surveillance law". If this is the actual case the other quote they gave us:
is contradictory and incorrect. One of them is wrong. The important question is which? Likely this law wouldn't affect law abiding citizens at all. The media has brought this crap upon themselves though. By reporting anything whether accurate or not in the name of revenue and ratings.You not hearing about legal wiretapping will not affect your life. You not hearing about illegal wiretapping is a different story. In the haste of the Washington Post to produce a story, they have reported contradictory opinions without facts to show which is true.
I believe that most of those buildings were designed to fall inwards should something like that occur.
Ha ha ha ha h....oh shit. This isn't a joke, is it?
And that kids is how I met your mother.
Memo to demolition companies: Due to technologies designed no later than 1973 your work will only be needed for pre-1973 buildings. We can cleanly demolish modern buildings with jet fuel and a match.
So while your interpretation is the one unsurprisingly advocated by members of the government, I think it's completely unrelated to the intents of the framers.
Shooting burglars should be criminal vigilanteism. Shooting any government official or law-enforcement officer should be a Constitutionally-protected right.
Normally, a leak is one or two people who are talking or selling. They could be doing it for any number of reasons. The problem is, that there is a large number of people talking about what is going on. That shows that this is a revolt against current admin leadership.
Consider the fact that Bush is trying to pass a law that prevents employees/troops from outing information damaging to the war effort(or him), while at the same time, he, cheney, and libbey were more than happy to out a CIA agent to the enemy for political gain. We are not talking that they did it to stop an illegal action. OTH, there are number of people who are talking about what is going on inside, but they are only touching the tip of the iceberg. People like trainor, wallace, edmunds, tice, robbins, smith are but a few that object to what is happening and are reporting it. Even in the white house they have a fair number of people who have come out against this admin and are talking about what is wrong with it; That is not normal during a war as short as this one.
It seems that due to budget overruns and concern over too many expenditures, the Government has decided upon the much cheaper and efficient process of simply imprisoning anyone that even hints at leaking information. Competent Intelligence Agencies are just too expensive, it seems.
Say, didn't someone located in the Whitehouse recently out an Intelligence operative through a public leak for political reasons?
Maybe that law wouldn't be such a bad thing, after all.
You'll get to the point where the conservatives won't be pointing out "stop worrying you hippie liberal douche" because you won't have the right to discuss politics in public.
:-)
I'll go out on a limb and say this law won't pass.
But I'll point out another fact my friends from back home used to say. You have the government you deserve. You recalled Gray Davis just to hire a movie star as your governor, why not recall Bush to hold a new election? It worked in Canada
Fact of that matter is this time around if you're american *you did* vote for Bush. Even knowing what sort of assclown he is. Sure John Kerry wasn't much of a choice either but what about all the independents? Despite what CNN says you're not in a bipartisan country. It is *legal* to have a third, fourth and even fifth option on the ballet.
If enough people stole seats from the "holy bestowed party of two" they wouldn't get away with these sorts of laws and lobbying activity. But no, you guys take the easy road, do zero investigation and don't question anything.
Oh and another thing I have to say to Americans. You really should learn at least one Chinese dialect in the next 5 or so years. With the raising of your deficit it just means less and less of America actually belongs to Americans [well the USA at least]. Canada on the other hand is in relatively good hands.
Canada is certainly not perfect and Harper has yet to make the news for something really positive but at least I know all 14 spies we have aren't pointed at me.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
You definitly never read Al Franken's book.
Notice that Dawson gives no evidence to support this assertion. Probably because it's a lie. The law has been prompted by the press reporting Bush's law breaking, naturally it's aimed at them.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
It is easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.
+1 really fucking scary
I'm the guy with the unpopular opinion
I think you have over-complicated things. The original maxim still applies. What you want is its contrapositive: That which can't be attributed to stupidity may perhaps be attributed to malice.
"I assure you that Americans troops shooting at civilians and vs.versa, will not last that long. While it is easier to shoot a stranger, it is much harder to shoot your brother."
Tell that to the students at Kent State....
B.
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
And in the Middle East they have plenty of people who are willing - and indeed eager - to die for what they believe in. In the US they have people who are willing - and indeed eager - to give up everything they believe in to avoid the risk of dying.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14-defining characteristics common to each:
"1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are mani
And my second feeling is, this is a kind of non-written agreement with the central authority which in turn inflicts similar jail sentences to music/movie backuppers as to armed robbers.
Proportion between offense and punishment is a founding element of democracy (you shouldn't be hanged because you said the president or a prophet is a jerk).
If I am right, ordinary people will have to start doing the job by themselves. Until of course the "power" will find everyone's tiny price tag, and there will be silence, finally ...
just my 2 cents from Europe
do you remember this http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/19/13 32207/,/ 02/1310242/,/ 13/1646243/ 0 29252/?
this http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/02
this http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/02
and this http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/14/2
well I guess soon George W will go
"Dear Google, we ask you to close down your google.com servers, because we (as a freedom and liberty loving country) can not accept that you're participating in a totalitary dictatorship like the USA
but don't worry, this bill is never gonna pass....
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
ICTYBTIWHTKY
by some folks reading of the bill of rights, as part of the intent of the founders, was to enable the people to overthrow their government, if it no longer represents the people-- then yes, you could argue everyone in the us should be entitled access to the entire range of armaments available to the USA government
and a second thought.. Have you ever heard of Patrick Henry? March 23, 1775 -- kinda sounds like the last half of your post, with a different emphasis....
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
see the wikipedia section on sealand
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealand#Legal_status
The only prospect for successful assertion of sovereignty would be to show that there was de facto sovereignty prior to 1968.
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
This just in! Microsoft has just convinced Congress to pass legislation prohibiting the discovery or announcement of critical security vulnerabilities! The world's largest software company has been backed by various others – including, just this morning, Linux developer Ubuntu. Linus Torvalds of Linux kernel fame, Richard Stallman of GNU, and Theo de Raadt of OpenBSD were not available for comment...
Creative misinterpretation is your friend.
I get it now! We're building a democracy in Iraq so that those of us who still value our freedom can move over there once El Presidente makes his dictatorship official. Though, I'm not sure now we'll actually hear about it. ;-)
The less confident you are, the more serious you have to act.
Which students do you have in mind? The ones who torched buildings and surrounded the National Guard or the ones who were professional insurrectionists or the ones who threw stones at the National Guardsmen or the runaway girl who was the subject of the famous photo?
40 years ago some idiots did some stupid stuff. BFD.
You're not allowed to complain.
I'm going to quote an old post from the "DMCA Abuse Widespread" article:The problem will Bills like this, is that if some of those Mother Humpers get really attached to the idea, they'l keep trying to sneak it into legislation.
If it doesn't apply to a certain class of people, then you better damn well say so in the legislation, cause after it's law, it can be interpreted any which way "The Man" wants (Hint: See "DMCA Abuse Widespread" quote)
I'm not to worried though, the newspaper types have a big-ass Guild and the Civil Liberties types will freak out if it applies to them.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
"military personnel have all taken an oath to defend the US Constitution"
So did the President.
Come play free flash games on Kongregate!
really? And why do you think that there should be large pieces of debris all around the place, when there shouldn't be any in the first place? Take a look at this and this.
Why do I get the feeling that even though you have now been presented with plenty of pictures of airplane-parts in and around Pentagon, and with pictures that show that usually no large pieces of debris remain after such a crahs, you will simply decide to ingore them, and you will keep on believing that "there were no airplane-parts inside or around Pentagon!".? If you do change your mind, I would like you to say it aloud here. A simple "I was wrong" will do. If you don't reply, then I'll just assume that you didn't change your mind, and that would make you a moron.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
"Those who beat their swords into plows will plow for those who don't"
The Bush administration has it rigged so that if a gunman opens fire on the president more than 51% of americans will label that gunman as a terrorist.
Stop invalid scientific research. Ask your local scientists to feed their lab rats with a phytoestrogen-free chow.
Silencing dissent weakens the commonwealth by encouraging ignorance and mindless assent.
True. But the public can't be told this directly... One must define to them "ignorance" first. And perhaps "commonwealth" for that matter...
You mean how Bill Clinton created the court that allows the Fed to get a warrant AFTER placing a tap?
I remember being up in arms when the Clinton administration created that damn Star Chamber, and now Bush's actions make it seem downright reasonable to most people, as if it had been there all along.
For some reason, I feel like a frog in a pot of water. It was cool when I got in, and I haven't NOTICED the temperature rising, but for some reason I don't remember steam coming off the water when I got in...
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I would think jail time and fines would be abridging the freedom of the press. While I know there are already examples of this being violated, (I.E. Jailing members of the press because they won't disclose their sources) I think the law is pretty clear about who has freedoms and whose freedoms should not be abridged.
The irony of the NRA is that they continually argue that guns are vitally important to protecting our rights, but they've never used guns to achieve their aims. Instead, they show just how effective writing letters, donating money, and voting on the issues can really be.
This is one of the sanest most sensible comments I've ever seen on any forum.
As the poster says, voting makes a difference. It makes a difference at EVERY LEVEL of government. That means it's important that you know who you are really voting for in your local elections, your state elections, and the national elections. Don't just pull the party lever.
To be fair, it's also important to realize that not all Republicans are determined to destroy the Bill of Rights and not all Democrats are buddies with the ACLU. We need to pay careful attention to the record of anyone who asks for our vote. If they don't have a record, we better find out who their friends and supporters are.
Of course, if we allow bills like the one proposed to sail through the Congress unopposed, we'll send the message that none of us care about our rights. We're just terrified that we'll hear about the dirty stuff our President is doing in the name of keeping us safe. Eventually, Bush and his minions will find a way to shut down all opposition.
Believe it or not, you and your vote are the only way to stop this. I'm probably messing up the quote, but someone once said that all that is needed for evil to triumph is for the good to do nothing. Protecting our rights is not the responsibility of politicians, or the ACLU, it's our responsibility. If we don't do it, we deserve to lose them.
-All that is gold does not glitter - Tolkien
www.ra
Actually, I wouldn't list people willing to die for what they believe in as a difference. I think the US has an equal, if not larger, percentage of people willing to die for what they believe in.
Let me ask you this: If Iraq had managed to invade the US, don't you think there would be a lot of Americans who would be willing to blow themselves up in order to kill off some of their Iraqi invaders?
...I voted for Kodos...I mean Kerry!
With the first link, the chain is forged.
Notice that Dawson gives no evidence to support this assertion. Probably because it's a lie.
Martin gave no evidence to support her assertion either. Can we make the same assumption there?
Sheesh.
This article might be reactionary, but there's not enough information to tell. I'll wait until the actual text is available before making a judgement.
Or maybe the ones who were just goint to their next class?
Growing up, my house was robbed twice. Guns didn't help us. Why? Because the burglars weren't stupid. They robbed us when we weren't home. And guess what? They took the guns.
Ironically, we were stationed in Rampart. We had people coming up to us all the time to thank us for protecting them from the police. At the time I thought it was odd (and sad), until I found out they had very good reason to be afraid.
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
It's really simple. You vote against those on the extremes and everyone will become moderate. The last four presidents we've had include three hard-line Republicans and one moderate Democrat. In recent years, Republicans have come to dominate the government. The message being sent is that no one can get elected unless they subscribe to the paternalistic Republican "utopia". Mark my words, if we stop rewarding the Bush administration for its bad policies then we'll see real change. It has happened before and it could happen again.
On the other hand, we could all buy into the fearmongering and insist that our leaders take our rights away for our own good. Then we'll have what you describe: two parties that are convinced that doing the right thing is the fasted way to defeat.
By way of analogy, consider the US war of independence. For the most part (at least at the outset), Americans were a resistance army (later they were uniformed and all that, and so were just a plain old military). There were instances of terrorism, in which over-zealous revolutionaries murdered empire loyalists. But those are separate kinds of things. Interestingly, Canada's only hereditary title is "United Empire Loyalist", which means that one of your ancestors fled from the US to Canada during the war of independence. It's generally considered unwise to put that title on your business cards when visiting the States though.... :P
I said before that they are winning and this is more proof that they are. How do you destroy a free nation, take away their freedoms.
I have a feeling that one day if someone makes too much noise they will be locked away and labeled a "terrorist". In 08 what will happen if W does not give up the presidency or another election is taken a third time?
Maybe we should start being mindful of what we say now; it may come back to haunt us...
An excellent way to kick off Sunshine week:.
of the Senators, Congressmen, Cabinet Members, and President who are assaulting our freedom thus twisting in the wind, strung up in the trees lining the Mall in D.C.
You know it's getting bad when people are talking armed revolt, but here we are.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
You cannot restrict public financing to three or any other number of "qualified" candidates - that is how they keep a lid on the candidates in Iran. Everyone that comes forward must be funded equally, or it is discriminatory. Can you imagine how it would be if three white candidates were funded and a black candidate got nothing or even just less?
A requirement that they show up with some evidence that they stand some chance of getting elected can also be discriminatory - look at what happened to the petition signing for Nader. He was kept off ballots because of petitions that were disqualified, thus again restricting the pool of candidates.
The candidate is going to give up at least a year of any sort of employment to run for election. Lately, in the US it has become almost a two-year commitment. To prevent this from being a "you gotta be rich" sort of thing, the funding for candidates have to include a healty stipend for their support and for their families.
So, why can we not have 1,000 candidates for mayor for a city, each receiving a fully-funded free ride for a couple of years? How long will it take before every citizen in the US understands all they need to do is run for every office possible (think 25,000,000 candidates for president) so as to be fully supported by the Federal Election Commission?
Come on, is that where you really want to go? Or is it that you think it would be better if the candidates were narrowed to just a few "qualified" candidates selected by the incumbents?
Now we hear:
Patriot Act will only be used against terrorists? LIE.
Wiretaps require court order? LIE.
I never had sex with that women. LIE.
This law won't be used against reporters. LIE.
Apparently, quite a few people in the government think that sacrificing liberties is worth it if we potentially prevent another terrorist attack or save lives. Well, I don't. A lot of the founding fathers were willing to, and sacrificed their lives, in order to have freedon.
The other thing I have this problem with are these "Homeland Security Letters" that some people have been getting around my area as of late. These are letters that tell you DHS is investigating you or someone and if you tell them or anyone else or show the letter to anyone then you go to jail.
If I ever get one of these letters, I will post it here on Slashdot.org, count on it. I will also take out ads in the local newspapers AND post on any other web site that will take. I also will inform whomever they are investigating, regardless if he is guilty or not.
Again, count on it.
Iran will be next, god Im glad the election is comming. I can bet dollars to Donuts the Republicans will get booted out. We as americans dont have a liking for war, or the need to re elect the party that gets in one.
I trust Microsoft as far as I could comfortably spit a dead rat
I don't know why it is modded off-topic but I'm worried too and actually it is on-topic since it's the social impact on people who DO care (too much) about the crap going on in the world. Although, I've found out a rule "If you can't change it, better don't think too much about it", since, changes are albeit made more difficult by the day, since the government and the people with the "power" are protecting their position very carefully.
... still same shitty reason ..
I seriously have sleeping problems too, I'm sortof even depressed because of all the crap that's being dictated upon our freedom. What also bothers me is that individuality is not worth anything anymore; you've got to be integrated and working with the system 'you're either in our out" or you will get abandoned/banned by the people around you
protection and self-preversation; people want to kill to protect their property; even if that property is not in any danger. That makes me feel bad, other people who find their power and property more important than a life or the feeling of the fellow human being; your neightbour or even your enemy.
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
You gotta love the whole "if you don't agree with me you're a moron" attitude. Don't worry, people on the other side of the argument think the same thing about your point of view.
All you Naderites/libertarians who claim there's no difference between the Democrats and Republicans, please STFU. THIS is the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans.
It seems to me that "freedom of the press" was added to the constitution expressly for the purpose of stopping a future government from being able to do something like this. Which is quite a brilliant thing, if you think about it. To become aware and design in laws capable of combating mankind's main failing nature - that is, a tendancy towards greed. Somehow the Founders knew that in the future, a governement may become too powerful and try to control information to such a degree that the people become it's slaves.
No government should ever be able to disrupt certain laws. The wise laws, the laws that took hundreds of guys months to create. I think those things supercede some sniveling senator with an agenda, or some other jackass who just has to get their little word in there. Because god knows, they are much smarter then some 100 year old dead guy, right?
Or to members of the former East German army, who were ordered to kill people tryig to flee across the border into West Germany and did so.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Come to think of it... I think I've been seeing fewer Bush '04 bumper stickers of late. But maybe I'm just deluding myself...
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
"and I assure you that Americans troops shooting at civilians and vs.versa, will not last that long."
I hear that it took World War I to top the American Civil War's body count. I also hear that it took Nazis and Soviets massacreing each other on the Eastern Front to top the American Civil War in terms of percentage of the population killed. Whether or not what I hear is true, however, doesn't change the fact that it was easily one of the bloodiest wars in human history.
Is there any reason why you believe that we're so different now that such a domestic conflict won't last more than half a decade and leave millions dead?
The United States has a very militaristic culture, moreso now than we were in 1861; it's why we're the last remaining superpower to begin with. Any sort of domestic violence in today's society will not be pretty.
I.e. since reporters are backed by people who can afford a press, recognized reporters will be allowed to keep that freedom.
Everyone else however....
And that at least until we get a friendly court to reinterpret our intent contrary to this assurance (see application of USA PATRIOT Act). After all, that assurance was only given by an advisor speaking out of turn with no authority, not by any elected representative.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Well, thats it. One of the basic foundations of freedom in the USA is/has just been flushed down the toilet. Such protection for the president makes him/(future her) no more than a dictator(Hitler, Hussein etc...). We are becoming the enemy that we are trying to fight.
The Emperor: In order to ensure our security and continuing stability, the Republic will be reorganized into the first Galactic Empire, for a safe and secure society which I assure you will last for ten thousand years!
[Senate fills with enormous applause]
Senator Amidala: So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause.
Just finish it already. The supreme court is stacked in Bush's favor too. Why not just pass a law against criticizing the president and let the supreme court deem it constitutional upon challenge. Then we can finally lay the republic to rest. It had a good 200+ year run. Let's call it a day.
Read Freakonomics. Swimming pools are FAR more dangerous than loaded handguns (on a per capita basis no less) Your kid is more at risk visiting a friend with a swimming pool than visiting a friend who has loaded guns in a sidetable drawer. Not only that, but riding in a car is far and away the most dangerous thing your kid is likely to ever do (unless he decides to go crab fishing in Alaska, climb Mt. Everest or become a human cannonball, etc., but those are relatively small odds.)
I read a story a while back (can't seem to find it right now) about the residents of Love Canal, New York failing to get government aid to relocate away from the toxic ground they were living on. (the ground was toxic in part due to governemnt tolerance of industrial polluting, so the govt. was on the hook for it) The citizens got action by taking a govt. representative hostage, at gunpoint, and allowing him to drink only the polluted tap water until they got help. They got it, but they probably wouldn't have if not for the housewife who got her gun out and took action.
No shots were fired, and no one was killed, but the right to bear arms was essential for the public to protect itself from the tyranny of big government.
If someone can find that article, please post a link.
--
What's in your backyard? BackyardArtillery.com
Regarding airplane parts, this may be interesting: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
"The irony of the NRA is that they continually argue that guns are vitally important to protecting our rights, but they've never used guns to achieve their aims. Instead, they show just how effective writing letters, donating money, and voting on the issues can really be."
If people out there really want to protect our rights, it's really simple, and it doesn't involve threatening to shoot people, shooting people, or getting shot. Just go to the polls this November...
The reason why we are able to "simply" go to the polls is because people used guns to give you that privilege.
You should be thankful that the system still works to the point that the NRA is still only encouraging us to use money, words, and votes, instead of bullets.
Steve
"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed--where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once." - Judge Alex Kozinski
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
As much as I love the idea of excercising my second amendment rights by shooting politicians in the ass as one poster put it this issue raises a much darker problem. It's all fun and games to slap on "He's not My President" bumper stickers but the fact of the matter is that on one level he is and these jackasses are our elected officials.
American Politicians, for that matter any politicians, don't come from space. they come from our schools our neighborhoods, and our public life. They get elected by promising to spend less, on other people, and spend more, on us. They appeal to our interests and as much as we'd like to pretend that we aren't responsible, we are. We've allowed this two-party one-ass game to go on for far too long. We keep picking these people and, at election time, it's never about "Will you panic like a frightened chicken when the sh*t hits the fan and shred the constitution" its about "what are you going to do for me?" "When will you cut *my* taxes and raise someone else's?", "When will you make those other people stop doing what it is that I don't like and make them live like me?"
Bush didn't get elected on Iraq. Yes he promised to "deal with them" and whined about attempted assasinations of his father" (they never tried to kill Bush Sr.). But that was a drop in the bucket. His big stance was a) making things "better" in some vague conservative christian sense (no abortion no sex ed); and b) cutting taxes. And for most people who backed him b was bigger than a.
Kerry didn't really run on Iraq, he ran on a vague "I'm the better man" philosophy. Gore did the same. Both got somped by Karl Rove in a basic Gutter-fight fashion. And ultimately, as long as Bush promised to do everything Better, Cheaper, and faster for "Us" noone cared. Then once 9/11 rolled around people ralized that he had less bladder control than a scared chicken and that he didn't realize that shredding the constitution was different than defending it.
This problem is even worse when you consider off-season elections where people often don't bother to show up even to vote for Congressmembers. At the State and local levels I'm betting that people know more about Bennifer than their own Governors, Mayors, and City Council members. If you can become Governor of the most populous state simply by being in the movies then that speaks for itself.
And before anyone elsewhere get's self-important I haven't seen any country that, across the board, is any better. In general, in my experience, eveyone's political class sucks. And everyone is to blame.
Sad as I am to admit it sometimes George Carlin seems right: "Selfish short-sighted people produce selfish short-sighted politicians."
I followed your links, there is nothing in there that shows pictures of airplane wreckage around pentagon. There is a story about an f-4 and a c-130 both of which are TINY compared to a 767.
evil is as evil does
Oh please don't tell me you're one of those people who believe the airliner didn't really hit the Pentagon. Please. Most of the websites I've seen on that are so completely retarded. One idiot has a website where he shows a turbine disk from the wreckage (like 18 inches across), shows an engine from a 757 (5-6 feet across), and asks how such a small disk could come from such a big engine. Of course, turbine disks are always tiny --- on a turbofan the core airflow path where the turbine sits is very small compared to the overall airflow path of the engine. Not to mention its highly compressed before it hits the turbine!
I'm an AE and ignorance of the people pushing this theory is phenomenal. Of course an airplane can disintegrate after hitting a large solid structure at hundreds of miles per hour! Airplanes are mostly tubes of sheet metal for god's sake! Almost every significant piece is hollow to save weight. The designers even count on the membrane effect of the sheet metal skin being pressurized to handle some of the rigidity requirements of the aircraft. Airplanes can disintigrate just from run-away vibrational effects. The fact that a 300 mph collision into a concrete building did the trick is not surprising at all.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Safety, bought with Liberty, isn't really safe after all.
Huh? Isn't this why we have the supreme court? To overrule illegal laws...? Oh wait, Bush controls them now too.
Scott Swezey
The links also discussed how in cases like this there are no huge pieces of debris laying around. Did you really follow the links?
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
The grandparent claimed that there were no debris around the crash-site. I posted links to websites that A) showed that there indeed was debris in the crash-site and B) how in cases like this, there will be no huge pieces of debris laying around. Poth A and B together spell out the fact that the grandparent is WRONG. He was wrong, there's no going around that fact. And no, if he was just mistaken and admits that he was wrong, then he's not a moron. But if he still thinks that somethig he personally believes to be true, even though the evidence shows the opposite, then he IS a moron.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
Sssshhhh. You are not supposed to tell paranoid idiots that they are in fact idiots.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
uh, the plane that hit the Pentagon was a 757, and not 767 you dimwit! And 757 is considerably smaller than 767 is. The C-130 and 757 are roughly the same size. The difference between the linked C-130 crash and the Pentagon crash is that the 757 was flying a lot faster (more impact-energy: even smaller debris), and the building it hit was a lot stronger. If the C-130 (a mil-spec plane) left no large debris after hitting a residential building, is it any wonder that a civilian aircraft of roughly the same size didn't leave any large debris after hitting a rock-solid building at high speed?
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
Is this the same Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006 that the Tories (er, Republicans, scuse me) advertised put "firm new limits" on Presidential power, as a compromise against launching a full Senate investigationinto the warrantless wiretapping program?
//congresspeople// even know which laws they're voting on? .... don't answer that question. I don't want to know. *forehand*
It's strange, because I've seen tons of reporting, but very few stories actually mention the name of the Act. how are citizens supposed to participate when they can't even identify legislation? Do
You can go on and on about this or that and how maybe the Ohio results were "fishy", but like I said before, if Americans were truly fed up with President Bush, the results in Ohio wouldn't have mattered.
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
> I'd rather choose the theif who's trying to get enough money to help put his son/daughter through college
As a result the offspring of the thief will always get a better education and have a better starting point than your own children. Your children will be doomed to an existence that is pleasant only so long as the offspring of the thieves are sufficiently preoccupied with other entertainment.
I'm all for cooperating and getting along and accepting that there will always be someone who has it better. I have no problem accepting that I have a place in society and that place may not necessarily be at the top rung. However, the way I see it, the siphoning going on has reached an unacceptable percentage. It has reached the point where it's better to tell the thief to go get fscked than to give in willingly.
Every once in a while a regime reaches the point of completely inexcuseable self-serving greed and treachery. I feel that the political system here in the US has reached that point... about 130-140 years ago. The majority of the population has had it just good enough to be able to ignore the infractions and keep moving on. Good for them. I'm not in that group. At some point I must've pissed off someone with really long arms because, no matter where I go, there's never a clear opportunity to get ahead--there are only thieves backed by legal mumbo-jumbo with authority enforced by people who don't know any better.
The government itself is not stealing your liberties. Their new programs are enabling criminals who will.
Because it's spelled "Halliburton"?
Well actually only 31% voted for Bush -- turnout in the election was 61%. And that's just 31% of eligible voters, which doesn't count children, alien residents, or felons for example. So it's hardly a sweeping mandate when you look at it in those terms. Easily more then 70% of the USA either didn't vote for Bush, or didn't vote at all, or wasn't allowed to vote.
Americans need to stand up for their rights. The terrible social state of the country is down a lot to negligence and gullibility.
But it's hard to blame someone. There is very much a bi-partisan split out there, and things like this are, unfortunately, the conservative fault. They need to stop hanging on the government for the sake of being a conservative, and look at issues rationally.
EpiAdv - if you like Pokey the Penguin, try this comic!
you know your country has taken a turn for the worse when the burnt out ppl you went to high school with are haveing a deep political convo with you PEOPLE WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING NOW how much freedom stealing is enough were americans this is the land of the free why dont we act like were free and stand up for ourselves instead of hiding in the corner while big brother beats us senseless i see alot of complaining but have you made you complains known to your elected officals not that it will really do much good but youve stated your place to them if enough of us complain things will change they do want our votes after all this is far from a solution but its a start we need to start somewere and god damn if i shot a guy and told the police the next day id never see daylight again or if i wiretapped my neighbor caz i thought they were planing to steal my lawnmower id be in jail again WHY DOESN'T THIS APPLY TO OUR "LEADERS" BULLSHIT TOTALL BULLSHIT o and by the way even china is taking steps to legalize gay marrage
There have been numerous crashes of commercial aircraft both into buildings and into the ground. You can take a look around the internet and see pictures of them. In all the ones I have seen huge chunks of the airplane are left around. Also most of the bodies are recovered too.
Sorry something is really fishy about 9/11. It stinks to high heaven. I don't normally go for the tinfoil hat but there are a lot of things about 9/11 that just don't add up.
evil is as evil does
I spent four years in the air force. I have ridden in c-130s. If you think that a c-130 and a 757 are similar in size you are a moron.
evil is as evil does
Just to clarify - "fascist" and "totalitarian" are not synonomous.
Fascism is a highly specific form of government, as listed by the OP. Nazi Germany is the most obvious and well known example.
Totalitarian dictatorships are much much broader, and much older. Stalinist Russia is an example; and there, fascism was villified. Communism and fascism don't mix terribly well.
I'd say you can't have fascism without edging into totalitarianism, but you can have totalitarian governments that are not fascist. Likewise, you can have theocratic totalitarianism without fascism (pre-war Afghanistan under the Taliban).
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
I always find it funny that America calls itself* the 'Land of the Free'. The problem is that this bill is pretty insignificant in the face of what a tragedy that country is these days.
*NB: I don't think I've ever heard a non-American call it the same thing except for when they were trying to be ironic. *sigh*
" I have a hard time not seeing the governments of Stalin or Mao as anything but fascist."
Well technically they weren't, they were very Socialist and totalitarian and they actively discouraged private ownership of capital as well as religion. They were theoretically pro labor while Fascist regimes are anti labor and pro business. In practice they weren't very pro labor, they were pro party elite which did create a Fascist tinge. Worker centric states have never really come in to existence.
Fascist states are usually Capitalist economies, and very pro plutocracy. The just aren't really free market either because the government heavily intervenes whenever it suits them and in particular when they see the opportunity to enrich party members using the state's power and wealth.
Russia and China didn't really start their race to Fascism until the era of Yelsin or really Putin, and in China in the last 20-30 years when they abandoned state ownership and allowed private ownership of Capital. As is typical in Fascist states party members grabbed the lion's share of the assets and wealth and became rich overnight with government and party backing. Most big Chinese companies are run or have huge stakes owned by favored party members which is a classic sign of a Fascist state.
This free market economy with massive government intervention to benefit party member's wealth is a leading indicator of the fact the U.S. is turning very Fascist as well.
"8. Religion and Government are Intertwined "
I would say this is a pretty simplistic assertion. But Stalin and Mao actively suppressed religion which is an indicator of a Socialist totalitarian state, and usually not a Fascist one. Fascist states tend to use religion as a means for controlling and manipulating people because it works really well, especially when you play a dominant religion against minorities. Religious bigotry and hatred is one of the most powerful forms of bigotry and hatred. Socialist/Communist states just use different means to accomplish the same ends, propaganda and personality cults, jailing people for unorthodox thought and aggressively controlling what people think using non religious tactics but which achieve the same end.
Use of religion to control people isn't really special to Fascism anyway. Religions are designed to control and manipulate people, in large numbers, by their very nature so all sorts social systems exploit them to that end.
China is kind of an anomaly on the Fascism and Religion fronts perhaps due to their rapid stealth transition to Fascism in the last couple decades. They don't really use religion as a tool for controlling people at all. They are using a mix of old and new tools, propaganda and censorship, mixed with greed.
A bottomline is liberal participatory Democracies are in fact a rare and endangered species. Most political systems gravitate to abuse, where the people who acquire power use it and abuse it to enrich and empower themselves. The old axiom of power corrupting is very true. For a government to not land in various forms of totalitarianism they need to be carefully and aggressively structured to minimize the power and wealth of political leaders and then you need a bunch of people to get in to political positions who are idealists who focus on the common good. This is rare indeed. Most people who reach high political positions are there for the power and wealth they can garner for themselves and their affluent friends.
America's founding fathers made a noble effort to structure a government that would be a liberal representative Democracy but it appears they did in fact fail and this is no more evident than it is today.
@de_machina
The most informative post in this whole thread, and it remains unmoderated. Further proof that most moderation on /. is done based on ideology, not objective review of relavance.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Iraq?
There's really no chance for sanity to return to the US Government until Americans have the sense to elect a liberal or conservative party -- in the Canadian and European sense, not the sickeningly malformed American sense. Right now, all the US has are two flavours of fascism, and that's just not a sustainable way to head into the future. It leads inevitably to war, economic collapse, and barbarism.
Protesters and revolutionaries in other countries have often thought the same thing, and have inevitably been dismayed to discover just how wrong they were. Frequently, the weapons used to slaughter the aforementioned protesters and revolutionaries were provided by the United States, to prevent the possibility of US-friendly dictators being replaced by democratic populist governments. Don't fool yourself -- the second amendment is meaningless. Even if 100 million Americans rose up, they wouldn't have the might to match the US military. Remember, America doesn't have an abundant supply of leftover Soviet weaponry the way Iraq and Afghanistan do. No RPGs, no high explosives, none of the other tools necessary to mount a reasonable insurgency in the face of tanks, gunships, APCs, or even good old-fashioned Marines in body armor.
And still, the plane that hit Pentagon was not 767 as you claimed. And EXPERTS have said that it's perfectly normal for a plane to disintegrate in to small pieces. And even still, there WERE debris found in and around Pentagon. So where does that leave your conspiracy-fantasy?
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
What makes you think that there were no bodies recovered from Pentagon? And the pictures I saw certainly had the plane disintegrate in to small pieces, even though they did not hit a stone building at high speed
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
If only it were that simple, in 08 for example who am I going to vote for, for president, Hilary Clinton? Give me a fucking break her rhetoric against Iran has been EVERY bit as intense as Bush, and Cheney's, and she called for 60,000 MORE troops this summer. So Bush's policies of endless war that lead to a national security state that lead to laws like one this one being proposed to limit our freedom to discuss government wrong doing are likely to continue under Hilary. Plus she is MORE likely to grab the guns that some of us were talking about using to fight back, and she is interested in banning violent video games, and is good friends with Tipper Gore who tried to get Dead Kennedies records banned in the 80s. The only thing as someone on the LEFT that I can imagine worse than Bush's horror show is Hilary's horror show. And no I'm not willing to throw EVERYTHING else overboard to protect a womens' right to choose. I believe in choice but in the dire situation we are in now the Dems need more than one issue to snag my vote. They need to prove they can overturn our current war mongering, fear mongering, "national security" state and in 5 years they have not exerted ONE IOTA of effort in that direction, their bad, SHAME on them. In fact Lieberman gave us the Department of Homeland Security (little better than the S.S.) double shame on him.
So what to do? Vote for Dems at the local and state level who aren't DLC whores, vote for Greens and Libertarians, support your local co-op, protect our vanishing wilderness, join a union, detach yourself from this corrupt government, become a D.I.Y. anarchist, but above all don't let the fear mongering of the government and the MSM make you afraid to think, feel, and speak your mind.
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
overthrow those tyrants currently *ruling* the US?
Airplanes crash all the time. Go look at some airplane crash pictures, then look at the pictures of both the pentagon and the PA airplane crash.
Airplanes have crashed into skyscrapers in the past. They have crashed into older, weaker skyscrapers. None of those buildings fell.
Go look at some videos of controlled demolition. Then go look at how the building 'collapsed' on 9/11. While you are looking also take a look at how the buildings which the airplanes hit collapsed and how the buildings which the airplanes didn't hit collapsed. If you notice a similarity then try to find a rational reason for that.
evil is as evil does
I have, and I don't find anything strange in them.
ESB was hit by an B-25 after WW2 (IIRC). Difference there is that B-25 is a lot smaller than modern passenger-jet is, and it moved a lot slower. Also, the construction of ESB is different when compared to WTC. WTC's supporting frame is in the outside of the building, whereas in ESB (and most other skyscrapers) have the supporting construction in the middle of the building. In practice that means that ESB is good at withstanding external hits, but it's more vulnerable to internal attacks (bombs etc.). Vice versa on WTC. Yes, aircraft have hit building (even skyscrapers) in the past. But show me an incident where a big passenger-airliner hit a skyscraper at high speed. Can't find one, huh?
If it was just a huge conspiracy, why did they blow up WTC using a controlled demolition? Wouldn't it been a lot more realistic to make it topple over? By using a contoller demolition, they opened the door for all kinds of conspiracy-whackos. Why didn't they do it "more realistically" then?
If you look at the construction of the WTC, you will see that the way it crashed down makes perfect sense. Basically the floors fell on each other from top down. Had WTC been different type of skyscraper (like ESB) it would propably been different kind of collapse.
Seriously: you are just another conspiracy-nutcase. Hey, I heard that moonlandings were a hoax as well!
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
"We call what goes on in Iraq "terrorism" because they slaughter a hundred times as many Iraqui civilians as they do American troops, they kidnap and murder foreign civilians, and other reprehensible (even by the standards of war) behaviour."
There is one reason for this, power, whoever is doing it wants Iraqis to think western troops cannot protect them and thus hasten a western retreat, ie: Iraqis have a choice, "with the insurgents or against them".
Terror is terror regardless of who initiates it, looking back over the 20th century the only distinction I can see between between a 15yr old Afgan warlord and a superpower is scale and experience. The US nuked Japan, the UK firestomed Dresden, Japan bombed Peal harbour, China ran over students with tanks, Uganda stitched peoples arms on backwards, Rawanda hacked a million of it's people to death, Iraq used poision gas on children, the US prefered napalm, the list of "reprehensible" acts is fucking endless and I cannot think of an armed group that has not somewhere along the line practised the art of terror to further their cause and/or quell dissent.
There is nothing noble or honourable to be found in the wars the rich and powerfull use to settle their differences, war has nothing to do with freedom and everything to do with dehumanising "the enemy" down to a level somewhere below vermin. The French had a revolution against their rich and powerfull and not long after replaced their oppressors with Napolean, the Russian Tzar was overthrown but soon replaced with Stalin. You don't even have to turn to history, Mugabe is a living example that "the people" have a very slim chance of winning anything by revolution, they simply jump from frying pan to fire and back again. The American war of independance is often portrayed in a favorable light, but did you ever notice there was, and still is, very little difference between how the two nations are governed?
Yes there are a multitude of heros and villans on every side and the overwhelming majority of victims are "ordinary citizens". However "ordinary citizens" are also the ones who enable battles to be fought and "witches" to be burnt. If you follow the pied-piper of blame all the way to the battlefield, you forefit the luxury of choosing to fight or not. If you are lucky enough to survive the fight with a reasonably intact mental ability you will have the rest of your life to ponder what the fuck it was all about in the first place.
BTW: Don't take this as an attack on the rich and powerfull, the military, terrorist, freedom fighters, the boy scouts or any other arbitary group, take it as an attack on mankinds ability to find scapegoats where ever he looks for them. After all it would be impossible for anyone to have a decent war if "ordinary citizens" had the ability to ignore the subtle tones of the piper.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Why did the floors fell on top of each other in the buildings that were not hit by an airplane. Why didn't the floors fall on top of each other in other buildings where there were fires which burned much longer?
At some point your rationalizations start looking a lot more forced then the conspiracy theory.
evil is as evil does
Manufactured during WWII for less than 2 dollars US by the Guide Lamp Division of General Motors, this little stamped-metal pistol was air-dropped over France to the Resistance. Those freedom-loving French used these little guns to kill Germans and steal more powerful weapons from them. Eventually, they proved invaluable in the liberation of France. The Resistance was able to hamper and even cripple German supply lines, tying up resources well in advance of the British/American advancement.
What can a magnum or a shotgun do? In the hands of a determined populace, plenty.
Tanks, missiles and planes do not win wars all by themselves. You *have* to have infantry. Infantry takes and holds ground. Infantry, in the words of Robert Heinlein, makes war as personal as a punch in the face. Infantry still uses rifles and various other small arms to take and hold ground.
NRA hasn't forgotten, but it's obvious that either you have, or never learned to begin with.
Bill Could Restrict Freedom of the Press
Who is this "Bill" guy, and why is he in a position to affect our rights?
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Well, ya know; "The Road to Hell is Paved With Right Wing Religous Zealouts"
Acutally the evidence is quite substancial and most of the governments own evidence it pushes to "prove" their story actually works to disprove it.
I have no intention of wasting server space on slashdot.org proving things to you that you are likely too mother fucking stupid to understand anyway. So go ahead and serve the emperor, support globalization and outsourcing like a good little POS neocon.
So go back to work at the pentagon or the post office, or whereever you serve the elitist government you lying hack.
Yes. Due to a significant increase in military technology such a conflict would only last a day or two and will have 0 military casualties and 290 million civilian casualties. And most of the cities afterwards would be composed of Tritium.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.