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.
...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)
Or they could arrest people, hold them in jail for a while, charge them, and then before the courts can make a decision, drop charges and let them go with stern warnings.
That way, the courts don't get a chance to shut them down since they have to have a real dispute, but the administration can use it to silence opponents.
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?
.. 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.
...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.
Or they could arrest people, hold them in jail for a while, charge them, and then before the courts can make a decision, drop charges and let them go with stern warnings. That way, the courts don't get a chance to shut them down since they have to have a real dispute, but the administration can use it to silence opponents.
Note to self: never vote for this guy.
May Peace Prevail On Earth
Hm... the Supreme Court is old and two have already retired, and have been replaced with solidly conservative Bush allies. I wouldn't be so sure that the courts will in fact shoot down this bill.
"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
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...
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."
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.
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"
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.
Wait a minute...
We're being invaded? If so, where are the front lines? I'll be going there right after I go to the gun store to arm myself. Surely there are volunteer units being formed, and they may not have enough extra guns/ammo for everyone.
What's that you say? The front lines are in another country? And it doesn't border us, nor does it have the capability to project an invasion force (or, indeed, any military force at all) to this side of the world? And we already destroyed its military anyway? So, all these threats to our nation are of a criminal rather than a military nature?
Huh. When you said that the President has special powers in time of invasion, I thought you mean when we're being invaded, or at least when an enemy of ours is doing some kind of invading. I had no idea that this applies when our side is the only one invading other countries. How strange.
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.
What's the point of founding your own nation? If your politics are at odds with the US, they'll just claim there are weapons of mass destruction...
Blank until
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.
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.
It is easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.
Article 1, section 9:
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
"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
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.
Perhaps I can make up for my error by adding something not flat-out wrong to the discussion. There are three conditions that need to be met for a Bush's use of this power to be constitutional today. Whether we are indeed being invaded is a condition already being discussed. Whether the public Safety requires it certainly depends on whom you ask, but is probably the least attackable condition. The last condition is a subtle one: that habeas corpus can be only suspended. If the "War on Terror" does classify as an invasion, one which will likely last for hundreds, or thousands, of years (how do we eradicate evil?), how do we differentiate between constitutional suspensions of habeas corpus, which must be temporary, and unconstitutonal permanent debarments?
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!
"Those who beat their swords into plows will plow for those who don't"
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
They'll use the ol' copyright trick. Keep extending the deadline each time it's about to expire. But it always has a limit yes? See, temporary. See also the PATRIOT act.
...I voted for Kodos...I mean Kerry!
With the first link, the chain is forged.
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?
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
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?
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?
"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.
It's like Clinton and Bush really aren't that different, almost as if they belonged to the same secret society in college or something.
Oh wait
> 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.
" 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