Slashdot Mirror
Has Orwell's '1984' Come 22 Years Later?
gabec asks: "This weekend my mother bought a grille lighter, something like this butane lighter. The self-scanner at Kroger's locked itself up and paged a clerk, who had to enter our drivers license numbers into her kiosk before we could continue. Last week my girlfriend bought four peaches. An alert came up stating that peaches were a restricted item and she had to identify herself before being able to purchase such a decidedly high quantity of the dangerous fruit. My video games spy on me, reporting the applications I run, the websites I visit, the accounts of the people I IM. My ISP is being strong-armed into a two-year archive of each action I take online under the guise of catching pedophiles, the companies I trust to free information are my enemies, the people looking out for me are being watched. As if that weren't enough, my own computer spies on me daily, my bank has been compromised, my phone is tapped--has been for years--and my phone company is A-OK with it. What's a guy that doesn't even consider himself paranoid to think of the current state of affairs?" The sad state of affairs is that Big Brother probably became a quiet part of our lives a lot earlier. The big question now is: how much worse can it get?
Am I just accustomed to old ways? Does the new generation, born with these restrictions, feel the weight of these bonds and recoil from my fears as paranoia? What can I, a person with no political interests--a person that would really rather think that the people in office are there because they're looking out for us, our rights, and our freedoms and not because their short-sightedness is creating a police state--do to stem the tide?"
I don't think you can claim that the store told you that four peaches was a "restricted item" without at least explaining the situation a little bit further.
Id for grille lighters and peaches, huh? And why didn't you just walk away loudly commenting on the store's idiotic policy?
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
So if there are many other real-world, "legitimate" examples of our freedoms being eroded how can you not have sympathy? Are your examples more important than the ones he considers important?
I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
"What's a guy that doesn't even consider himself paranoid to think of the current state of affairs?"
First thought...more educated and informed than the masses of sheeples?
Seriously, I think a lot of us feel the same way and see that we aren't on a slippery slope any more. We are plummeting down a sheer drop off. The way I see it the government and big business will control more and more of our every day life as we lose more and more privacy and individual choices. Some of us will get sick of it and cash out and go live off the grid in the most remote boondocks we can find and some of us will suffer in relative silence and reminisce over the "good old days" before we lost so much of our privacy and constitutional rights. Others will never notice they lost anything. Maybe there will be another American revolution some day to try and put back into place a government whose altruistic ideals can be effected indefinitely. Hell, 200+ years is pretty good when looked at in the big picture of history but eventually power and money corrupt those who should be looking out for the good of everyone. I guess this sounds kind of defeatist but take the federal minimum wage as an example. How come 30 million people have to try to live on $5.15 an hour? How are their voices not heard? How are our voices not heard?
Money talks and the politicians and big business have the money.
"The big question now is: how much worse can it get?" Wrong. The big question is what are we going to do to stop this. It's our government, dammit.
Don't forget that it's not just about privacy. The government basically has to create a state of perpetual fear, stir up hatred of the enemy, torture people, have an ongoing war, control information, and basically convince you to willingly see things that are false.
Now, don't get me wrong, but I don't think we've come to that yet.
cough cough fake terror alerts hussein abu ghraib war on terrorism fox news wmd in iraq cough
This isn't a real question, this is a thinly veiled attempt at getting a conversation going about how terrible the US government is.
Yes, there's a lot of censorship and surveillance going on. Yes, we have to be vigilant about everything we've heard.
My fear is, the fact that we find out about these domestic wiretaps, secret European prisons - means that the people put in charge of these things are morons. Most people in the position to be doing important secret 1984-type dealings are smart. The things we know about are pretty bad - how much worse are the things we don't know about?
Whoo, signature!
DesireCampbell.com
Defend freedom of information from government and corporate influence.
That's what really protects freedom, liberty, democracy, and people's rights. If you're lucky.
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
The sad state of affairs is that Big Brother probably became a quiet part of our lives a lot earlier.
Disagree.
Most of these things came from the Bush administration. The last 6 years has been a cancer eating away at the very fabric of what it used to mean to be american.
Phrases like 'truth, justice, and the american way' ring very hollow these days...especially to the rest of the world.
1984 was about the state controlling everything. In the current situation, the state is peering more heavily into everything we're doing because a lot of people are so afraid of Islamic terrorists that they're willing to give the state more power. This may or may not be a temporary situation, but the state obviously hasn't reached the level of control that Big Brother did in 1984.
As for corporations watching what you do, the real question is whether Microsoft checking to see if you're using a pirated version of their software is somehow going to affect your political rights, or if it is just a stupid move on their part that will only push customers away from their products. After all, you only have one state. You can choose software vendors.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Get some political interests
Sticking your head in the sand will not help. So pull it out, shake out the sand, and get involved. And I don't mean you should flip a coin, pick the red team or the blue team, and blindly follow them.
I mean that you should get active in holding your elected officials accountable for their actions, regardless of their party affiliation. Keep up on the issues and be vocal about them. Read and listen to opposing points of view and try to form and propagate valid opinions. Make sure your representatives know that someone is watching them, and follows what they do. If they lie, cheat, steal, or sell you down the river, nail them. Vote them out in the primary if you can, and in the general if you can't. Cross party lines if you need to, because you are far better off with an honest member of the opposing party than one of "your own party" who is willing to sell you to the devil for a few hookers.
And, for that matter, do the same with your news outlets. And your local ballot boxes. If we paid half the attention to keeping the system honest that we do American idol or celebrity babies, we wouldn't have this problem.
--MarkusQ
I particularly enjoy how I can't shop for good deals on my doctor-recommended loratidine with decongestant that I take every day for my allergies. Apparently, if I purchase more than 15 pills of 240 mg pseudoephedrine each in one day I am obviously running a meth lab.
I never knew. I guess the government knows me better than I know myself. Thank you, government, for stopping me from creating a narcotics lab that I never knew I wanted!
The peach situation baffles the hell out of me though.
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
So you won't see much at any one spot. Its thin and everywhere.
A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.
It's simple, its profiling or random checking for criminals. Even criminals have to buy food, and if they scan in their license there is a general known area s/he frequents.
The funny thing is that people are totally happy with letting companies and goverment track them. Every purchase with your CC is tracked. Every purchase with an "awards card" is tracked, and people are totally fine with this type of tracking.
Personally I think it will get to the point where you no longer just punch in for a job. You punch in to leave your house, enter your house, enter buildings, ride public transit and so on. it will be so simple, we all ready have a trackable ID on us. It would be simple too since they all ready do it with people on house arrest (talk into the phone and a device).
But with RFID it will be even easier, and less noticable.
TruePunk | Games
I was ID'd for a lighter the other day. Now, I am a bit younger looking, and I know that restricting lighter sales is the first step to restricting consumption of other products. In California, and at a Walmart, at that. The real issue that would make me start to worry is data aggregation. And that is where I think it all falls apart (knock on wood). If they could aggregate all the data of my purchases, communications, etc, I would be a lot more worried. If you ARE paranoid, a major step to eliminate tracking is to go cash only. Stop using electronic payments of any kind. Stop using grocery discount cards too. They track spending habits.
But again, data aggregation is key, and they don't have that yet.
Yes, everybody knows that. But when was the last time you triggered an alert over an apricot in a store? Come on, dude, don't be a fool. I agree w/GP, the guy is a demogogue.
"Big Brother" is supposed to be made of one entity which monitors and seeks to control people's lives and thoughts.
What the summary describes here is merely companies or the government trying to gather information, mostly for a commercial purpose.
These do not constitute a common group with a specific goal, but just different groups that have their own interests. Most of these do not trade information between each other.
However, it is true that the US courts have been asking sites such as Google or Yahoo to forward their user's information, so the tendency could be going towards such a centralized system.
If you're looking for systems in which people's actions and thoughts are restricted, China or USSR would be better examples.
And it's not even on the shelf. You have to take a card to the pharmacy and then show your ID. They want your phone number too. Like I need all that extra hassle when I feel like shit from having a bad cold.
I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
1984 is when the authorities catch a clue.
Or, as Benny hill once said in a sketch, "My dog likes to chase cars, but if he ever caught one, he wouldn't know what to do with the damn thing!"
Right now, the powers that be are dogs chasing cars, but they are close to figuing out what they'll do when they catch one.
Enjoy this moment while it lasts.
Mmmmmm... Bold, yet refreshing!
No, I'm not a libertarian.
I would be if they were balls-out scrappers for freedom and liberty for all humans. But too often they stop at property rights, and assume that a good round of deregulation and tax cuts will fix everything else.
Freedom and rights have to be fought for. The enemy isn't just the government; it includes corporations.
Human rights must come before corporate rights. Too many Libertarians I know seem uncomfortable with that.
So, which party to turn to? Right now, there's no clear choice. But for now, the first step is denying Bush the convenience of a rubber stamp congress.
That means holding your nose and voting Democratic this fall.
And stop being afraid.
It wasn’t really about the surveillance. That was merely a plot device. It was about a state of mind and the means to achieve that state.
In the superficial sense, i.e. electronic surveillance, much of what you mentioned has fallen into place over the past ten to fifteen years. And most of it has been implemented by commercial interests. As for the mindset? I, and I’m sure a whole lot of others around here, would say that the overwhelming majority of it has sprung up in the body politic within the past 58 months.
May you live in interesting times, comrade.
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Suppose we raise it to $60 an hour. Better? Would you still have a job?
OK, that's too much. Well, how many lost jobs are acceptable? Can you give a number? If we raise the minimum wage to $12 an hour and lay off 15% of the workforce, is that good?
More money is great as long as YOU don't lose your job. Everybody, even those already on minimum wage, thinks it'll be the other guy who loses his job or that some rich guy won't be so rich. Sure, and pigs fly really well.
To pay the cleaning people their new minimum wage, we can get rid of one web developer. The other guys can work overtime to make up the loss. Then again, maybe it's just time for the company to go bankrupt and get rid of EVERYBODY.
It goes the other way too. A smelly drunk isn't likely to get hired at $5.15 an hour, but his value might be above zero. He deserves a chance to work. The same goes for the fat girl with acne that makes people feel ill, the guy who stares inappropriately, the lady who has conversations with her knuckles... They all deserve a chance to work.
Orwell was writing about contemporary society. We have been living 1984 for a long time.
Test 1 2 3 4
30 Million People live on minimum wage because they are too lazy to do anything else. Seriously... anyone over the age of 18 that is still making minimum wage has made a conscious decision to just sit on their asses. If you want to make more money do better in High School... or sign up for a couple community college classes _and actually do the work_ (I see a lot of people sign up for those classes and _still_ be lazy and end up back on their asses at McDonalds)... or, in general, just make better decisions in life.
I don't think there should be _any_ minimum wage at all... let people work for what they're willing to work for. If the work and pay suck then people will try to do better... and if they're too lazy to do better then that's their own damn problem.
I'm so damn tired of this crap... people need to take responsibility for their lives... that's part of the reason we're in this mess. People have become so lazy and complacent that they want the Government to do everything for them... including figuring out a way to make them money. If we all took care of our own shit this wouldn't be a problem.
Sigh.
Friedmud
What needs to happen now is for people to understand what is going on. This kind of activity has a draining effect on society, basically sapping them of their notion of "freedom." Ask your neighbors, your parents, your kids, your peers: many of them will tell you that they don't mind that they are being treated like criminals. "Why worry if you're not doing anything wrong?" is the typical response. These people don't understand what "freedom" means. These days the word has come to mean "freedom to love America" when in fact it's the opposite we need to allow. So you can start by making sure the people you know, and others if you can, that if our freedom does have a chance of disappearing, and you need to educate them as to what that means.
I'm not saying that this is happening now, though. We're getting closer, but the real danger comes from people who will welcome it when it comes. The single most important battle to be won is in the battle of ideas - that's politics these days.
The other thing you can do is begin securing all aspects of your life. Try and use encryption over the internet; encrypt your emails and messages. Start using cash to buy stuff - the Japanese do it all the time; paying with credit or debit at a store is pretty much rare in Japan. Refuse to buy from the grocery store if they require your drivers license to prove you won't make cyanide when you buy peaches (are peach trees illegal now??).
But important: if you DO make a fuss, DO NOT LOOK LIKE AN ASSHOLE. This is probably what most of you are capable of doing. If you do "fight the man," please do so in an orderly, respectful, and unannoying manner. If you get asked for your license at the grocer's, don't scream about it - people want to get through the line. Simply refuse to purchase from the store, and explain to those around you that you are being asked for your driver's license to buy peaches. The worst thing that can happen is for your ideals to be tied in with obnoxious behavior (this is what happened to liberals).
Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
must avoid starting a tangental flamewar... must avoid starting a tangental flamewar... must avoi... oh, screw it.
How come 30 million people have to try to live on $5.15 an hour?
Because 29,999,999 other people also have a similarily qualified skill/opportunity/motivation set and will work for $5.75/hr.
If a minimum wage exceeds the real value of a minimum-wage worker, especially in the case of a nationally-enforced minimum wage, you'd just be playing leapfrog with inflation that constantly creeps up to drive the real income of a minimum wage worker back down to what their work is actually worth to the market. That inflation would also have the effect of making everyone's savings worth less and less (not taking into account interest, which would mitigate the effect to some extent.)
This is not to say I'm for throwing out the minimum wage or other such "minimum" labor laws. If you cut out the floor, you end up screwing people over throughout the chain by allowing people willing to be underpaid to undercut, and thus lessen the value of trades and push out more qualified workers who actually wish to make a living. (Okay, so I do have somewhat of a protectionist streak to me as well.) Until some better structural solution (and don't give me any fulla'-holes 'isms) comes along, the only real solution is to keep the minimum wage at the realistic value of minimum wage work. At the moment, folks seem to think "$5.15".
(No, I'm not an economist, and yes, I welcome you to shoot these arguments full of holes, especially if you can provide links to informative material.)
Wait... what were we talking about?
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.
When's the last time you read 1984? The fact that you can post this question on Slashdot, that you can go to a store and have a selection of products (and have the money to pay for them), even the fact that you have a girlfriend suggests we aren't living in the totalitarian "future" of Orwell's book. Orwell was reacting to Stalinist Russia, and we're about as far in the opposite direction now as you can get from that-- it's a lot more like the capitalism-run-amok chaos of a Gibson or Dick novel.
Hell, many of the examples you gave are about corporations trying to peg exactly who you are to market to you, not some Big Brother entity who wants to enslave you. I would even venture to say that the powers-that-be aren't really afraid of outspoken political speakers any more. It's become so easy to express your thoughts to the world, and there are so many people doing so, it's almost impossible for one person (no matter how charismatic or persuasive) to sway enough opinions to matter.
I could be wrong, and the jackbooted thugs and black helicopters could be waiting around the corner... But I don't think so. I think the reality is everyone just wants your money. And they want your data, but only because it will lead them to your money.
If EVERYONE refused to comply with such absurd rules when purchasing stuff at stores, the stores would lose business.
Let me play Devil's advocate here:
The 'free market' ended in 1930's for the same reason 'anarchy' ended in the stone age: a single strongman will fuck up the playing field for everybody by assimilating, subjugating, and repressing everyone else (while getting even stronger in the process). To take it to extreme, in a 'free market' there is nothing to stop some asshole buying a nuclear weapon, then collecting 'protection' money from you and me. There is nothing to stop GSK from patenting antibiotics as a concept, then charging $10,000,000 per pill. So what that 50% of children will not survive to adulthood (a la 19th century America), that's because they are too lazy to do anything else.
Yes, the free market is the best possible scenario, except that human nature being what it is, the market will quickly degrade into something horrible if completely uncontrolled.
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
If you're interested in reading the account of someone who started out pretty much where you are, except that he's an attorney specializing in constitutional law, you might want to check out How Would a Patriot Act
From the back cover:
--MarkusQBecause everyone knows all the minimum wage jobs are the easy ones... Strawberry picking, aspalt laying, etc aren't hard at all
You should visit some public high schools in poor areas some day. Hard work won't change that drugs are rampant, gangs rule the hallways, and you can't get a real education.
Maybe you should go talk to real people that are poor. Two parents working two full time minimum wage jobs have trouble supporting a family. It may open your eyes that even though hard work can often result in success, for those in impovershied areas, or for those who are born with disadvantages or into a disadvantageous situation, hard work is necessary for survival, and that is often barely achieved.
You're the one that needs to get real and realize that not everyone is born with a bevy of opportunities, and it's not easy to succeed, even with hard work.
Obviously, you didn't read it carefully enough either. This is interesting, since you seem to feel quite superior to the rest of us that think it's a very relevant piece of work.
Surveillance and control are intimately linked. Once you remove the barriers against observation, you also remove the barriers against control. This would be one of the main themes of that entire book.
It is very relevant because in our hyper-informational society, it is becoming easier to surveille people than ever, and information is being used *against* us as opposed to *for us*.
The government should not be able to leverage what you do in your private life, what you do with your property, what you do with your money, against you, as long as you're not harming anyone else with your actions - and even when we do harm other people, we have institutions in place to protect ourself against the government - habeas corpus, the right to not incriminate ourselves, etc. It's the government that should be transparent and open to surveillance - not the populace. This is, after all, a *democracy* where the people, not any autocratic police government, are in power.
If at any moment it is possible that you are being observed by someone - anyone - aren't you less inclined to exercise your freedoms? I certainly am.
this kind of thing has been in the works for quite a long time and in much worse ways than mentioned in the article... The USA tends to make laws to fight *symptoms* of problems and not to cure the problems themselves. This is a prime example:
d ept_id=7021&newsid=16606489&PAG=461&rfi=9
/. who believe in God (and to those who are willing to research God and the Bible with an open mind).
http://www.troyrecord.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=1170&
And I know some will scoff at this or think me nuts, that's fine. If you feel you must mod me down, that's fine too. I just want to throw out some food for thought to those who will care...
These kinds of actions (reactionary laws vs. teaching proper morals) along with the recent hurricanes and terrorist attacks all sound to me like God is warning the U.S. to shape up or prepare to face extinction as a nation. This would not be the first time in history He has done so. And I'm not talking about the end of the world or some miraculous event wiping out most of America. No, I'm talking about God's providence working to discipline those who refuse to obey Him.
And for those who are so inclined, read (or re-read) the books of the prophets... Over and over again nations are wiped out (particularly those with the *most* power and arrogance) and replaced by other nations as the dominating force in the world. And for those who are skeptical about the Bible's accounts of these nations, check archaeological history... Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medes & Persians, Greeks, Romans, etc, etc.
Let me be clear... I am not suggesting panic. Nor do I think we need any "John 3:16" signs like at the end of Ghostbusters. Just suggesting some serious reflection and consideration to those on
Don't forget the RFID tagged world that we are heading into. Companies such as Wall-Mart and several government agencies have been pushing hard to add RFID spychips to everything that we purchase. Soon we will be wearing RFID tagged clothing and shoes. Our wallets will have RFID tags in our charge cards and passports. We will be driving around in cars with RFID tags in the tires and elsewhere.
Each and every RFID tag will have a unique serial number and we will secretly be scanned when entering stores. Upon checking out our RFID tagged items we will show them our shoppers discount card and pay by charge card where our personal information will be updated in various computer databases. Who knows what personal information will then eventually be shared with credit agencies, advertisers and the governemnt.
As we drive around the country hidden scanners in highways will secretly log our movements at key points. And of course all the young people proudly carry their cell phones everywhere. I have heard that cell phones regularly transmit which cell tower they are closest to even when they are turned off. Only removing the battery or perhaps placing it in a Faraday cage would stop that.
If I understand correctly the USDA wants animal ID for all animals in micro-farms for every sheep, chicken, goat or other animal. That would most likely involve using RFID Tags to track your food. Perhaps they are afraid that that someone could actually buy their food from somewhere in cash without big brother having a record. There is an organization called NoNAIS that is opposed to those proposed rules.
Marketing researchers and the police will be able to inventory the contents of our garbage cans with hand held scanners without even opening the lid.
Many of us even have pets which have been RFID tagged in case they get lost. Some (but not all) Christians believe that RFID chips or something similar implanted into the back of the hands or our foreheads will be the "mark of the beast" described in the Bible. Even if it doesn't go that far, RFID sypchips could play a major role in bringing us into a "1984" like world. Add RFID technology to what other people have said and I think we seriously could be heading towards the future that George Orwell warned us about in the book "1984". Perhaps I should take my tin foil hat off now and just relax, this is still America after all.Am I the only one who isn't very alarmed by all of this? Everytime someone claims that 1984 has arrived and Big Brother is here (which seems to be about once a week) I have to ask myself, "Have any of these people read 1984?" Our society is so much better than 1984. I also highly doubt that it will ever get to that point. While our actions are monitored by everyone, we still have civil liberties. I'm sure that if anyone cares to look into the records, they would be able to learn that I hate Bush. Even so, I have yet to receive any knocks on my door from guys in black suits. We still have the right to assemble. No one is going back and changing the past ala the Ministry of Truth. No, 2006 is a long way off from 1984.
Does anyone else believe that life now is better than it has ever been in history. We have less war, less disease, people seem to be friendlier, open source is flourishing, crime is down. It's about time people stop being such pessimists and simply open their eyes to how wonderful the world is now.
Sure there is: If they price themselves out of the mass market, they wouldn't make any money that way.
In any event, a patent is a government-enforced artificial monopoly. In a libertarian paradise (which you appear to be substituting for "free-market economy"), they wouldn't necessarily exist.
If that was truly the case, then your sister would be the stupid one.
Wrong. I'm tired of the old Great Depression "free markets failed" bullcrap that many history books spew and a lot of people believe. The Great Depression was a normal recession made much worse by the Federal Reserve's mishandling of the money supply. Getting off the gold standard and switching to fiat money didn't help situations, as well as higher tarrifs.
But free markets did end in the 1930s, or at least became much less free. We have fiat money that inflates often. We implemented socialistic programs that didn't really help with the depression and arguably made it worse (World War II is what got us out of the depression, not the New Deal). Government went from very small to very large. We now mired in massive federal debt that only increases every year. Classical liberalism was thrown out in place of socialism and fascism, and now whenever people believe in classical liberal and libertarian ideas, they're written off as silly people.
Now, interestingly enough, some of the problems that you have stated are caused by the government, not by free markets. Patents, for example. Patents (and other "intellectual property" like copyrights and trademarks) are a governmental creation. I don't advocate getting rid of copyrights, patents, and other "IP," but don't blame the free market for that. I am a staunch free market supporter who also supports anti-trust legislation and other similar measures; they help keep the market free. (Being controlled by mega-corporations is just as bad as being controlled by big governments, in my book. However, governments hold a legal monopoly on force, which makes them worse, IMO.). But I don't believe in redistributionist policies. Perhaps we should focus on helping the poor in the marketplace instead of welfare. After all, if you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day; but if you teach a man how to fish....
"Two parents working two full time minimum wage jobs have trouble supporting a family."
I knew this would come up (it always does). I have absolutely _zero_ sympathy for either the parents or the children in this case. If the parents couldn't support children they should have made the right decisions and (gasp!) _not had kids_! Responsible decisions? What the hell are those? It is not my job to go around and fix everyone else's problems because they weren't responsible with their lives.
"But think of the children," everyone cries... the problem is that by artificially propping up families that shouldn't have happened in the first place we are teaching the children that they don't have to make responsible decisions either.... because the government will bail them out. This creates a vicious cycle where people become more and more dependent upon the government... leading us toward a complete socialism.
(Also note, that I don't necessarily think that socialism is bad... it's just not the society _I_ want to live in... and there are plenty of socialist societies to go around... so stop messing with my capitilistic society!)
"not everyone is born with a bevy of opportunities"
You don't know anything about me. My parents both just barely finished high-school... they worked their asses off to give my sister and I what we had... but it wasn't much. _I_ worked my ass off to do better and rise above what my parents had done, and I hope to instill that same work ethic into my kids so they can continue to increase their quality of life. When all of my comrades in high-shcool were off getting drunk and making babies I was studying and making good grades so I could have the things I wanted in life... which is the way it should be...
Friedmud
And so what? Why is it any of their business what you choose to put in your body? Whether it's meth or tide with bleach or patté (banned in many places now, ISYN,) it's no ones business but your own. Forgetting that basic principle and accepting the nanny state and the endless 'wars' (the war on (some) poverty, the war on (some) drugs, the war on (some) terrorists) is what's gotten us into this mess.
So far as the original posters question, no, 1984 didn't come late. 1984 was simply 1948, with a bit of embellishment. Today is even worse than you think.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
of course they will, which is why they should:
have you ever worked a low paying job? i couldn't find a minimum wage job if i went out and looked. i just grabbed a bite to eat at a small plaza that had 4 help wanted signs -- and i can guarantee they all pay at least $1 over minimum.
but go find a minimum wage job if you can, and see how hard you have to work at being lazy in order to not get a raise. your mind will be blown by the laziness of the workers around you if you have any kind of work ethic.
when i worked at a grocery store i was 16 (5 years ago). i started at 5.75 and got a raise every 6 months. i come from a upper-middle class family and in reality i didn't need that job. i didn't work incredibly hard at it, i just did what i was asked to and didn't complain. i was usually on time and i didn't go over on my lunch breaks. essentially the bare minimum.
i couldn't believe how many people, including those who seemed to need their job far more than i needed mine, simply didn't work hard. so many people were lazy, unmotivated, and dishonest. some people would even try to trick me into doing the work their manager had just asked them to (which they complained directly to them about).
you talk about raising the minimum wage like it is going to change the world -- it's barely even going to be noticed. the people who continue to make minimum wage will be making the new minimum, as lazy as ever. the extra dollars per month (yes dollars, not tens of dollars) will not be saved, but wasted like the rest of their money. then when your grocery store has to pay all of the lazy people more money, they will probably just fire one.
the only people woh will notice will be the one who is fired, and you when there is no one there to bag your groceries because there is a shortage of employees. you will probably blame the grocery store too.
-- lol pwned
1) Register error. There are things like alcohol that will flag a stop and check for ID situation, and of course it's controlled from the central inventory software. It's not like the register is concious of what you order, it just checks to see if item #X has an ID flag set. If it is, it stops the sale and asks the clerk to check ID.
2) He's making shit up to try and be dramatic.
I mean peaches certianly aren't globally restricted. We just bought some the other day, no problems, as I imagine millions of people did. You would hear about it if they were sending flags up all over.
As for check ID items, it's up to the store how far they go. Like with alcohol I've had the entire range. Some simply dismiss the warning assuming fomr appearnace I'm over 21. Some check my ID each time. At grocery and convience stores they are usually more carefuly. Some check the ID and enter the birthdate in the register, some have you scan it in a little machine that checks. The most extreme case I saw was at a Frys which is near the university and a couple of high schools, thus lots of underage purchaes. They check your ID, record it, and make you sign the book they recorded it in.
Basically it's the levle of CYA they feel necessary to not get fined/shut down. Fact of the matter is, someone will fool them and buy underage. Well if a fuss is made of it, the liquor board investigates. They then have to prove they took steps to stop that from happening. The liquor board deicded based on that if they were really trying and it was an honest mistake, or if they are being delibratly lax.
thus the response depends on the store, it's not government mandidated, the government just says "You can't sell to minors and you are responsable for taking steps to make sure you don't." Up to you to determine the kind of steps and the proof you keep of them so you can defend yorself if need be.
But ya, I am not seeing any federal peach crackdown here. If that's the case, we'd probably hear about it on CNN.
Just because a legal object may potentially be used for illegal purposes is not a "VERY legitimate reason you must show ID...". What's next? Require customers show ID before buying kitchen knives and baseball bats? What about computer equipment? After all, the computer might be used to "steal" copyrighted material.
In several Central European countries I've visited, crack pipes are sold at the local news stands. In these countries, posession of a crack pipe is not illegal; using it to smoke crack is illegal.
Morons don't continuously expand their Presidential powers, while ignoring (breaking) hundreds of laws designed to limit their power. You haven't read this Boston Globe article:
Bush challenges hundreds of laws?
Bush knows exactly what he's doing. Calling him a moron is simply underestimating his gross disrespect for your freedoms and the Constitution, and is a distraction from his intent to give himself more and more power while taking away your rights.
"Already many jobs require good credit."
As someone who recently got refused a job that I went to school for on the basis of my credit rating, I agree with you that things have gone too far.
Bork!
First : "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! " Patrick Henry
Second : "These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph." Thomas Paine
Third : "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions" --Samuel Adams, Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of 1788
Fourth : "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin
FYI, I am not a liberal. I did not like clinton, But I detest Bush. He has IMO clearly vioalted his oath of office
to preserve protect and defend the constitution.
Lastly,in response to your " I paraphrase the Administration spokesman here, I would rather the government collected my call records than my remains"
Patrick Henry was right, and americans today have become complete pussies to the point that most probably do not deserve freedom because they don't like the cost.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
What scares me far more than all of this gov't intrusion and monitoring of simple, everyday activites is the willingness of people to justify the intrusions. Go back and read all these comments. Even the Slashdot crowd, which is most likely smarter than your average random population sample, will denigrate the poster as a "demagogue", and come up with every justification for the intrusions (keeping cough syrup from kids or cold pills from drug dealers, catching terrorists, etc.) even if his point remains valid. Even they are willing to justify these ever-growing intrusions in the name of security.
//Seeker
What possible chance does personal liberty and privacy stand if the citizenry doesn't give a shit? We don't even need the gov't to force us -- our "patriotic" citizens are all too willing to play along. No one intends to willingly give up all their freedoms. They just remain complacent and ignore it long enough for the intrusions keep escalating until legitimate dissent is no longer possible.
When history looks back, I wonder how we will be judged. Will historians shake their heads and cry at how we so willingly lost the very freedom that once made our country unique? Or will gov't intrusion have gotten so bad that questioning any gov't policies, even past ones, will deem the citizen "unpatriotic" and a "threat to his country"?
What do you think?
"Naturally the common people don't want war...That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along...All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."
Herman Goering
Nazi Reichsmarshall and Chief of the Luftwaffe
Germany, Third Reich
During his trial at Nuremburg, before he was hanged.
Back then, someone like a town gossip or a social hub could have tons of information on almost everyone. But it was very broad and not very deep.
Now its ALL the EXACT financial data, utilities, shopping, library checkouts, phone calls, medical records, etc etc etc. Oops, we lost all your banking details! Oops , the laptop w/ the veterans medical records got stolen! Oh you're using an abnormal amount of power for your presumed guilty assumed hydroponics lab, prove you are innocent. It doesn't even take an imagination (luckily I don't have one).
You need to get the chip off your shoulder and stopping judging others. Just because you think you had it hard doesn't give you the right to judge a billion other people whom you know nothing about.
You also need to stop worrying about a vicious cycle that leads towards socialism. The natural order of things is that the rich increase their power and concentrate their wealth. Things like tiered tax rates and the minimum wage are checks on the ability of the rich to take complete control of society. We institute these things to create a stable society which benefits everyone. Your moral indignation about someone getting a handout is more of an emotional response than an actual threat to capitalism.
"Ghandi and King both worked in the open against unjust laws, and they won--by being in the open. If you're too cowardly to do whatever it is that you do out in the open, then you shouldn't be doing it."
Neither Ghandi or King masterbated in public.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Being WILLING to work for less to do what you love is completely different than being FORCED or WANTING to be in that situation.
YouTube & Google Video -> podcast http://castcluster.blogspot.com/
Here's a hint: More than half of them aren't even old enough to vote if they wanted to (and if they were, they'd be statistically unlikely to vote anyway). The minimum wage is a heart-string issue. The Democrats tote it out to get emotional votes out of the section of their base that hasn't engaged their brain. It's the Democrats' version of school prayer.
wow.. you just trod all over your own argument.
that leaves 15 million people who are earning below poverty wages who are NOT dependents of others... in other words they NEED a living wage and are not getting it.
I have news for you people who complain about welfare leeches... half the time these people are pushed into that because if they make above a certain level of income.. they will be denied welfare, but their jobs will make them less than welfare!
maybe if you raised the minimum wage, their jobs would make them more than welfare and they would not feel compelled to remain unemployed.
So no.. it's not "the democrat's version of school prayer", it's a valid issue of exploiters paying sub-poverty wages, then lobbying for a "free market" whenever there is a push to raise those wages to a point where people can.. i don't know.. buy food AND a pay rent at the same time?
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
If i was required to enter that information just to pay in cash at the self-chekout, i would have been leaving the item on the scanner and be going to another store.
I realize what they have when you pay with CC, but in a case like that, they would have lost the sale, with me at least.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
(This is one of the surprisngly modern parts of Christianity, btw -- "and what you whisper in shadows will be shouted from rooftops" and all that.)
If you are less inclined to exercise your freedoms when you are being observed, well, then you probably are confusing "excerise your freedoms" with "break the rules of good behavior". Please go back to kindergarten, I think you missed a few lessons on how to operate in civilzied society.
Spoken like someone for whom "civilized society" has always been synonymous with "my own cultural mores". Ironically, that culture only survived to become a mainstream belief by carefully protecting its privacy amidst a larger, often hostile society. The fish symbol which car owners and companies use to advertise their Christianity today was originally intended to do the opposite, as a passcode to help Christians keep their beliefs secret from observers who might do them harm.
The fundemental difference between the novel 1984 and todays society is that we are not locked away for openly disagreeing with government policy. Sure our behaviour is recorded, which I despise, but we still have free speech.
You would rather think that X is true -- even if you know that X is not true?
As Dilbert once said to a girl while on a date after she said she believed in something that most of us know to be crazy, "since when did belief become a substitute for fact?"
Why should elected officials give a damn about you? Look at Congress: they have a 92% re-election rate. If you had an "A"-grade chance of re-election, would you be particularly-concerned with what a few of your paranoid, nuttier constituents think? Of course not. If you care at all about your constituency, you follow what the majority wants and give it to them: pork-barrel projects and security from whatever boogeyman-of-the-week may be.
Elected officals have very little incentive to look out for you or your freedoms. The history of the U.S., to say nothing of the history of virtually every other nation in the world, ought to be evidence of that. And the history of un-elected officials is even worse.
Go start a religion if you cannot handle reality. You can't handle the truth. But to answer the question: there's nothing you can do. See below.
I am between the ages of 18-25. Do I qualify as a member of the "new generation"?
If I do, then I can say that the sort of post-9/11 pro-security, anti-privacy, anti-freedom paranoia is rampant among my generation. We saw 9/11 and said "where's Big Brother to save us? We've got to do whatever it takes to stop all terrorism!!" (yes, I actually had one person my age say this to me) -- as if that is somehow an achievable goal. I make my usual libertarian arguments, and I occasionally find people who are sympathetic, but by and large, people my age don't give a rat's ass about privacy, and will routinely make fun of privacy-minded people (like me, natch).
Terrorism is the new communism, and it's easier to be blinded by emotion than to run life through the filter of rational, critical, unemotional thought, and so the fear of terrorists overtakes the fear of information abuse that results from invasion of privacy.
Of course, over time -- and by that, I mean over the course of 3-4 years or more -- I find more and more of them very-slowly coming to the conclusions about privacy I came to a decade ago; only, I came to them deductively and predictively, not reactively; I haven't yet been severely-burned by a lack of privacy, whereas some of them have. ("The best revenge is living well", I suppose.)
But none have approached my level of distrust for authority (whether government or business), and I'm not nearly as paranoid as many people on Slashdot: I don't wear tinfoil hats, I don't route my Internet traffic through Tor, I don't reject the advancement of RFID chips in ID cards (although I vehemently oppose national ID systems, such as the U.S.'s REAL ID Act, and the national IDs of most other nations around the world). I no longer GPG-sign my email, and no longer run a node for encrypted, application-layer-routed P2P network. I use encryption whenever possible, but I don't demand that friends and family use PGP/GPG, nor that they use encrypted IM clients. They will never adhere to such demands, and requiring them would leave me friendless.
All my most privacy-conscious friends/family are computer geeks; all my least privacy-conscious friends/family are (largely) computer-illiterate. I do not believe this to be a coincidence.
The truth of the world is that you cannot trust anybody until they prove themselves
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
As far as your example of Gandhi. What the hell are you talking about? Gandhi was a public figure, yes, but he didn't peek into everyone's bedroom did he? No. I think you are confusing the issue.
A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.
President bush has done the equivilent of crossing his fingers behind his back while signing 800 bills into law. He has absolved himself from having to follow these laws, and then goes in front of the public (as does the republican congress) applauding this or that new law knowing full well he has no intention of following it. One of these laws he has not agreed to follow, is a law stating that congress must be told about the people he is wiretapping, and they must be told about the people he arrests. He has absolved himself from following the geneva accords as well. Does anyone remember the Gulf War when 1000's of soldiers surrendered to American troops without putting up a fight. The reason they did this, is because we had the reputation as a country of treating our prisoners well. Ask yourself how many 18 year old American kids are going to die in the future because we no longer have that hard won over 200 years reputation. For sure that number will be many more than the number of people who died in 911. Of course it doesn't at all matter to president bush and his ilk. Wealthy people's children don't go to war. And just a question for all you Christians who support bush because you feel he is a god fearing man. Exactly how many people would Jesus torture. Exactly how many people would Jesus kill using torture. We have killed God knows how many people (bush won't say) and we have arrested and tortured God knows how many more in secret prisons around the world where bush can torture them with more ease, because our soldiers who ARE REALLY GOD FEARING and have some conscience, aren't in charge. bush gets up on his podium and crows about how many people he has released, but he fails to note that those he released were absolutely INNOCENT for Gods sake. Final note to all that read this. Once the president is allowed to ignore any law he decides is in his way, we are not anymore a Democracy, we are a kingdom. Scary, HUH?
"I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned: they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there."
"Many can't go there; and many would rather die."
"If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."
"I will be called to account for my actions."
With the expectation that you will be judged by the totality and the context of your actions.
With enough data, if you _pick and choose_, you can create a circumstantial case, insinuate, change appearances, and more or less make up whatever suits your preference.
You make the assumption that God will be Fair.
I guarantee you, however, someone going after you for being a political opponent wont be.
Lets just take the words in your comment and play with them a bit, and see what a quick pick comes up with.
"I'm a communist. I work for the Soviet Union, Communist China, and Cuba. I'm observing the kindergarten every minute of every day."
Ouch. Just your own words rearranged a bit, and that really makes you sound like someone that should be monitored closely, if not actually locked up at once. Wont somebody think of the children.
Now imagine the case that could be constructed against you at whim with unlimited data available.
Yes. Whatever status quo will be by the time those new born citizens is when they are age of 6 ot 7 is what they accept as normal and standard. Changing little by little, the system can change considerably over long period of time, and most of the people don't even realize what has been changed, or are already accepting the status quo. All it takes a small change per year and over long period the change is huge.
All it takes is generation or two and the standard of whats normal personal freedom could be changed completely from what it is now to something totally different. Computer is your friend. And what kind of invasion of privacy and personal rights we consider now unacceptable will be perfectly normal in 2100 and majority have accepted it as a normal practice, and consider our fears about that kind of future just Paranoia.
©God
True, but the Soviet Union
(a) existed
(b) was defeatible
Terrorism
(a) is neither
the idea that for the last couple of years America in particular has been headed for a total repetition of Nazi Germany is a forgone conclusion so utterly obvious that it barely even warrants mention.
If that were the case, then you'd be cooling your heels in a cell somewhere, wouldn't you?
My grandfather did time for protesting a war by handing out leaflets at an induction center in Atlanta. in 1915. If GWB were even as much as an authoritarian as Wilson, let alone FDR, then most of the people denoucing him as a would-be Nazi would be unable to do so. What do you think would have happened to someone who marched down the street in 1944 with a sign that said "FDR = HITLER"?
There are things that this country has done in overreaction to 9/11 which will eventually be reversed, but you're not going to help that process by going off the deep end with rhetoric that makes you easy to dismiss as a fool.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
At the local Walmart, I had to show ID to buy school glue. No kidding, Elmer's School Glue, and whipped cream--the kind in the spray can. Some stupid law trying to prevent kids from buying things they might bet high with. Geez. The kids don't buy them, theswipe them from their parents house. Morons
Creative Spelling Copyright (2002). May use without Persimmons
When 1984 was released something very close to or having the potential to be very close to what is described in the novel had just been defeated, namely Nazi Germany. Its nice to think of our very plump little lives being the target of some mass conspiracy, but the reality is most of us are not worth the fuel for the imaginary black helicopters that are following us. For some, I suspect this is even more terrifying than Big Brother.
Assuming a very conservative 2.5% annual inflation (and believe me, it was much more than that in the first decade) over the last 23 years, that $3.35 would have to be about $5.90 just to keep up. With a (probably more accurate) 3.5% average, it would have to be $7.40. And now Congress is debating a raise to $5.75? I'm not entirely a bleeding-heart liberal (although I do consider myself relatively progressive), but that's just pathetic.
You can argue that minimum wage isn't supposed to be a living wage, it's just a starting point, blah blah blah, but the point is, there are a lot of people who don't see the point of even trying for a minimum wage job because they can't afford the child care or transportation or whatever that it would cost them to hold the job in the first place.
You save only 59 seconds over 8 miles by going 75 instead of 65. Do you really have to pass that guy? Do the Math!
Technology makes it easier to collect and process information, but not necessarily to observe in the first place. It's subjective to say whether it's used against or for us. It falls to our elective representatives (hopefully, rather than the unelected judiciary) to decide what uses should be pursued. And the majority of the people want the government to be clever and resourceful in finding terrorists and other criminals who prey on the people.
The people exercise their power through a government of representatives (ignoring the judicial usurpers for now). And while I agree that the government, in general, should be transparent, niether criminal investigations nor military intelligence gathering can be transparent and still function. And the people overwhelmingly want those things to function. Again it's a basic fact that without observation, there can be no enforcement of law, and so no freedom, and no enforcement of the laws through which the people express their power. And the more life, both public and private, moves into the virtual domain, the more it is necessary to move observation into the virtual domain as well for the same reasons. Not to change the nature of the observation, just the setting.
I am certainly not. What good is free speech if no one is listening? And if the government wrongly wants to outlaw what I want to be freely do, I would rather do it defiantly than secretly. If I really want to say something privately, I use x-im.
Your comments would make more sense if cigarette's where illegal vs regulated. Cigarette's are dangerous for your long term health and the degrade your short term health but they are "safe" to use on the short term because of regulation. Similar numbers of people smoke pot and cigarette's. They pose similar long term risks however because pot is illegal we increase the users risk significantly.
s _5_25/ai_102102598
Yes, quiting cigarette's is a pain, but plenty of people do so. However, if cigarette's where illegal the risk of short term use would go way up so many people might never get a chance to quit. Not to mention the legal and social ramification of illegal drug use vs Cigarettes.
EX: LSD is vary risky to use but much of that risk stems from contamination and unknown dosage levels instead of long term continuous LSD usage. The term "bad batch" means someone/group was used as a lab rat and found out that the LSD is mixed with some other random harmful substance. Regulated substances don't have these problems.
PS: When somewhere between 1/3 and 2/3 of young people have tried POT it's hard to think making it illegal is doing much good.
"According to an October 2002 Time/CNN poll, nearly half of Americans (47 percent) have smoked pot at least once. Gallup polls indicate that a greater share of people have sampled the drug over the last 30 years or so, but not to the level reflected in the Time/CNN survey. According to Gallup data gathered in 1999, 34 percent of Americans admitted trying marijuana, up from 11 percent in 1972 and 4 percent in 1969. (Perhaps to elicit honest responses, those polled were reminded that all of their answers were confidential.) Furthermore, phrasing the question in the following way, "Have you, yourself, ever happened to try marijuana?" seemed to imply that usage could have been inadvertent or that the smoker was somehow not responsible for his or her action." http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4021/i
Now those statistics might be higher if pot where legal, but it was legal for well over 100 years and apparently few people where having problems.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Big Brother lives by the same rules as the rest of the world. The most important of these is that manpower is expensive. This means that if people, on an individual basis, take extra time (only a minute or two) to fufill requests for information or call and ask some questions of a live person, then modern management will go nuts. Companies and organizations concentrate hard on reducing headcount and making things work more efficiently. Managers up and down the line are evaluated by these measurements. Bottom line employees are too. If you are in a grocery store and the checkout person wants some personal identification for some peaches or anything else, take an extra minute or two to give them the information. It's not hard, just ask a couple of questions about why they want it and make sure the explanation is clear.
This type of behavior causes lines to grow a little bit and things to run a little slower. Computers will notice this sort of thing and flag it. Does it mean the store has a lackadaisical manager who isn't hiring good people or is letting them slack off? The same applies to government organizations.
Much data is collected automatically. There is not much that can be done about that. However, the government has a different, but similar weakness. If you find the government is collecting some piece of information and you wish they would stop, call your representative or senator. Don't complain, just ask for an explanation about why it is needed. Insist on a good explanation. Elected officials have staffs and they cost money. As in most things some staffers are better than others. If voters start chewing up more staffer time the elected one will become unhappy. Hiring more staffers reduces quality which tends to give callers more bad experiences which leads to bad publicity.
Big Brother's weakness is that of every other organization, the bottom line, whether it be money or influence or elected position. Every organization stares at its bottom line for lack of a navel. It takes very little change to catch their notice.
Tristfardd
Only an idiot would attempt to run a meth lab by grinding up Sudafed. It's way too expensive. It's better to just order a bunch of ephedrine from a chemical supply co.
Maybe you haven't made meth recently, but you can't do this anymore, unless you want an unmarked van suddenly following you around.
Teenagers don't make meth, organized criminals make meth.
Most meth doesn't come from these sources
The source components used to be easily bought via chemical supply companies until the government wisely closed that loop. In response, many millions of cases of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine-containing pharmaceuticals were suddenly stolen off trucks, shoplifted, and bought...across the entire country. You think teenagers were behind that? Wrong. Organized crime. The US drug czar recommended that these drugs be put behind the counter, but the pharmaceutical industry lobbied otherwise. They finally lost that battle, but in the meantime, they were making tens of millions of dollars and they knew goddamned well that the population of Podunk Kansas wasn't legitimately using 100 cases of Sudafed every week.
In the late 90s a journalist from Seattle was investigating the rise of meth-related crimes in the region and discovered in charting them, that the rest of the US was mirroring the rise and fall over the course of a few years...upon investigating further with the FBI, he found that this pattern matched the availability of meth, based on wholesale supply, organized disbursement, etc. In other words: lots of cheap quality speed = lots of crime from the desperate junkies.
The reason this is different from crack, heroin, etc, is that a junkie can smoke $10 of crack in 1 minute, but $10 of speed can get you high for a day or so. It's easier to establish a habit at cheaper prices. I've never heard of methcathinone junkies, so something tells me that even though it's easier to make, it doesn't hold the same allure to speedheads.
They're trying to "stop a problem before it starts" or something.
The problem started 15 years ago. Perhaps you prefer pumping millions of dollars into the pharmaceutical industry so MORE junkies can come steal your TV and sell it for $10.
coughcoughPROHIBITIONNEVERWORKEDcoughcough
In this case, it has, as it's harder to mass produce meth and fewer people are turning into meth junkies. Are you suggesting the all drugs be legalized?
Cliff writes The sad state of affairs is that Big Brother probably became a quiet part of our lives a lot earlier. The big question now is: how much worse can it get?
That is completely the wrong question. The question is NOT how much worst can it get, the question is when are we going to doing something about it! When are we going to stop accepting and starting refusing?
Asked for identification when buying peaches?!?!? Fucking blow me, Bitch! Raise a fucking stink, in a very loud voice tell the clerk you won't provide ID so you can buy peaches. Make the clerk get the supervisor/manager and explain what an asinine policy they have. Show up every day with a shopping cart full of stuff plus eight peaches, then when asked for ID say no and just walk out.
Fucking Christ on a crutch! Get a god-damn backbone, America!
If the govt becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law, it invites man to become his own law, it invites anarchy
So what you are saying is this: a society which brutally represses 98% of its population is a natural hierarchy if the people at the top of it call themselves kings and barons, but it is an unnatural one when they have titles such as Chairman and Member of the Supreme Soviet.
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
Very well said, MoneyT....I was this close to posting something very similar when I saw your missive.
I think people are used to thinking of credit cards as "their money" since it's become so interchangeable (many folks in the larger cities use them exclusively) with cash and, frankly, often easier to use (I'm thinking of things like pre-pay gas pumps and the like). But as you note it isn't their money, they're borrowing it...and that's why the credit card companies want to keep careful track of what you buy. The bank does the same thing when you get a home loan, as you would expect when you're asking for, say, $300,000....it's just more jarring when it's for a $1.59 beef stick.
Ferretman
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
You sir obviously need to start seeing life from outside of your white picket fences. Because I can tell you first hand your entire arguement is based on opinion. Im posting AC because I was a meth junkie/dealer for about 2 years, until I was arrested and charged with trafficing. I dispute every single thing that you have said.
Maybe you haven't made meth recently, but you can't do this anymore, unless you want an unmarked van suddenly following you around
It took the cops a year and a half to finally have something on me. My house was set in a middle school parking lot, and they noticed nothing until i got stupid and starting screwing up at school (I was a straight A student until I started abusing meth, now I cant even go to college). You obviously overestimate the DEAs intelligence.
Teenagers don't make meth, organized criminals make meth.
Actually I know of more than 1 teenager that does infact make meth. I could give you three in my area alone. Organized criminals might be the supplier but they are usually the middle men, most meth these days is made by junkies operating out of hotel rooms or their own homes. Not mobsters or hell's angels or what have you.
The reason this is different from crack, heroin, etc, is that a junkie can smoke $10 of crack in 1 minute, but $10 of speed can get you high for a day or so. It's easier to establish a habit at cheaper prices. I've never heard of methcathinone junkies, so something tells me that even though it's easier to make, it doesn't hold the same allure to speedheads.
This whole paragraph is totally and completely wrong. A junkie can do any amount of their drug within 2 minutes, this is the biggest reason for overdoses. Junkies think they can handle anything that is on the table in front of them. $10 of speed was enough to get me though a few (read: 2 or 3) hours maybe. Even when first starting I was going though easily over $150 a week. By the time I was arrested I was going though roughly $150-$300 a day. That sounds anything but cheap to me. As for the methcanthinone thing it may be be what the junkies use but it works great for dealers to cut meth with.
The problem started 15 years ago. Perhaps you prefer pumping millions of dollars into the pharmaceutical industry so MORE junkies can come steal your TV and sell it for $10.
This problem has been around a lot longer than that. Hitler was a well documented meth freak. It was a different name in that era of time but the chemical makeup was basically the same. Whats wrong with trying to stop a problem before it becomes an epidemic?
In this case, it has, as it's harder to mass produce meth and fewer people are turning into meth junkies. Are you suggesting the all drugs be legalized?
This is just complete and total bullshit. Its actually just as easy to produce meth. Certain chemicals might be harder to obtain but they can always find something else to use or find a different way to have it supplied. As for fewer people turning into junkies I just want to know where you got this information from. Because everything that I have seen from on the streets to in the media shows that meth is quickly turning into crack of the 80's or pot from the 60's/70's.
And all drugs should be legalized and taxed, much the same as alcohol and cigarettes. That aughta knock that national debt out pretty quickly. Its worth a try and the worst that could happen is the government discovers that this billion dollar war on drugs could turn into a billion dollar income from them.
For the record I did serve time in jail and have only within the past 3 months regained some of my "freedoms", I only wish that I could have voted against bush in the last election....
Thank you.