Slashdot Mirror
US Intelligence Chiefs Urge Easing Of Spy Rules
The US admninistration is not looking for this law change to enable them to "Better fight the War On Terror". The truth is that the US Administration need the law relaxed because they think that it will then make it easier for them to get a retrospective law change that may further help them to crawl out of a rather deep set of legal and constitutional holes that they currently find themselves in. You see, the Dubya administration has trampled all over the laws of the US and the Constitution itself and they have, as seen in the video, admitted it along the way. The problems they now face are coming from all directions such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation's successful application to sue AT&T for handing over phone records without a warrant. The President has already blocked one investigation into his conduct regarding this issue and now they are looking to srike down all others before they even get started.
It worked so well in Italy, for Berlusconi. If you break the law, just change the law, preferrably retroactively. You can stay out of jail for a long time like this.
My blog
This GOP mandate of power needs to be snapped.
More at 9.
"I may be full of crap about this game, and I may be wrong, and that's fine." -Jack Thompson
Not voting is the same as a vote for the various (accused) incumbents.
stuff |
But at least include a link to the story the summary is about. What law, which chiefs, where is this being reported?
There's no new article here at all. I know just about all of us hate the wiretapping, but this is just a political jab and not anything substantive. You should be more professional than that- repost this with at least an update of the AT&T v. EFF case or something...
Just "gittin-r-done," day after day.
There were still a barrier between the NSA, CIA and law enforcement. Back before Bush, even if they spied on you, you couldn't be prosecuted with the information the intelligence agencies got on you using their "special spook methods." Now, people have a good reason to worry.
All things considered, nothing that Bush is doing will end Islamic terrorism. The harsh truth is that yes, there are millions of good people who are Muslims and do no support terrorism. There are, unfortunately, far more Muslims who are at least sympathetic to terrorism than there are religionists of any other persuasion. These are not people that we want in our borders--period! But... we can't know a person's heart, so what do we do? I say we end immigration from Islamic countries. Allow them to come over on a guarded visa that is routinely checked up on to work for a few years, but then they have to go home.
Look, the only way to fight Islamic terrorism without falling prey to more of it at home, and not violating the rights of our citizens, non-Muslim and Muslim alike, is to keep new Islamic immigrants out of our country. There is no fundamental human right to live in a country of your choice. This is not an ethnic thing as I'd have just as much problem allowing a white Australian who admitted to being a Muslim come here as I would a Saudi. The only two countries I could see getting any sort of exception might be Albania and Turkey.
All religions have violent pasts because for a long period of time, the world was a truly brutal and uncivilized place. It's gotten reasonably better in most parts. We can overlook the Islamic jihads of old out of respect for the crimes of the state churchs and all other official religious bodies. A complete religious Tabula Rasa for the 21st century. Unfortunately for one religion, it's slate will get smeared in the blood of non-believers in oh... *looks at his watch* probably within the next hour thanks to a certain state-supported religion's believers.
But come on... The big scary Democrats are going to call it the "Dubay" adminstration and giggle while the world goes to crap... That's it, That's your plan? It didn't work in 2004 (or ever). what makes you think it will work now? I have a better idea... lets all stop bickering and elect people with IQs above 70 (all officals in both parties not just the president) and that repreent our real concerns (not ones made up every two to four years as needed) I would like a world (non Mad Max if I had a choice) to leave to my children. All polititians suck, contribute nothing, have too much power and they only care how there actions afect themselves in the extreme short term.
I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
Mark Twain
... oh forget it. I was going to come up with some 'clever' parallel where other people want to make their jobs easier and sloppier.
The point of current law and regulation for government powers to get information and investigate is to ensure that the interests of civilians are preserved and balanced against the needs of the government in doing its job. What they are saying is that they can't do their jobs without even more easy and invasive permissions.
Maybe I'll be modded down for this, but I think I'd rather see another 9-11 than to see what is happening to the way of life we have enjoyed until now. But frankly, if we just stay out of their business and stop backing Israel, I think we'd have little to no threat since this is ultimately what this boils down to in the first place... that and oil which could be, I'm sure, managed in other ways. We're capitalists after all.
And while I'm on the subject, how about we punish the president for his flagrant violation of law before we move to change it. If we make murder legal today, that doesn't mean we need to free yesterday's murderers from prison does it? If we make speeding on our streets legal, does that mean speeders should get a refund?
I'm still somewhat baffled as to why there is so little focus on the violations that have occurred and the blocking of investigations.
Better make it 8:15, or better yet, 8:20 for the parent. You're scheduled for an interview at 8:00 and we'll need time to clean up the blood.
The real nightmare for people like the current President and some of his friends must be that to be safe, they must find a way to hold onto power for a long time. This has been the problem that has led to gerontocracies in places like fascist Spain, China and parts of the Middle East. But the US is not a dictatorship, it is a pluralist federation, and the possibility exists that in the revolution of the political cycle the time will come when a US government will indict a member of the present Administration for war crimes. Of course it could never happen...but the British and the French both once executed a monarch and the British allowed the deposition of another in what they called the Glorious Revolution. Perhaps, just as Putin has clawed back Russian oil from the kleptarchs, one day a US Government strapped for cash will start to go after the plutarchs.
A British Prime Minister, Harold Wilson,once famously said that three weeks was a long time in politics. I'm not sure that the present generation of politicians are thinking as far ahead as that.
Pining for the fjords
At risk of stating the obvious, YRO means "Your Rights, discussed here, online". Slashdot is more than just technology, dig?
qntm.org
The modern Republican party is based on opposing Liberalism (though it opposes it with another kind of liberalism). It is a reactionary party, despite recent efforts to call it something else -- and the Democratic party has better do its damndest to not fall into the same reactionary mold. The entire basis of conservatism is fighting against liberalism.
As to electing intelligent people, that's not the solution. There are plenty of very intelligent people in office who do terrible things, or allow terrible things to happen. What's needed are people who are motivated by the public interest, and not by games, self-promotion, and party-promotion. They need to be sufficiently versed in history, economics, and political theory. The ability to treat subjects rationally is a must.
When every candidate meets those criteria, we can have meaningful elections based upon the views held by the candidates. Then again, this will NEVER happen, so we have to play the hand we're dealt... and frankly, I can't see a clear way of cleaning house while the corporate world is married to the political one.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
It is a reactionary party, despite recent efforts to call it something else -- and the Democratic party has better do its damndest to not fall into the same reactionary mold.
Unfortunately they already have. IMHO there is very little difference between the two major American political parties anymore.
>>The big scary Democrats are going to call it the "Dubay" adminstration and giggle while the world goes to crap... That's it, That's your plan?
This is a tired accusation that came straight from the mouths of Republicans. The reason why it appears that the dems don't have any ideas is because they don't have the numbers to put bills on the floor.
I'm not saying that the dems don't have their problems, but they're generally not part of this wholesale removal of civil rights.
Know what I like about atheists? I've yet to meet one that believes God is on their side.
I think you're oversimplifying the Republican election victories of the 50s and 80s. A good deal of Eisenhower's success was based on limiting spending and the size of government as a result of the unprecedented growth seen under Roosevelt. That's not to say fear of communism didn't play a big part, but when you consider Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs fiasco, not to mention the other Democratic presidents, like Johnson, in that period, I think that fear crossed the political aisle.
Reagan was more a result of combined weak foreign policy and stagflation under Carter than anything else. It's not like the fear of Communism went away during Democrat presidencies and was brought back to life during Republican ones. It was an overarching theme present and understood in both parties.
The modern Republican party is based on opposing Liberalism (though it opposes it with another kind of liberalism).
I assume you mean classic Liberalism, and I agree. However, that's not to say that the Democratic party is based on big-L Liberalism. While the Republicans have grown more reactionary as of recent, the Democrats are growing in the extreme opposite direction. What we're really talking about is bases; the Republican base is extremely reactionary and the Democratic base is the opposite (I don't really consider progressive to be the opposite of reactionary). While there are plenty of people that associate themselves with the parties and not the bases, it's the bases that by and large determine candidates. McCain and Giuliani are not liked by the Republican base; I'm not sure that Clinton would be acceptable to the Democratic base anymore.
--trb
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
In other words: When you have no choice, it doesn't matter.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Frankly... they should do something about that perception then. If I (who would vote for them just to oppose our current path) think they are jerks, how are they going to win any undecided votes?
I would love to see some sane legislation from anyone... but it seems that is not possible anymore.
I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
Mark Twain
Most people don't understand the background. The U.S. government has been helping oil companies in secret since before 1950, and that has led to an expectation by rich oil investors that the U.S. government will lower the cost of doing business by getting the U.S. taxpayer to pay for security arrangements. The U.S. government secretly, or semi-secretly, breaks the law, kills people, including Arabs and Muslims, and and destroys the property of anyone who stands in the way of oil and other profits. Here is a short summary of the kinds of actions that have caused the U.S. government to be corrupted: History surrounding the U.S. wars with Iraq: Four short stories.
The U.S. government is in dire circumstances. Money is being taken from the people and given to the rich in enormous quantities. See the old article, U.S. Federal Deficit by Political Party. See how much things have gotten worse since then: National Debt. Oil and weapons investors profit: Cost of Iraq War.
See a short review of books and movies about conflict of interest: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government.
It's far worse than these short references say.
While I don't agree with everything Parent says, it's a logical and well-reasoned arguement. Certainly not flamebait.
Moderators: "I disagree" is not the same as "Flamebait".
True, but the Republican party capitalized on the fear of Communism far more than the Democrats did. Democrats were decried as weak-on-Communism all over the place, and their liberal sentiments were labeled as Communistic. Their reaction to this is one reason why the two parties are so similar today.
It's my cynicism showing, but the bases are greatly manipulated by the people in power. A two-party system with corporate/political control of the media means that the electorate is largely powerless. We're not in the age of political bosses anymore, but the bases have far less say in who runs than most people imagine... the preliminary funding has to come from somewhere, right? Also, bases change. A lot of the red-state rural base used to be Democrat based on traditional liberal philosophy. Kansas, for example, was a hotbed of liberalism in the early 20th century. The additional of social $[conservatism|liberalism] to the political mix has really allowed the Republican party to manipulate their base by revving up the fear of the 'godless liberal.' From what I've read recently, KS is one state starting to swing back, but examination of the methods used by the Republican machine in KS is pretty telling.
Anyway, both parties are now neither liberal nor conservative wholly. Both are interested in preserving the status quo (a conservative quality), but both also believe in large government (a liberal quality). The division now is not along classic liberal vs. conservative lines (ie, political) but rather social liberal vs. conservative.
I'm a little unclear as to what you mean by the 'opposite of reactionary.' Do you mean complacent, or pro-active? By definition, liberalism is pro-active (e.g., progressive). Which, if I understand you correctly, means that you don't consider the Democratic party to be liberal (which I partly agree with you on). But I wouldn't say they are complacent, either (anymore).
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
If you're going to start posting journal entrys without any links whatsoever on the front page, at least give us the ability to filter them out under the homepage options.
Seriously - first "Slashback", where they just re-post comments I already read, and now this?
Come on guys - nothing wrong with expanding on your formant, but some of this stuff is nothing more than fluff and we should have the option of removing it.
"War is justified, sometimes, but not since World War 2."
The U.S. government has invaded 24 countries since the 2nd World War.
I agree. United States politics is dominated by those who believe they are Christian and George W. Bush is Christian, and who vote Republican. Actually, they often aren't Christian, they are often only angry. The other side is dominated by weak, disorganized Democrat politicians.
You may consider it a tired accusation, but until people actually see ideas from strong Democratic leaders that don't revolve around hating Bush, you will keep hearing it!
I style myself as largely independant - although I have voted Republican since Reagan - mainly since I haven't seen a Democratic leader with a real, strongly articulated vision that didn't involve turning the country so sharply left it scared me as much as the Republican right does now.
As I mentioned in my post above, what this country needs is a strong moderate leader that is capable of bringing this country together, based upon a strongly articulated vision that doesn't call half the country stupid names. Nobody has a problem with strengthening this country's values - but the one thing that has escaped the Republican right is that we don't all want those values to be labeled with a religious name.
Personally, I don't really care which party this leader comes from, as long as he focuses on bringing us together, by emphasizing commonly held values that don't have labels attached to them. There are enough values we can call American that we all can agree on; the more devisive ones can be put on the back burner until we can settle the major international problems we have today.
If the majority of Americans in the middle had a leader that truly attracted moderate voters, he would walk away with the next election, regardless of his party. I think most of us are getting very tired of the far right and the far left both!
"Money is truthful. If a man speaks of his honor, make him pay cash." Notebooks of Lazarus Long, Robert A. Heinlein
I got the impression in the last election that the majority of people voting *for* Kerry were actually voting *against* Bush.
Comment of the year
give yourself a few seconds to absorb this: George Bush used his executive powers to block an investigation into his own actions. He wants laws changed so that crimes he's committed will no longer be considered crimes. He signs laws that congress passes, adding a statement saying that he doesn't really have to obey that law. We have a president who walks around with his fingers crossed behind his back. Let's all remember that Republicans have governed this country completely since 2000. Are you and your family better of now than you were in 1999? Do you feel safer?
You are welcome on my lawn.
Well what the hell do you expect us Democrats to do? We don't have a majority in the House or Senate, the Republicans haven't and won't listen to us, and any attempt to stop Republican policies from being steamrolled through Congress gets blasted as being obstructionist. There is NOT a whole hell of a lot you can do when you're not in control of any of the three branches of the government, it's like getting pissed off at somebody for not trying to destroy a tank with an M-16.
Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to conviction
Starting by voting incumbents (Democrat or Republican) out ever time their term is up will do two things. First it'll send a message to Washington that voting America is pissed off and until things really change they won't get the nice perks of staying in office. It'll also limit the amount of damage they can do and the amount of corrupting influences they can build up before we kick them back out of office.
While I like the sentiment, I think the more likely immediate outcome of this strategy is simply to remove what little restriant was left upon the most powerful political actors (that is, Corporations) who, of course, pay into both parties and so don't particularly care which of the two win. Besides the truly rare individual (Ron Paul, R-TX, for example), no politican on either side of the aisle has made a sustained effort to curb monied interests, and it's no surprise, considering that they all need to raise obscene amounts of money just to remain competitive.
P.S. I think you are pretty much right about third parties locally, and many of them are shifting to a local strategy and having more success (esp. the Green party, of whom I am no big fan, but they are more of an alternative than anyone else so far, what with the LP eating itself alive and all). Unfortunately, campaign matching funds and the like are tied to success on the federal level (I think its 5% in many states to retain ballot status), which drags the lion's share of party resources into a, as you pointed out, futile national campaign. But, who's to expect a fair fight anyways.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
Poster sighted outside University Gaming Club in 1999:
"Vote Cthulu 2000. Why settle for the lesser evil?"
I shit you not.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
We may have a chicken/egg situation. I don't think that either conservatism or liberalism are defined by the other, they're two separate political philosophies. However, assuming the country is populated with people whose want something politically in the middle, when the country swings one direction, there is necessarily going to be a larger proportion of people who want it to swing back the other way. Roosevelt had an unprecedented increase in government, a stereotypical Democratic presidency, and the majority of the country wanted smaller government, hence Ike.
Republicans focus more on protecting America than Democrats do, and this was a direct result of that. Had people been worried about invasions from Mars, the Republicans would have still done well because they're be talking about space based laser systems or some idiotic new approach to keeping America safe. As far as liberal sentiments=communism, the Democratic platform has, at least for the 20th century, had resolutions to issues that were closer to the tenants of communism than the capitalistic approach that Republicans typically take. In capitalism, some people get screwed...Democrats seem to want more than a fair shake for everyone, they want everyone to be protected. That could just be the capilist in me talking, but it's how I consider the 30s-50s to have developed. People even today can't seem to separate Communism the economic model from Communism (really, dictatorship) the political model. I'm not surprised people mistook the two back then.
Big L or small l liberal? Big-L Liberalism is probably closer to conservatism, at least REAL conservatism. When the Democrats were the party of the working class, they owned the rural base. Now that neither party is the party of the working class, social issues are at the forefront, and the red-states are primarily socially conservative.
Agreed.
Honestly, I'm not sure. Maybe I'm just not all that sure what progressivism is. IMO, the Democrats have become the opposite of classic Liberalism, whatever that's called.
--trb
what video? do you even read the shit you post
The only thing I don't know is how many of those had Dems as incumbents. So maybe I'm off by a margin of error as well.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
"He was a wise man who invented beer." - Plato
I have a better idea... lets all stop bickering and elect people with IQs above 70 (all officals in both parties not just the president) and that repreent our real concerns (not ones made up every two to four years as needed)
Ooh, and I want a copy of Duke Nukem Forever.
Have you ever wondered How to Take Over
Well, a start would be to come up with a real vision for where they want this country to go. One that is based upon common American values, not religiously based ones (whether pro or anti).
Ronald Reagan, whether you liked him or not, had a clear vision for this country that he was uniquely capable of articulating to the public. That ability, and that vision, got him elected. He wasn't called "The Great Communicator" for nothing.
If the Dems could find a leader that had an ability to communicate anything near like RR had, and they bothered to come up with a vision that he could then clearly articulate to the country (and one that had NOTHING to do with hating Bush - we know you do, and we're tired of hearing about it), then he could give the Republican Party a good run for their money.
"Money is truthful. If a man speaks of his honor, make him pay cash." Notebooks of Lazarus Long, Robert A. Heinlein
Just wanted to add that the national debt figures are understated. We also have a liability to Social Security (and other funds we've borrowed from internally) that need to be paid back, either by borrowing more money, or from the general treasury by means of regular budget items.
It's friggin' Harry and Lloyd (Dumb & Dumber) leaving IOUs (in this case, non-marketable "special issue" Treasury Certificates) in the suitcase to pay for what they want today, but without the funny bits.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Classic liberalism is: The search for new solutions to problems; the state should agressively seek to treat societal problems.
John W. Dean covers a lot of this stuff pretty well in "Conservatives Without Conscience" (Viking Penguin, 2006). A good read, and a ton of insight into how the conservative philosophy has been bastardized.
Just one more note --
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
This post doesn't even link directly to the issue described in the intro, and only makes some oblique reference to responses by the EFF. We don't even know what's being discussed. Way to go, Slashdot.
I thought the headline read US Intelligence Chiefs Urge Eating Of Spy Rules. That certainly keeps things secret!
> I seriously believe Osama and every other terrorist organization would leave
> us alone if we stopped screwing around in world affairs. We stick our nose
> where it doesn't belong, and THAT is what breeds terrorism.
I'm not about to mindlessly repeat the tired old "they hate us because of our freedom" mantra. But there's got to be a whole lot more to it than just our fucked up foreign policy.
Look at Latin America. The United States has been royally screwing pretty much all of Latin America for pretty much all of our history, To put it crudely; we were fucking them over harder than we ever fucked anyone in the middle east for a good CENTURY before anyone in this country, other than bible scholars, took notice that the middle east was even there! If foreign policy that amounts to detrimental screwing around in other peoples' affairs were what causes terrorism, than by all rights, we ought to see a hundred terrorists pouring up from Mexico for every ONE middle easterner who gets a stick up his ass about "American Imperialism" and other such claptrap. (Hell, something like a third of the continental US used to BE Mexico!!! That's more land, by several orders of magnitude, than the Israelis "stole" from the "palestinians". But Mexicans aren't crossing our border with dynamite belts to murder us. They're crossing our border with tool belts to WORK for us and to make a better life for themselves and their families!)
The fact that we DON'T see Latin Americans in general, and Mexicans, Cubans, and Colombians in particular, swarming north, en masse, to blow up our buildings, suicide bomb our nightclubs and pizza parlors, launch rockets at our cities, nerve gas our subways, and kidnap and murder our citizens; when they have FAR more reason to do so than any middle easterner does or ever did; say to me that terrorism is NOT a reaction to out influence in foreign affairs. It's a war between cultures, west vs. middle east. Maybe they don't hate us because of our "freedom", but they definitely hate us because of our culture and our values and the fact that we don't worship allah.
cya,
john
Imagine all the people...
Rant and rave for a while, and when you come back to reality, you'll realize that Bush is promoting the change so that he can do his job more effectively in the future. Passing a law now will not protect anyone who broke a previous law -- it just doesn't work that way.
While you try to paint Bush and his administration as a group of thugs that simply disregard the constitution whenever it suits their needs, you're quite mistaken. Knowing Bush's character and his record, he hasn't done anything that his advisers and lawyers would deem "unconstitutional". If Bush has a question about the legality of something, he's always asked Gonzales and his legal team to find an appropriate, legal way of accomplishing his goals.
While you may not agree with what he is doing (just as I don't agree with everything he's done since taking office), Bush is following the law. In the future we may find that his legal team's interpretations of the law were wrong (which is quite possible), and if that happens then he'll have to pay the price. But for now, you're just spouting off about policies that you don't like.
See me ramble on politics at http://fuzzy.blog-city.com/
Being nice works just fine, actually.
There are plenty of first world nations which don't go to war, and who nobody bombs. These are the nice countries. Canada, while it has been screwing up more often in recent years with it's indecisive politics (will we support American war drumming and general paranoia or not? I wish we could make up our collective mind. Seems simple enough to me, but nobody's voting for my opinion.), but Canada remains one of the nicer countries, and it does just fine on the world stage.
The British, as per your example, can't be well classified as ever having been a 'nice' nation. Half the world map was a pink piece of the British Empire for much of the 1900's and they've stalked cities with troops ever since I was born, (Ireland). There are numerous first-world nations which can't say the same and probably as a direct result do just fine on the world stage.
-FL
>>Frankly... they should do something about that perception then.
Isn't that what _all_ politics is about?
Know what I like about atheists? I've yet to meet one that believes God is on their side.
>>but until people actually see ideas from strong Democratic leaders that don't revolve around hating Bush ...are you familar with Russ Feingold? Then again, if you refer to what people see on TV about politics, they're never going to be well educated.
>>mainly since I haven't seen a Democratic leader with a real, strongly articulated vision that didn't involve turning the country so sharply left it scared me as much as the Republican right does now.
I'm failing to think of anyone that is further left than Bush is right. Bill Clinton????
>>Personally, I don't really care which party this leader comes from
At this point I'm afraid that even if you got a centris like McCain you'd still have too many evangelicals in the mix.
>>There are enough values we can call American that we all can agree on; the more devisive ones can be put on the back burner until we can settle the major international problems we have today.
I like that too but I don't think it work at the polls.
Know what I like about atheists? I've yet to meet one that believes God is on their side.
sry, is OT, but just had to say something
this is exactly what a slashdot thread should be like
no flames and was a good read
getting very rare lately
thx guys
I didn't say then leader was necessarily further left than Bush is right - its as much Dem's leaders taking the far left of the party's advice and wishes to move left that is scary, like the republican base to the right. Bill Clinton, I have objections to other than his place on the spectrum, I don't want to get into specifics anyway in this forum.
I don't know if any Republican can keep the far right outta the equation, even if he wanted to, nor could the Dems keep their far left outta things, either. We're in a pickle, I know, I really don't see any way to get a real moderate elected right now.
"Money is truthful. If a man speaks of his honor, make him pay cash." Notebooks of Lazarus Long, Robert A. Heinlein
The Democrats controlled the House and Senate for a couple of decades -- right up until Newt kicked them out. The Democrats treated the Republicans much worse when they were in control than they're being treated right now...
Stop whining. You (democrats) had your chance and you didn't do much with it...
See me ramble on politics at http://fuzzy.blog-city.com/
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Hello:
Having read many Slashdot stories about bugging, monitoring, spying, arresting, drm'ing, forcing flags (broadcast and pledge of allegience), and other topics; I sat down and had a chat.
You see, I had a chat with a wonderful friend. He's my childhood psychiatrist whom I still keep in touch with. After a few hours of both joy and tears, we came to some interesting and scary ideas that he and I wish to express here.
We, in the U.S. (and perhaps in some other parts of the world) are in a state of severe institutional Schizophrenia. We are also in a state of denial. And most importantly, we are **ALL** walking on egg shells.
He and I went over several ideas (far too many to tell all here). In the end, he told me that he's glad that he's retired from the professions and that he will be passing to the other side of the veil fairly soon. Here are some glimpses of his ideas.
We are very isolated. We spend more and more time on our jobs. We drive to and from work alone. We arrive home and pop on the TV first thing, often with barely a nod to our spouses and children. We often rush through meals without visiting each other.
We lose more and more of human contact. We contact more and more with machines. The TV. The Net. The bank machine. The headphones we wear even when we are out in public. The cell phones. He said something about the cell phones that just about punched me in the stomach. I't not human contact on the phone. It's a substitute of being there in person. He's listened to cell phone conversations and he immediately knew there is a big difference in the interaction between people on those than in person. It's one thing to be with your loved ones in person than to jabber on the phone while you are driving.
As we get more lonely and isolated, we lose confidence in ourselves. We also lose conscience of what we want of community. The community is just not there.
And this is just what many politicians want.
We are mallable.
And, most important, we are scared. And I mean scared. Scared to wet our pants.
We fear everything that ticks at even the slightest different tick then our own. We have no one to share our fear with. We've lost our closest friends. He told me that many people do not even have one close friend or confident to discuss their most inner feelings with.
Politicians love fear.
Politicians hate love, especialy mutual, community building love.
What also loves fear is domestic violence. In fact, all violence loves fear.
This brings me to the police. My psychiatrist has some friends in one or two local police departments in the Boston suburbs. Some interesting things have come up about the police.
The most common, and by far the worst calls the police get are those for domestic violence.
They, especially, among police work, are where the police see the absolute worst of us (society). They see this in and out.
Couple this with the rest that the police deal with. Drug busts where that innocent bystander may be an enforcer for the dealer or distributer with a shotgun or worse. Someone high on pcp or angel dust holding a child hostage.
Granted, both he and I agree that there are a few bad apples out there taking advantage and indiscrimately arresting or harrasing. However the lives of most police officers are built upon a necessary paranoa from dealing with the day to day work they are faced with.
I would like to conclude with something that he said about Bush. He apparently has done some research and found out that Bush Jr (the current President) has not received much intimate and compassionate love and afffection by Barbara Bush (his mother) during the first one or two years of his life (as an infant).
The first year or two of your life are very critical. How you are cared for and nurtured during those years can have significent impact thoughout your entire life.
Bush apparently was neglected, or at least not given much compassion, by Barbara.
Now you h
Cleara
The only problem with voting in people with IQ's greater than 70 will be that they'll be that much more difficult to crucify when they go bad. As long as our political system rewards those with longevity and a criminal mindset, there's not much we can do.
Remove all the lobbyists PAC's and special interest groups, then you just might get somewhere.
But he can't pardon himself... had Nixon lost an election, instead of resigning and being replaced by Ford, he probably would have been indicted over the Watergate coverup... And pardoning Nixon was one of the main issues people had with Ford... had he not done so, maybe he could have stayed in office.
In this case, though, it would require the Democratic party to come up with a viable candidate in 2008. If they nominate Mrs. Clinton, it would be tantamount to begging "please make us even less relevant than we are now!"
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
I believe you when you say we are at war with fundamentalist muslims. You look at Isreal and what is going on in the middle east, and you can see that.
The question is, if we are at war, why don't we name these people, put them on the FBI's most wanted list, and enlist every citizen in this country to get to work to capture or kill the "terrorists"? I mean when we cannot even define who the terrorists are how exactly can we win, or even know how to fight the war on terror in a way which isnt self defeating?
Fighting, without precision, is like whack a mole, and it can go on for decades. What is the point when we can capture all the terrorists? If terrorist is defined as militant islam, then the war is against militant islam, but if we have a war on terror, the phrase alone generates confusion. I'm not saying Democrats would do better or worse, but can we at least define the enemy and who we are fighting against?
By the way, moderates don't get elected usually because moderates don't crave power and arent as driven or aggressive usually. It's the extreme left and extreme right, or in general the extremes that usually seek office. Most everyone in this country agrees that we are at war with militant islam, and no one has ever disputed this, not the moderates, not the extreme left, or the extreme right. The dispute is in the way we are fighting it. If we destroy the house trying to stop the person from breaking into our house, in the end it does not feel like we are winning or won. Are we winning the war on terror? How exactly is a terrorist defined? If it a war against militant terrorists because theres plenty of terrorists who hate America and most arent muslim. Are we at war with only the muslim terrorists? Are we at war with the ideology of terrorism? Unless we can actually figure out what we are at war with and actually enlist the masses into fighting it, the result is people are at war with a queston mark. The results of the war are also a question mark. We don't even know if we are progressing. Do we feel safer?? We can't really rely on feelings, where are the facts?
We need strength, but we need the sorta strength that unites the country, and we need the sorta communication that everyone can understand. As things are right now, about 60-70 percent of the country don't know whats going on. That is a huge huge percentage. The people who do know whats going on, will go along with it because theres not many other options once the country is involved in it. But what exactly is the goal?
I don't think it matters if you vote for a Democrat or a Republican. There are conservative Democrats and conservative Republicans. The agenda is conservative because the Democrats and Republicans follow the same agenda, a conservative agenda. Do you really believe that there is some conservative global conspiracy? Groups of individuals from all parties all around the world are in agreement. Thats politics.
The majority of Democrats agree with the agenda and not the methods. Hilary Clinton is for the war, and so is John Kerry, they disagree on the methods. Most citizens are for the war, for Isreal, and for America, and we simply disagree on the cultural issues and methods.
There is a chance that Democrats could take the house. I think everyone see's that. I don't think Democrats can take the Senate.
If Republican don't get elected it won't have anything to do with the war. If Republicans arent elected it will be because it's the Democrats turn to be elected. The war will continue no matter who is elected because the war is already in motion now. The Democrats would fight the war just as Republicans would, with a few differences, perhaps we'd look better to the international community, and perhaps we'd follow the geneva convention, but believe me, the situations we are in now cannot be stopped. It's set in motion in the sorta way that it you can't just drop what you are doing in the middle of battle. We have to finish whatever it is we started in the middle east, if you look at the state the middle east is in now, we don't really have much of a choice now, we have to stablize it. The only difference is, Democrats would most likely have UN support.