FBI Edits Mission Statement: Removes Law Enforcement As 'Primary' Purpose

schwit1 writes with news that the FBI has altered their declared primary function from "law enforcement" to "national security." From the article: "Following the 9/11 attacks, the FBI picked up scores of new responsibilities related to terrorism and counterintelligence while maintaining a finite amount of resources. What's not in question is that government agencies tend to benefit in numerous ways when considered critical to national security as opposed to law enforcement. 'If you tie yourself to national security, you get funding and you get exemptions on disclosure cases,' said McClanahan. 'You get all the wonderful arguments about how if you don't get your way, buildings will blow up and the country will be less safe.'"

Comments

Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

We are a police state regardless of what the Obamaites would have you think.
 
And this isn't to say that the right was any better but Bush & Company was a lot more honest about what they were up to. The silence from the left is deafening.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[smittyoneeach]

Just own the fact that the cancer is more Progressive than it is partisan. The two-party gag is merely a ruse.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Tablizer]

Bush & Company was a lot more honest about what they were up to

Oh really? Most of the snooping programs people are complaining about now began or expanded under their watch (just after 9/11), and it took forever to find out where the waterboarding orders came from. You can thank Snowden, not W, for our current knowledge.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[SumDog]

Spying under Bush. Retroactive immunity with Obama plus he did nothing to stop the programs.

There is just one party in the US: Repubcrats / Demolicans

It's funny when I meet people who think voting still matters.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

What took you so long? We've known it's a police state for over a decade already. What is wrong with you?

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[cold fjord]

We are a police state regardless of what the Obamaites would have you think.

And this isn't to say that the right was any better but Bush & Company was a lot more honest about what they were up to. The silence from the left is deafening.

A "police state"? In what respect? Who has been sent to jail for making jokes about Obama? Who gets arrested for voting for the "wrong" political party? What is the nature of this so called "police state"? I would think it is about more than banning 32oz soft drinks.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is counter-factual and counter-historical. Republicans have always been about expanding both law enforcement and national security programs, including intelligence gathering, at the expense of civil liberties. This has been true going all the way back to Lincoln. It wasn't liberals planting spies among hippies, environmentalists, and other protesters.

The factual history is that conservatives have always bludgeoned liberals over the head with the "you're weak on security" club. With the rise of neo-liberalism in the 1990s Democrats figured out that if they just stopped protesting conservative law enforcement and defense programs, and went along, that Republicans couldn't claim superiority on domestic and national security issues. This is why Clinton and Obama have passed ridiculous law enforcement laws, invariably at the behest of a GOP-controlled Congress.

An expansive and powerful police state is the epitome of the conservative, Republican political platform. And this platform has been passively accepted by the Democrats too, because they know it's a losing battle. American society is ridiculously conservative. It's almost always been this way.

The GOP and DNC are not in collusion. There are very real differences in policies. But the American body politik is also crazy conservative. It's why communism spread like wildfire in Europe but couldn't get so much as a toehold in the United States, even among poor laborers. (Yes, we had the Wobblies, but they were quite tiny relative to other unions, which were all vehemently pro-capitalist, just like today.)

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[interkin3tic]

You can blame one party or another if you want. Personally I blame the voters. The stupid, stupid voters. An idiotic, ignorant, apathetic voter base is both necessary and sufficient to get bad politics no matter which party or ideology is in charge. Stupid cowardly voters who are willing to trade their real freedoms for fake security will get that deal from either party. Or independents for that matter. Someone will offer them that deal in order to get power. The party doesn't matter.

And frankly, I don't see how honesty matters. A thief who is stealing from me and is honest about it is only better when I can stop him. Bush et al didn't spell it out to the stupid, stupid voters in ways they understood. To me, that's still not being honest. Making an obvious lie to a child, when you know the child can't tell you're lying, that's still being dishonest.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Opportunist]

Two parties? Apologies, maybe it's the distance, but from over here in Europe it looks like the US has only one party with two slightly differing wings.

Seriously. If the main problem for the moderator in a political debate is to find some kind of tiny semantic difference in the position of the two biggest candidates, you know something is not going right.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Bengie]

We're on a slippery slope. Just give it time, nay saying the president will become a crime.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

"The silence from the left is deafening."

Liberals who elected obama are not left wing, the democratic party and liberals are naturally capitalist parties.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Opportunist]

You know the old saying, if voting could change a thing it had been outlawed ages ago.

Voting is nothing but the ancient art of legitimation. Every government needed some kind of legitimation to make its rule "acceptable", internally as well as internationally.

In the good ol' times, the emperor ruled as the son of some god, or as the appointed one of some god. However that appointment came to pass. He was the strongest, the best, the big warlord or simply the son of his father, who in turn was the strongest, best or his father's son, etc. Others ruled right in the name of some God, or in the name of some higher goal or ideal (the latter was especially popular after some kind of revolution). The latest fad now is appointment by the people. Which by itself sounds like a great idea, but let's face it, look around amongst your peers, notice just how stupid the average idiot is an realize that half of the people out there are even stupider. You could just as well let some kind of celestial fairy appoint your leader.

The crap about it is simply that those that want to rule the world are also the ones who are the least fit to do it. And until that changes, it doesn't matter at all how you appoint your leaders. They'll all suck.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[betterunixthanunix]

What is the nature of this so called "police state"?

Does being the world leader in imprisoning people count? We have more people in prison than China, North Korea, Iran, etc. -- and that is more people in prison period, not merely per capita.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to be pedantic, but it's more like a corporate/government/military partnership national security state.

But whatever we call it, it's a skunk by any other name.

The USA has been pwned hard, pity the citizens (can I call them that?) continue to be so well entertained that they haven't noticed... yet.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

How cute! You actually believe it isn't already a crime. Hint: it is.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Nerdfest]

There are 'papers please' sty;e checkpoints a hundred or more miles inland from your borders, in zones which the fourth amendment does not apply. Warrantless search and seizure has just been confirmed as 'legal' again last week. There are 'free speech zones'. The NSA ans possibly other agencies spy oin the people of the country and have threatened to blackmail 'extremists' with the information they find. Call it what you want, but I'm calling it a police state.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

1) Clearly you haven't been to the airport or crossed the border in YEARS.
2) The NSA is reading your email, monitoring your phone calls, keeping track of what websites you visit, knows who your Facebook friends are, out to 4 degrees.
3) Been pulled over for using a cell phone while driving, not wearing a seatbelt, or just asked for some DNA by the friendly police-escorted federal contractors?
4) Buy a couple ounces of gold. Buy a gun. Write or deposit a check for $10,000 or more. March at a rally. Expect to wind up in a database.
5) Walk down a big-city street and wave at all the cameras.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[ColdWetDog]

Two parties? Apologies, maybe it's the distance, but from over here in Europe it looks like the US has only one party with two slightly differing wings.

Wing nuts.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[cold fjord]

Does being the world leader in imprisoning people count?

Not really, no. A nation being termed a "police state" generally is associated with political oppression. It is drug use that has really driven up the prison population, and like it or not that isn't political crime. The question of the US prison population is getting more political attention, and maybe there will be some changes. Or, maybe youth will decide that drugs aren't the way to go seeing how it can turn out.

But to reiterate, no, it doesn't count by the usual criterion.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Forty Two Tenfold]

Godel was correct.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Opportunist]

"Police State" does not necessarily mean oppressive to the point where you don't dare to raise your head because you fear to lose it. All a good police state has to do is to ensure that whoever is in power stays in power by using just enough intimidation on those that would consider changing it a good idea.

A police state doesn't need to get overly oppressive as long as the majority of people accepts its rule. Nazi Germany felt like a fairly ok state to most of its people. No, seriously. Yes, it was a veritable nightmare if you were communist, or a yew, or gay, or ... well, or any kind of minority. It was simply the most extreme form of petty bourgeoisie. Think far right bible-thumping conservatives getting their way. It may surprise many that Germany was a very modern, liberal state in the 1920s. A bit like the US today, where we're currently moving out of the liberal years into the bible-thumper years.

And yes, a lot of people thought that the liberal "craze" went overboard and that the Nazis are ... well, not right, but hey, they're not THAT wrong, ya know? I mean, that liberal bull has gone TOO far and we need to get back a bit towards more sensibility and morals.

Sounds familiar? Maybe a little bit?

The police state of today is certainly not German 1934. It's far more subtle. First of all, the situation is not as dire (yet) to make people accept such drastic cuts into their private life as they had to back then. It's also far from necessary. People are much more easily directed today, as they are far less politically active than they used to be back then. People have a lot more to lose, and people who have something to lose are far easier cowed and steered. You needn't threaten someone with prison if you can threaten him with the loss of his job.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[FooAtWFU]

It's the distance.

The US parties may collude on a variety of things (like counterterrorism, or if you prefer, "counterterrorism") but they have significantly differing views on the relationship of the role of government to the citizenry and the economy. For instance, on the national level, the US Democratic party has been pushing for things like the recent health-care reform laws (for good or ill), additional environmental regulation, increases in the minimum wage, and other increases in taxes and spending which see the government taking a larger role in the economy, including transfer payments (welfare, etc). They also resent military spending as a rule. The Republican party pushes for less government involvement in the economy, lower/flatter tax regimes, market solutions to issues like healthcare and wages, and a regulatory regime which is not simply less stringent, but also more streamlined where it is in fact present (and they do not resent military spending, at least not as a rule).

Things are different outside the economic arena, true, but 2008-2016's top issues were, in order: the economy, the economy, and the economy. So.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[king neckbeard]

Drug use is a political crime. The criminalization of recreational chemicals have long been political, and the victims of such actions often differ substantially from the politics of those in power.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Kielistic]

A nation being termed a "police state" generally is associated with political oppression.

If by generally you mean: when convenient for cold fjord's trite arguments. That's not the definition of police state at all and you know it. You are obtusely trying to redefine police state to rely on something that you think you can deny.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's funny when I meet people who think voting still matters.

It's even funnier when I meet idiots like you who think the only thing to vote on is the President. I had a dozen items to vote on in the last presidential election, including a local Sheriff who won by 3 votes. (yes, three) I guess I should've gone around and convinced four people that voting is pointless, because this guy is a real ass-clown.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

notice just how stupid the average idiot is an realize that half of the people out there are even stupider.

even more stupid.
FTFY

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Forty Two Tenfold]

It is drug use that has really driven up the prison population, and like it or not that isn't political crime.

Really? Not the inconsiderate drug laws? Weren't they designed to stifle dissent? Still not a political crime? Still not oppression? You're still stupid.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

Corollary: American politics has NO left wing. We range from center-right to far-right. This is something non-Americans may need to get a handle on to understand an American when he/she talks about "liberals" or "leftists." They have never seen a leftist, and our politics are far from liberal.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[cold fjord]

Can you vote for marijuana to be mayor or president? No. Then it isn't a political crime.

There are aspects of so-called "victimless crime" about it, but not political crime. Drug use generates plenty of genuine crime, including crimes of violence.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[cold fjord]

The drug laws were passed to reduce illegal drug trade and use, not voting for the "wrong" political party.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[smittyoneeach]

they have significantly differing views on the relationship of the role of government to the citizenry and the economy

The debate between R's & D's is not "Should we get our Thelma & Louise on?", but, rather, who gets to drive.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree that "even more stupid" may sound more "proper," but seriously... who cares? "Stupider" makes just as much sense. And it's not like it's not in any dictionaries:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stupider?s=t

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[demachina]

How exactly do you explain the Republican passing Medicare D? That was there Obamacare, though it was more a scheme to throw money to their backers in big pharma than anything. Obamacare is a market solution to Health care.

The mammoth TARP bailout of big banks was a one one of the most massive interventions in the economy ever and it was Republican lead. Your thesis simply doesn't hold.

Democrats are throwing just as much money to defense and intelligence since 9/11 as the Republicans. Feinstein, a Democrat, and Leibermen a former Democrat were point men in giving away our civil liberties to the NSA and DHS. In case you haven't noticed most of the big wars in the 20th century were started/fought by Democrats, Vietnam being the worst of the lot.

There are a bunch of wedge issues the two parties differ on but they are mostly designed to herd people in to the two parties and make them think they have a choice wben really they don't. The wedge issues are unions, abortions, guns, gays. They are emotional hotbutton issues designed to divide people but yhey have very little to do with the stuff that really matters, who controls the power and the money (with the possible exception of unions). Reagan mostly broke the backs of unions and they matter less and less every day outside of government employee unions.

Republicans are traditionally friendlier to plutocrats but I seriously doubt there is much difference between the two in pandering to rich people. Dems tend to pander to Hollywood celebs and trial lawyers, Republicans to Texas oil men, but they are just pandering to which ever group of rich people will fill their campaign war chests.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Rockoon]

The drug laws were passed to reduce illegal drug trade and use

Trade and use is only illegal after the laws are passed which make trade and use illegal.

You are living in a circular universe.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Opportunist]

Thank you. Sadly, my English isn't as good as my Spanish, German or French. But I try to learn.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[demachina]

Joe Nacchio was sent to Federal prison because he had the balls to tell the NSA he wasn't going to let them spy on Qwest's customers, while ATT, Verizon et al just rolled over and let them do, and back then it was completely illegal, it was years later when Congress retroactively made it legal.

Nacchio is an unsung hero for having the balls to stand up to the survellience state when it first started and he paid dearly for it.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[bigfinger76]

Ha. Good one. Do you really believe this?

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

If by 'debate' you mean semi scripted pr events where they cover mostly social issues/identity politics, where all questions are screened to weed out hard hitters and the punditry declaring edtablishment candidates as winner no matter how hard they bumble.

I don't think we have debates in America. More like:

Moderator: "Do you agree with position A?"
Candidate 1: "Yes, but my opponant has a stupid tie.
Candidate 2: "I agree with position A and my breath DOESN'T stink unlike my esteemed colleague Candidate 1."
Moderator: Sounds good! Last one to the golf course is a rotten prole!

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

and the bushites are doing everything in there power to blame obama instead of bush who passed the law and started all this FUD with terrorists.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a word but using it is gramatically incorrect so you can never actually use it.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

because other countries like China and North Korea have the good sense to execute violent criminals...swiftly. unfortunately, they don't stop at violent criminals.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[cold fjord]

A problem was seen, laws were passed. New problems arose, more laws were passed. People tried to evade the laws, more laws were passed. It's quite linear.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[cold fjord]

I'd love to hear your theory. Was opium use outlawed to suppress the Republican vote, or the Bull Moose party vote? Was LSD banned to reduce communist votes?

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[demachina]

"It's why communism spread like wildfire in Europe but couldn't get so much as a toehold in the United States"

The U.S. was pretty left leaning during the progressive era and the Depression.

World War II and the permenent ascendence of the miltary industrial intelligence complex aided and abetted by J. Edgar Hoover, McCarthy, Reagan and friends who engaged in no holds barred witch hunt to kill communism, socialism, progressivism and unions. Back in those days "communists" played the scape goat role Muslim "terrorists" play today. In the World War I era it was "anarchists".

The problems with liberals and leftists in the U.S. were they were pretty much all pussies and they couldn't counterpunch with a master like Hoover. Hoover also had the power that comes from knowledge, and he had more knowledge than anyone thanks to all the files he had the FBI build on all of his enemies. If you think the NSA surveillence state isn't dangerous just look back at what Hoover did with a tiny fraction of the information the NSA has.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[betterunixthanunix]

1. It is well known that drug laws have been and continue to be used as tools of political oppression. One need only look at the arguments presented to Congress in the early 20th century during the debate on criminalizing cocaine, opium, and marijuana to see that these laws were intended to target certain unpopular minorities, especially black men. Much of the lobbying for the drug war has come from business interests and, disturbingly, from law enforcement agencies themselves -- literally, the executive branch using the drug war as a way to expand its own power.
2. Also typical of police states are the systematic denial of civil rights, the broadening of laws to the point where trials are pro forma only, and a vast and powerful police force. The USA exhibits all of the above -- the vast majority of cases never go to trial, defendants who intend to exercise their rights must wait years and are often bankrupted in the process, and it is rare for defendants to face only a single criminal charge. Additionally, laws are passed specifically to give the police and prosecutors greater authority to arrest and imprison people who would otherwise have walked free. Increasingly, paramilitary police teams are deployed at all levels of government to serve routine search-and-arrest warrants -- with the use of such teams being motivated by a focus on the safety of the police and the successful execution of the warrant, rather than on the safety of the public or the protection of civil rights.

In other words, the only reason we have to say that the USA is not a police state is that our police are more tame when compared to infamous governments like the Soviet Union. Sure, the police will face penalties if they cross certain lines when interrogating a suspect and sure, civil rights do occasionally matter to the courts, but at the end of the day we are a police state -- a mild one, perhaps, but a police state nonetheless.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Johann Lau]

There is no left and right in this - there are just two large groups of people misled by sometimes opposing "values". In all aspects that matter, they are exactly the same.

Put a pitchfork in them, they're clones :P

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[erroneus]

Not quite a ruse. It's just that they are both collectivists and their leadership is extremely beholden to interests other than the people of the US.

They are both beyond help and it's time for something new to happen. The old just doesn't work any longer and they are going to do anything and everything to hang on to what they have and fight changing anything at all.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[betterunixthanunix]

Marijuana is not the only illegal drug. Cocaine has a longer history of being illegal, and the prohibition of cocaine has been a pretext for arresting black men since it was first banned. The arguments for banning cocaine were not merely absurd, but shockingly racist, with claims about "cocaine niggers" being driven to attack white women and talk of how black cocaine users became more accurate with a gun. Southern police forces used cocaine as a pretext for upgrading their guns, claiming that "negro cocaine fiends" could not be stopped with a shot through the heart using standard police calibers.

Not only that, but despite the recent progress on legalizing marijuana, numerous other drugs have been banned -- including several that were simply declared to be illegal by the DEA before Congress even voted on the issue. So do not let yourself be distracted by marijuana any more than by alcohol, tobacco, or caffeine -- the war on drugs is alive and well, and the police are as heavily armed and as violent as ever.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol I was mostly correcting it as a way of illustrating the very point you were making. It wasn't an attack on you but like you said the average idiot is quite stupid.
It's easy to make mistakes and we all do. It's not that we ourselves are inherently dumb but we are inherently flawed and as you said, at least half of the population of the world is worse than you are and given your claimed languages and overall linguistic and writing ability I suspect far more than half of the population of the world is worse than you are.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[king neckbeard]

Making something illegal to arrest a certain portion of the public and their influence is a textbook political crime.

Drug use generates plenty of genuine crime, including crimes of violence.

Contraband status is what generates that.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[betterunixthanunix]

The drug laws were passed to reduce illegal drug trade and use, not voting for the "wrong" political party.

So why were the drugs made illegal in the first place? Maybe you are not aware of the history of the drug war, but before the 20th century recreational drugs were legal -- one could buy cocaine and heroin over the counter.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[godless dave]

The silence from the left is deafening.

Yes, the ACLU, Center for Constitutional Rights, and others have been completely silent. Wait, no they haven't.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[betterunixthanunix]

A problem was seen, laws were passed.

Indeed:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60B14F7345F13738DDDA10894DA405B848DF1D3

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[demachina]

I hope you are being sarcastic. Its laughable to blame the mess this country is on voters when neither party ever fields candidates that are worth voting for.

When someone does comes along who has principals and might be worth voting for the parties and the media quickly dispose of them one way or another before they ever reach a point they can do any damage to the status quo.

More typically great people who would actually make a positive difference have enough sense to realize its a total waste of time, really dangerous and they will probably be destroyed by the system before they manage to make a difference.

I'm kind of hoping Elizabeth Warren might prove me wrong but the jury is still out. A senator can do more damage than just about anyone other than the President but still 1 Senator can't do much beyond slowing stuff down.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[betterunixthanunix]

Opium was outlawed to prevent Chinese and Filipino immigrants from bringing their bad habits to the USA:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Narcotics_Tax_Act#Domestic_Background

I suppose in your world, oppressing a specific group of people is not at all political.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

Its laughable to blame the mess this country is on voters when neither party ever fields candidates that are worth voting for.

Neither party? There are more than two parties. It is entirely the voters' fault for voting for only two of the parties.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Eskarel]

Defeatist bullshit.

Voting works perfectly well, it's just not simple. Voting and policy have a related relationship. If policy will change voting then voting will change policy. If people won't change their vote over an issue then politicians won't change the issue based on votes. The core reality is that the vast majority of Americans don't give a crap about the NSA, certainly not enough to change their vote in the current political climate where the two parties are pushing contradictory world views.

For the most part this isn't surprising, the vast majority of the news time on the NSA scandal has been manufactured outrage about legitimate foreign targets and the repercussions of revealing the monitoring of those targets. There's been bugger all discussion about what metadata actually is, what it can reveal to the government, and what that means for regular people. People are also perfectly entitled, even if they actually understand all that, to not give a flying fuck.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[geminidomino]

FTFY

No you didn't. The adjective "stupid" has valid forms for both comparative and superlative.

Thank Bob, too. Could you imagine how many wasted electrons there would be in modern political discourse if we had to waste 3-7 bytes for every use? And they thought the bandwidth crunch was bad before!

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Pseudonym]

Didn't you read TFA? The US isn't a police state because the FBI has defined itself as being no longer the police.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[cold fjord]

You're a bit late with that one. Try this instead.

America's First Drug Epidemic 1850-1914

As more and more Americans patronized opium dens and became addicted, communities responded with alarm and concern, especially when women and young people were among the curious. Cities and then states began passing anti-drug laws. Opium use spread steadily east, until by the 1890s, opium dens were commonplace in American life. ...

As one turn-of-the-century morphine addict bemoaned, "At first, habit only binds us with silken threads, but alas! these threads finally change to links of strongest steel."

HISTORY of OPIATES

1903 Heroin addiction in the United States rises at an alarming rate.
1905 U.S. Congress bans opium.
1909 The first federal drug prohibition passes in the U.S., outlawing the importation of opium and opiates.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[cold fjord]

Opium was outlawed when women and children began partaking.

America's First Drug Epidemic 1850-1914

As more and more Americans patronized opium dens and became addicted, communities responded with alarm and concern, especially when women and young people were among the curious. Cities and then states began passing anti-drug laws.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[demachina]

Every third party in this country is aggressively suppressed by the two parties and the media. Its hard for third parties to get and stay on all the ballots in 50 states.

You see many candidates from third parties in debates? Perot and Anderson are the only two I can remember and Perot got there because he was filthy rich and made for good TV.

Only reason Ron and Rand Paul run as a Republicans is because they know they would be doomed to obscurity on a third party ticket and would never get elected if they didn't. That's the whole reason the Tea Party is infiltrating the Republican party because they can get elected running inside the two party system as parasites.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[ShanghaiBill]

The mammoth TARP bailout of big banks was a one one of the most massive interventions in the economy ever and it was Republican lead.

Let's look at the vote:
For TARP: 172 Democrats, 91 Republicans
Against: 63 Democrats, 108 Republicans

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[cold fjord]

Opium has a long history as an illegal drug in the US. The problem with it predates cocaine, as do the laws as I recall. The racism of the South in the US at the turn of the last century hardly needs any commentary. Laws against opium started becoming an issue when women and children began partaking.

People continue to use highly dangerous illegal drugs even when "safer" illegal drugs are available, and regularly destroy their health and lives in the process. The marijuana available today is far, far stronger than it was 50 years ago when it became a popular. Now as evidence continues to mount of its dangerous affects on the young it is being legalized even while tobacco use is being beaten down further and further. What madness.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Cryacin]

Vote Jack Johnson, NO! Vote John Jackson!

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Jane Q. Public]

but they have significantly differing views on the relationship of the role of government to the citizenry and the economy.

You're seriously out-of-date. That was the OLD government, 20 years ago.

Today, they're both a bunch of namby-pambies. The Democrat party gives lip service to the idea of reducing military, but they are now responsible for expanding our military presence around the world more than anybody else, ever. The Republican party has been giving lib-service to the idea of smaller government, but when it actually came to any kind of a fight, they simply caved. If you actually believed the lies on either side, these things would be an absolute mystery to you. But if, like most of us, you don't believe ANY of it any more, it all makes perfect sense and there is no more mystery.

And don't give me Tea Party guff, either. They aren't a subset of Republicans, and Republicans aren't really Tea Party. GOP has strictly prohibited support for Tea Party from all the major elections, and (as was all over the U.S. newspapers recently) they decided that if they want to win more elections they'll have to reject Tea Party even more, and run on the wishy-washy platforms they were running on 10 years ago. What a laugh.

It used to be, Democrats were the party of civil rights and social tolerance. Today, they have become extremely INtolerant. (Say anything about gays that isn't genuinely flattering in a crowd of them today, for example, and see how fast you get tossed out. That's not "tolerance", that's intolerance of anything but their pet points of view.) Obama has violated more civil rights than any President in history.

It used to be, Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility and small government. But they haven't done anything serious about the budget, and grudgingly allowed Democrats to "force them" (haha) to put this nation in twice as much debt as it was in just a few years ago. They haven't fought Obama's monetary policy. They haven't actually been trying (or not hard, anyway) to reduce government. They have just been going through the motions, so they can pretend that they did.

The only solution is to shitcan both parties. They have been WAY more trouble than they're worth.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Republican party pushes for less government involvement in the economy, ...

In the Republican party you should differentiate between the establishment, neo-conservative wing that pushes for more government (just for a different set of special interests) and the conservative wing that pushes for smaller government, etc.

The establishment, neo-conservative wing is currently still dominant in Washington, but they're getting a lot of push-back from the conservative wing.

Just sayin'.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Garridan]

WTF do you mean Bush & Co. were more honest? Obama demands laws to be rewritten to allow his unconstitutional policies. If that ain't transparency, I don't know what is! Yay, satisfying campaign promises! Change! Transparency!

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

tarp was paid back so it is irrelevant.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Jane Q. Public]

Haha. "Lib service." Bit of a Jungsian slip there.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[demachina]

It was designed by a Republican Treasury Secretary. I think his first draft was give me $800 Billion dollars and trust me.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[TheGratefulNet]

there is one party: rich, mostly white, mostly men, entirely well connected and ultra wealthy.

they look out for themselves. the rest be damned.

yes, the two-party system is a hoax. its there (now) to keep us in-fighting and to distract us.

it mostly works, too ;(

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

For instance, on the national level, the US Democratic party has been pushing for things like the recent health-care reform laws (for good or ill), additional environmental regulation, increases in the minimum wage, and other increases in taxes and spending which see the government taking a larger role in the economy, including transfer payments (welfare, etc).

You mean like Reagan in the '80s?

Really, it was only after Bush I took office that the current conservative mantra became "no new taxes, EVER." Trickle-down was the magic elixir for the economy, and we can see how that turned out. It's actually a trickle-up system we have now.

They also resent military spending as a rule.

Ah, there's the difference. Reagan never met a military budget item he didn't like.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[smash]

It's the same in most of the western democracies. They're all owned by the banks, and the public face is very different to the actual policy decisions being made.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[TheGratefulNet]

mostly, you have rich guys who are 'christy' (to use bill maher's term) and those who keep their christ in their pockets.

there are some diffs, but mostly, its nearly the same dont-rock-the-boat set of people. nothing seriously changes when power changes hands. the poor stay poor, the rich get richer and the middle class disappear.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[demachina]

It was a MASSIVE economic intervention none-the-ess which is something the GP said Republican's didn't do. The Bush administration indulged in massive picking of winners and losers during the whole crisis.

Lehman, Bear Sterns, WaMu and Merril Lynch losers.

Citi, AIG, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan, Wells Fargo massive winners thanks to Republican help.

You notice that the Republican Treasury Secretary came from Goldman Sachs and was one of the people responsible for lobbying to allow banks to leverage up to 30-1 so they would be doomed the second a crisis hit? And when the crisis did he he funnelled billions in tax payer money through AIG to keep his old firm from collapsing?

If Republicans were the free marketeers they claim to be AIG, Citi and Goldman Sachs would be dead now.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[cold fjord]

You really have no clue about the Soviet Union, do you? Take a little time to watch these.

A Portrait of Stalin: Secret Police
The Soviet Story - trailer (This is only the trailer. I suggest finding a way to watch the whole thing.)

No, the US is not a "police state."

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[fustakrakich]

So, on top of everything else, you are also a prohibitionist.. Figures...

Marijuana prohibition was explicitly imposed as an attack against non-whites. It is purely political and racist with no science behind it whatsoever.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[fustakrakich]

Oops, my bad. The real reason is primarily economic. Prohibition always increases profit margins and put the business in the hands of organized criminals.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[cold fjord]

1) People have faced at least the prospect of searches if no actual searches since the late 1960s and the epidemic of hijackings.
2) NSA isn't listening to phone calls or reading emails of more than a couple of hundred Americans. They do broadly collect metadata.
3) You seem to be saying that laws exist to enforce safety measures or outlaw stupid behavior. The DNA collection is ill considered, but voluntary. They are being sued.
4) I doubt it. No. Yes. No.
5) You mean the ones that stores use to catch thieves? Or the ones the traffic departments use to help control traffic?

You don't seem to provide any evidence of anything like this noted above:

Who has been sent to jail for making jokes about Obama? Who gets arrested for voting for the "wrong" political party?

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

The debate between R's & D's is not "Should we get our Thelma & Louise on?", but, rather, who gets to drive.

And whether there is any hanky-panky going on between them.

Fear not, though! once the republicans have eliminated every last sinner, God will magick^WMiracle away the debt, the terrorists, and simultaneously eliminate both cheap and expensive oil.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[cold fjord]

Making something illegal to arrest a certain portion of the public and their influence is a textbook political crime.

Well, the more clever portions of the public can outsmart them by not possessing the illegal substances. Tricky, eh?

That "non-possession" tactic is used for all sorts of things, like explosives, and counterfeiting equipment.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[cold fjord]

They were made illegal due to the social harms they were causing. The harm became widespread due to those substances formerly being legal and ensnaring portions of the population. Is that news to you?

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Aighearach]

Allow me to paraphrase...

Herp-a-derp!

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

Both sides are equally as bad. I don't recall Bush divulging the fact that the NSA was spying on us either. When it comes to political parties, they are all exactly the same and exactly as evil.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[cold fjord]

;) . . . Cough cough

Heavy pot use linked to memory loss, schizophrenia link

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Aighearach]

Probably because you listen to right-wing media, and they haven't told you yet what the liberals are saying. ;)

I guess if you hear "silence" from "the left" you probably assume that moderate centrists like the Clintons are "the left." LOL

The deafening silence is from the CENTER. Both ends of the spectrum are freaking out. Which makes sense, since they wrap and the crazy meets on the far side.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[cold fjord]

Prohibition is a complex subject, but it did result in a significant decrease in alcohol usage that lasted for decades after it ended.

Did Prohibition Really Work? Alcohol Prohibition as a Public Health Innovation

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Aighearach]

Well, to be fair, any foreign country is going to look that way. Just like Americans see one France, one Germany. Or these days, maybe even one Europe! And you see one USA.

If you think Kucinich and Bush look like they're from the same political party, it just means you don't know anything about them.

And if Obama is trying to make a bunch of center-left changes, and Congress is dysfunctional and little change happens, and we have enough Democracy that the President can't make changes by himself without the other elected officials, then to foreigners who mostly only the see the end result, the final policy, it might look fairly consistent over time. But that just means you don't have very much information, not that the different forces are the same.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[CodeBuster]

2008-2016's top issues were, in order: the economy, the economy, and the economy.

Too bad Obama didn't get that memo. Instead, he wasted precious time on disastrous health care reforms, idiotic foreign policies (aka the "Russian Reset"), inappropriate forays into racially charged domestic news events and a host of other non issues that were either much less important than the worst economy in a generation or simply not important at all. The President should have been focused on the economy from day one in 2008, but instead he took his eye off the ball and fiddled while Rome burned. He was far more interested in ramming through health care reforms quickly, during the brief period of time that his party controlled Congress, regardless of how crude or ill considered, than he was about plight of the American middle class. Obama will be remembered by future generations as the President who presided over the destruction of the middle class, paralyzed by his own ineptitude and blinded by delusions of grandeur. The only consolation is that the people who voted for him, the young, will live long enough to regret it as they face diminished prospects and a bruising fall down the economic ladder climbed in previous generations by their parents and grandparents.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Aighearach]

You probably want to spell it "Christ-y" to keep the y from softening the i. Especially as popular as Christie is these days.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Aighearach]

I'm just glad I got to live to vote for the first black President!

Long live President Clinton!

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think the NSA surveillence state isn't dangerous just look back at what Hoover did with a tiny fraction of the information the NSA has.

The danger isn't in the information, it's in what you do, with or without it.

Why do you say it's the NSA surveillance state, when up until someone recently told us about them you had no idea what they did. For all you know, some other group has them beat and has all along. It could be the XYZ surveillance state and you don't even know it, right? Does it matter?

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

The reality is between your two opinions. Drugs are used as a tool for scapegoating, but (some) drug use also has inevitable undesirable effects on people's psyche which lead to crime, regardless of legality.

A perfect example of that is the alcohol fueled violent crime problems we have here in New Zealand and Australia. Alcohol is legal, and yet one only has to walk down a bar street on a Friday night like Karangahape Road in Auckland to see the misery it brings inciting people to street violence. Cocaine and PCP incite similar psychotic behavior, regardless of their legality, and opiates like heroin induce fixative and dependent behavior.

If drugs were just just harmless fun, aside from the illegality, as you suggest, they wouldn't be such a problem. I haven't seen massive outbursts of street violence caused by pirate dvds or people prostituting themselves for xbox games. It is not the illegality that drives people to craven behavior.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

Who gets arrested for voting for the "wrong" political party?

They don't get arrested because the vote doesn't matter.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

In China they don't send people to jail for making jokes about Obama either ;). Maybe your rulers are quite confident and secure in their position so they don't care about people making stupid obama jokes.

There are people who lied to Congress and there don't appear to be any repercussions. So one also wonders who your real rulers are.

Voters in China don't get arrested for voting for the wrong political party either - there's only One Party. Ok it's one fewer than your voters beloved Two Parties- but maybe the US voters should try voting for an actually different party some day if they really don't like what is going on, instead of voting over and over again for lesser evil and whining that evil stuff still happens.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

well, it shouldn't have been.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[jeff13]

I think you mean how European traders used Chinese and Filipino immigrants to sell the stuff with their idea of smoking it with tobacco.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct! It's not simple. It's pretty hard. Real fucking hard! It's hard, to understand the depth and history of any specific topic, related to a specific location in the US, compared against the social totality of the US. Politicians don't want to do that. US society, and more importantly, the Media, doesn't want to do. At ANY cost, they don't want to do that.

Progressive? There are hints of in the US. That is all! Hints! Who is looking out for the next 50 years? Hell, who is looking out for the next 10 years? NO ONE! It is who is in power now, whatever the cost, with whatever needs to be said to stay there.

And you want to tell me the voter can change that? Unlikely. The common voter has no more inclination about learning the depth of any specific legislative issue than what most Congressman and Senators do. This whole thing is a facade. The sad part is we've captured this on film, and audio, of our elected officials evening saying so, acting so, and the voting public white washes it. Why? They know the truth. They know it's a farce. They know it's too fucking hard to do what's needed. The vast majority do, anyways.

And those that do act? What do we see? We see the extremes. The anti-progress! The anti-science! The anti- religious equality, sexual equality, human rights equaltiy! You and I both know the score. And it's a damn sad state of affairs, and damn right scary in the long term! You and I both know that! The difference is, I accept that possibility! You, do not!

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

So to prevent them bringing a social problem which was known to be causing massive ills in China and the Philipines. Was it to prevent Chinese and filipinos? no. Then your argument has no merit.

It's too bad they failed, and the US now has massive opiate dependency problems. Opiate addiction ruins lives whether or not the law gets in the way. The US law approach to opiate addiction is probably not helping matters, but to say the government should stand by and do nothing while this social plague ravages the country is totally idiotic.

I suspect the ban on LSD has far more political basis than the Opium Act (which practically every country passed some variant of). Sure there was a wave of filthy hippies, but the clear and unambiguous evidence of causation isn't there to link LSD causing filthy hippies and communism, unlike the overwhelming evidence that opiates create junkies.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

Vote Jack Johnson, NO! Vote John Jackson!

There always was just one party; the inner party and the outer party. One must think of this Party as something you can come to trust and love -- as an Uncle or Big Brother -- who's concerns are to look out for what's in your best interest.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure he has.

cold fjord works for the NSA or another TLA as a paid shill to post flimsy, whimsical justifications for the US police state. If you spend enough time on Slashdot you get familiar with his pathetic attempts at legitimation.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

We have the finest government money can buy

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Burz]

What silence? ....And which Left?

Don't count mainstream "New Democrats" as the Left. Please. They love the growth of Finance and Police powers (and the exemption of the former from the latter) about as much as any Republican.

If we look at progressive politicians, and moving to press and social commentary, sites like democraticunderground, dailykos, commondreams, thinkprogress, The Guardian, Huffington Post, Raw Story, TruthOut and so on have been quite vocal about mass surveillance. A preponderance of Left-leaning politicians sponsored the USA Freedom Act.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[VortexCortex]

Voting works perfectly well

In the absence of Gerrymandering, perhaps it might work sometimes -- depending on who counts the votes, how susceptible they are to manipulation by the powers that be (Oh goodie! digital votes, why not ask the NSA directly who should win?), how un-tainted the media is, etc. You're silly for using the term "perfectly". Voting hasn't ever worked perfectly well, or even reasonably well.

The congress critters are in someone's pocket, and it's not we the people, those that aren't compromised are marginalized by the media, there's just too much evidence to ignore that. Really, if you look to see the root of any great political change it comes from public outrage, not election day votes. Go be an activist. Oh, right, they know how to handle those folks too

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[G-forze]

Because the "think of the children" argument has never been used to justify an unjust law?

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[EzInKy]

You know, if only we had more than tweedle dee and tweedle dum to vote for! But the powers that be have done such a fine job of delineating the beliefs that we hold most dear into column A or column B that we will vote for whoever they serve up that most closely aligns to our most fundamental beliefs. Yes, most of us know the fundemental divide for libertarians is whether life comes before liberty. The authoriatarians have learned to use our differences to dictate their views on all of us!

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[EzInKy]

Yep they got you too! Either you believe the government dictates to you to protect others particular beliefs or the government dictates to others to enforce your particular beliefs. It seems no one follows the government exists to protect "life, liberty, and happiness" ideal that this nation was founded on.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[YumoolaJohn]

The mere fact that drugs could lead to certain people committing crimes does not justify banning them. Any truly free country cares more about freedom than security. There are no truly free countries; there is only trash.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[gmanterry]

It's the distance.

The US parties may collude on a variety of things (like counterterrorism, or if you prefer, "counterterrorism") but they have significantly differing views on the relationship of the role of government to the citizenry and the economy. For instance, on the national level, the US Democratic party has been pushing for things like the recent health-care reform laws (for good or ill), additional environmental regulation, increases in the minimum wage, and other increases in taxes and spending which see the government taking a larger role in the economy, including transfer payments (welfare, etc). They also resent military spending as a rule. The Republican party pushes for less government involvement in the economy, lower/flatter tax regimes, market solutions to issues like healthcare and wages, and a regulatory regime which is not simply less stringent, but also more streamlined where it is in fact present (and they do not resent military spending, at least not as a rule).

Things are different outside the economic arena, true, but 2008-2016's top issues were, in order: the economy, the economy, and the economy. So.

I look at it as the Democrats are the Socialist, spread the wealth and tax the working people party and the Republicans are the American Taliban. Kill all the gays and jam some version of the Christian religion down everyone's throat. Neither of them represent the values I have.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy cow, your view from the nose bleeds is pretty bad. 20 years ago was only 1993. Both sides have been plenty shitty for far longer than that.

Republicans have never been the party of fiscal responsibility. They've deficit spent bigger than any. They'll do nothing about the budget because their wealthy business owner buddies make too much money off government spending and the nanny state protections they benefit from. They'll talk about it, but about all they'll really do is cut social welfare (chump change) while leaving corporate welfare completely untouched (literally worth trillions of dollars).

The only (well known) Dem I've known to be serious about reductions in the military was Carter. The D's have signed off on plenty of pointless fighter jet projects and such. As far as being party of civil rights, what a crock. It ain't just the R's that have supported this bullshit drug war for nearly 30 years now.

Both parties are bought and sold by the wealthy. Just like it's been since the beginning.

We agree both sides are shit, but for diff reasons, I guess. Though I disagree with your conclusion. Shitcanning both parties cannot be the only solution because it's a completely unachievable solution. Hopefully that's just emotional drivel and not a serious statement.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[gmhowell]

Two parties? Apologies, maybe it's the distance, but from over here in Europe it looks like the US has only one party with two slightly differing wings.

Seriously. If the main problem for the moderator in a political debate is to find some kind of tiny semantic difference in the position of the two biggest candidates, you know something is not going right.

Your played out observation works just as well from an American perspective. Europeans claim to have 31 different political parties in their individual countries to choose from, but they are all slight variations on one, socialist theme. You really have no more diversity than the US, it's just that your center is in a different place. And before you trot out some corner case where someone from the Pirate Party won some local race in some backwater burg, let me point out that we've got a few nutters in the legislatures in some states. It doesn't much invalidate the broader observation.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

Screw that, vote Cave Johnson.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Savage-Rabbit]

The problems with liberals and leftists in the U.S. were they were pretty much all pussies and they couldn't counterpunch with a master like Hoover. Hoover also had the power that comes from knowledge, and he had more knowledge than anyone thanks to all the files he had the FBI build on all of his enemies. If you think the NSA surveillence state isn't dangerous just look back at what Hoover did with a tiny fraction of the information the NSA has.

Hoover had an entire security service and the state backing him up. When you are a political organisation being persecuted by the FBI which is being backed to the hilt by the state it self, 'punching back' is a lot easier to say than it is to do.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[SuricouRaven]

The individual republicans know what works: Act as teapartyish as they can when they are courting votes within the party to get nominated to an election, but then quickly reject that image and run screaming leftwards when the general population is voting. Different approaches for different electorates.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[SuricouRaven]

The Democrats are not socialist.
  - Europe.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[isorox]

There are 'papers please' sty;e checkpoints a hundred or more miles inland from your borders, in zones which the fourth amendment does not apply. Warrantless search and seizure has just been confirmed as 'legal' again last week. There are 'free speech zones'. The NSA ans possibly other agencies spy oin the people of the country and have threatened to blackmail 'extremists' with the information they find. Call it what you want, but I'm calling it a police state.

Ahh, but I've still got my 9mm handgun, so it's not a police state!

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[erikkemperman]

I think you will find lots of European countries are currently governed by rightwing coalitions (relative to the local spectrum, of course). Your observation that the continent as a whole is "socialist" is understandable, inasmuch as the US is from our point of view considerably to the right. And in the US it seems that left == socialism, which I suppose is an unfortunate remnant of the cold war (unfortunate because it blurs the distinction between quite different schools of thought on the left).

So while I agree that, on average, most European parties are to the left of what you have in the US, I don't think it's fair to say the spectrum is narrower. That's just very unlikely given the number of parties. In fact the extremes on the right are almost as rightwing as the GOP (you know, roughly estimating an average of their positions) but the extremes on the left don't really compare to anything in the US, as far as I can tell. The Dems would, by my reckoning, considered a classical rightwing party here in Europe (what we call "liberal" but that word doesn't mean the same here as it does in the US).

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Freshly Exhumed]

Note to anyone wishing to comment on U.S. politics from any other country: has anyone ever found people of the U.S. to be particularly receptive of, or introspective regarding, foreign commentary? That was rhetorical.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

Also: civil forfeiture.
It is apparently common practise, and entirely legal, for police forces to sieze the assets of private individuals, with not so much an accusation of a crime having been committed. They can then be threatened with (very expensive to defend) felony charges if they don't "voluntarily" "donate" the siezed asset to the police themselves.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Uberbah]

It's even funnier when I meet idiots like you who think the only thing to vote on is the President. I had a dozen items to vote on in the last presidential election, including a local Sheriff who won by 3 votes. (yes, three) I guess I should've gone around and convinced four people that voting is pointless, because this guy is a real ass-clown.

It's even funnier if you pretend that voting for a local sheriff has fuck-all to do with national policy.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Uberbah]

Defeatist bullshit.

Idealist bullshit.

Voting works perfectly well

It's simply not. The western world is dominated by democracies without democratic outcomes. 60% of the Canadian public votes against the Tories, yet they dominate the government. In the United States, massively popular policies like the Public Option are strangled in the crib by the very politicians who ran on supporting them, while deeply unpopular policies like telecom immunity and military detention sail through Congress.

You can say voting works when the corrupt motherfuckers are losing elections in droves, to be replaced by people who have some respect for the public and the rule of law.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[gmhowell]

I think the closest analogs on the US right to the EU left would be tea baggers, John Birchers, and the like.

Also not sure, but I think you grasp my point that pointing out that the US is not the EU is a bit of a waste of time in these sorts of discussions. I find it of particular uselessness when one side or the other points to a difference as a sign of inferiority rather than just about anything else.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[davester666]

Isn't the NSA all about National Security? I mean, that is its name: the "National Security Agency".

So I guess the FBI is now just part of the NSA. Besides also being part of the Department of Homeland Security. Or is the homeland a different nation?

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Uberbah]

The Democrat party gives lip service

I see the Republic Party is still borish.

And don't give me Tea Party guff, either. They aren't a subset of Republicans

They're the definition of a subset of the Republic Party. The Teabaggers are the most radical, and most stupid, faction of the Republic Party. Nothing more, nothing less.

Say anything about gays that isn't genuinely flattering in a crowd of them today, for example, and see how fast you get tossed out.

Liar.

It used to be, Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility and small government.

At no point in time was that the case. The last fiscally responsible Republicans, Eisenhower and Nixon, believed in expanding the government through infrastructure and state agencies.

They haven't fought Obama's monetary policy. They haven't actually been trying (or not hard, anyway) to reduce government.

Because they are in solid agreement on most issues. Cut earned benefits while increasing military spending. Protect torturers and bankers from prosecution, while cracking down on dissent. Extend the Bush tax cuts while making the "sequester" cuts permanent. And so on. Obama brags about having Reagan as a role model for a reason.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Uberbah]

Let's look at the vote

Let's not be diversionary: TARP was proposed, demanded, planned and implemented by a Republican president and secretary of the treasury.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Uberbah]

You really have no clue about the Soviet Union, do you?

You didn't really bother to read his post, did you? Just couldn't wait to get your authoritarian apologia on.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

The individual republicans know what works: Act as teapartyish as they can when they are courting votes within the party to get nominated to an election, but then quickly reject that image and run screaming leftwards when the general population is voting. Different approaches for different electorates.

More like spout insanity in the primary to get nominated, then stick to normal conservatism once elected. Leftwards makes it sound like they are in some tiny way liberal. Even the Democrats have given up on being leftist.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

The silence from the Left is deafening?

i) Obama is to the right of Bush - everything he does is for corporations. Even ObomneyCare was written by corporate lobbyist for the benefit of corporations.
ii) There is no Left in the US. There are servants of the status quo who pretend to be Left but they just serve as gatekeepers limiting the extent of 'acceptable discussion'

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[demachina]

Last I heard establishment politicians redistricted Kucinich out of Congress. Kucinich was an outlier and the establishment finally figured out a way to get rid of him because they didn't want to hear his inconvenient truths, or worse have Americans hear them.

If anything Kucinich is proof that in fact we do have a one party state posing as two. Establishment Democrats hated him as much as anyone.

The Tea Party is probably the only actual second party we have and its been coopted by a bunch of crazy, opportunist, demagogues like Palin, Beck and Bachman so its regrettably turned in to kind of a bizarro train wreck. It was completely despised by our establishment one party state, and if it hadn't been completely derailed it would have been the greatest threat to that one party state since the Progressive movement a hundred years ago.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Joce640k]

Two parties? Apologies, maybe it's the distance, but from over here in Europe it looks like the US has only one party with two slightly differing wings.

Seriously. If the main problem for the moderator in a political debate is to find some kind of tiny semantic difference in the position of the two biggest candidates, you know something is not going right.

You haven't browsed the Conservapedia yet...

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[daem0n1x]

What left? The USA has only two parties, and both are right-wing.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama has violated more civil rights than any President in history.

I... I mean... holy shit, man. Do you know anything about American history? Well, I suppose you don't need to answer that; you kinda already did. Jesus, the second fuckin' president we had did shit that Obama couldn't touch in his wildest "I'm the new Caeser" wet dream... where the fuck do you people get your (lack of) educations?

It's such a common refrain to wonder what's wrong with America today... thank you sir or ma'am, for answering that question so definitively. God help us all.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

or a yew

It's tough being the most popular tree for bowmaking. They don't simply decimate you, they cut down 90% and moan that the survivors are too small to use.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

We have more prisoners than Soviet Russia ever had (under Stalin, early 1950's). Both, total and per capita. We have more sex offenders than political prisoners Russia had *total*.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

The silence from the left is deafening.

Actually there is a multitude of groups screaming for reform, though I appreciate that the largest one labelling itself "the left" is not one of them.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Lumpy]

Wings? the only difference between them is the color of the pin on their jacket. Nothing else. We had a real 3rd party with rand paul, but he turned completely republican within a short time. Now he is right in line with doing what he is told to do.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

The rest of the world prefers to allow their stupid criminals to stay on the street, but the US is hardly unusual in allowing the smart criminals to run the country.

Yes that was a not-so-subtle insinuation that the US population has a disproportionate number of idiots in it overall.

But no, seriously, the vast majority of the poor slaves in our kennels are there because of the famously failed "War On Drugs" which never happened in other countries... because they tended to just outright murder their populi-non-grati.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

Republicans have always been about expanding both law enforcement and national security programs, including intelligence gathering, at the expense of civil liberties. This has been true going all the way back to Lincoln.

Before you spout too awfully much more about your magnificent knowledge of the history of the Republican party, especially if you're going to invoke Lincoln, you might actually want to read up on it. Prolly a couple of little surprises in there for you.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

We are a police state regardless of what the Obamaites would have you think.

And this isn't to say that the right was any better but Bush & Company was a lot more honest about what they were up to. The silence from the left is deafening.

What???? A police agency de-emphasizing their police mission means the USA is becoming a police state?????

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Clearly you haven't been to the airport or crossed the border in YEARS.

2) The NSA is reading your email, monitoring your phone calls, keeping track of what websites you visit, knows who your Facebook friends are, out to 4 degrees.

3) Been pulled over for using a cell phone while driving, not wearing a seatbelt, or just asked for some DNA by the friendly police-escorted federal contractors?

4) Buy a couple ounces of gold. Buy a gun. Write or deposit a check for $10,000 or more. March at a rally. Expect to wind up in a database.

5) Walk down a big-city street and wave at all the cameras.

1) Yes I have... Haven't seen anything that any other country doesn't do as part of a border crossing.

2) No it's not.

3) You SHOULD be pulled over for using a cell phone while driving. Wtf?

4) I've done 3 of the 4. Never noticed any reductions in my freedom or loss of privacy. Citation?

5) The city I live in has no cameras.

You and the people who modded you up need to grow up and leave your parents basement.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is well known...

Wonderful weasel words.

One need only look at the arguments presented to Congress in the early 20th century during the debate on criminalizing cocaine, opium, and marijuana to see that these laws were intended to target certain unpopular minorities, especially black men.

If one actually did look at those arguments, one would find that laws criminalizing cocaine and opium had serious and well-researched health issues behind them. Marijuana is a different story, although not the one you apparently think it is.

Criminalization of marijuana was a direct shot at Mexican laborers in the Southwest, and was allowed despite much opposition because the only other identifiable group that consistently used it at the time was black musicians in the south. While those particular black men were affected by it, they were not the target.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

The US seems to have a bee in its bonnet about socialism due to the commies. Europe have a bee in their bonnet about the right because of a short nutty guy who tried to conquer europe. The humour being that the US left is probably an extreme right in this country. I wouldnt be surprised if our right seemed like an extreme left to people in the US.

Bush was an idiot but that gives him some excuse for his actions but watching (from the UK) as obama drags the US left seems a bit at odds. I am wondering if bush was as bad a political force as the commies (that the US now wants to move left) or obama is such a master manipulator that he can do what he wants and nobody dare challenge him.

In europe we have a similar problem. We have germany trying not to be a leader (due to WW2) in the EU which is dragging people down and left. The really poor countries want to join the EU, the irresponsible ones are suffering and unhappy and the richer countries want out (if they ever wanted in). Europe moved left after the war and now each richer country seems to be giving voting more right (various nationalist parties).

It seems a balance must be restored on both sides but how easy or bloody it will be I dont know.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Person147]

Does being the world leader in imprisoning people count? We have more people in prison than China, North Korea, Iran, etc. -- and that is more people in prison period, not merely per capita.

China, North Korea and Iran are just more efficient at carrying out their death sentences - hence less people being imprisoned.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

Obamacare is a market solution to Health care.

Bullshit. Obamacare bans insurance companies from selling plans across COUNTY LINES. Seriously. If you live in the wrong county, the plans you can buy might be extremely limited. And that's not even tracking the wave of new regulations that have been "encouraging" vast consolidation across the entire healthcare industry the past few years. Fewer companies, less competition, higher prices. The consequences are well known.

Even if we repealed Obamacare today, the damage would continue to affect our healthcare system for years, possibly decades.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

I just want to point out that JP Morgan Chase would have easily survived without a bailout. They took TARP money because the Federal Reserve (their primary regulator) told them they had to.

JPM sold all their subprime assets in 2005 when Jamie Dimon became CEO. They were never in any danger during the financial crisis. They had enough money to buy Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual when the Feds requested it. Of course later the Feds fined them massive amounts of money for bad things that Bear Stearns and WaMu did, but that's another story.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[R3d Jack]

I grew up outside Berkeley in the 60's. The irony is stunning.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not the distance. You don't have a "left" party at all. You have two "right" parties.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[FridayBob]

The US parties may collude on a variety of things (like counterterrorism, or if you prefer, "counterterrorism") but they have significantly differing views on the relationship of the role of government to the citizenry and the economy. ...

Yes, and lions and hyenas are sworn enemies, but somehow that doesn't matter to you when you're alone on the savannah in the African night.

The fact is that the ideological differences between the two main parties have become increasingly superficial. The problem is that neither of them work for us anymore: they only work for their donors. That's by far the most corrosive influence on US politics these days: big money. Politicians running for Federal office know that they can't get elected without it. Did you know that 94% of the time the candidate running for the House of Representatives wins if they raise more money than their opponents? It's even 95% for the Senate. And Barack Obama, who was so good at raising all those small donations during the 2012 election cycle, still got 70% of his money from the big donors -- corporations and the super rich who give almost equally to both Republicans and Democrats -- the people who in the last three decades have become the de facto rulers of this country. There is so little disagreement between the two main parties on the really important issues (dragnet spying, military spending, Wall Street crime, taxes on the rich, the war on drugs, energy policy, etc.) because their masters want the same things from both of them. This is why, behind the scenes, the Republicans like to refer to Obama I and II as Bush III and IV. And Congress itself is now basically only a farming operation for K Street, where as lobbyists ex-members of Congress can expect to earn 15x as much as before.

There is only one solution to this problem: get big money out of politics.

This would be difficult in any other country with such a thoroughly corrupt political system, but lucky for us the United States Constitution includes Article Five, which describes an alternative process through which the Constitution can be altered: by holding a national convention at the request of the legislatures of at least two-thirds (34) of the country's 50 States. Any proposed amendments must then be ratified by at least three-quarters (38 States).

Is anybody doing this yet? Yes. WOLF-PAC was launched in October 2011 for the purpose of passing a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that will end corporate personhood* and publicly finance all elections**. Since then, many volunteers have approached their State Legislators about this idea and their efforts have often been met with unexpected bi-partisan enthusiasm. So far, 50 State Legislators have authored or co-sponsored resolutions to call for a Constitutional Convention to get money out of politics! Notable successes have been in Texas, Idaho and Kentucky.

However, if the State Legislators are also corrupt, why are they helping us? Well, maybe they aren't as corrupt as you think. And even if they are, the important thing is that they seem to be just as fed up with the Federal government as we are -- so much so that they seem quite happy to help out with this effort. After all, it's a pretty simple proposal that speaks to both Democrats and Republicans.

If you think this idea makes sense, you can sign this petition, donate, or even take action by personally contacting your favorite State Legislator and asking for a meeting. It's easier than you might think and as a result we might be able to change this awful situation sooner than you think.

.

*) The aim is not to end legal personhood for corporations, but natural personhood. The latter became a problem following the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, which

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

Spying under Bush. Retroactive immunity with Obama plus he did nothing to stop the programs.

You do know that Barak Obama and Dick Cheney are familial relatives, right? I'm certain Obama was already sucking Dick's dick before he lied his way into the Office of the President of the United States of Amerika.

Re: Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

Except now we have a socialist president who goes against the spirit or the American people to force his dumb healthcare down our throats...

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[cold fjord]

Socialists that want to get elected in the US tend to join the Democrats.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[mcneely.mike]

We are a police state.

And this isn't to say that the right was any better but Bush & Company was a lot more honest about what they were up to.

You are correct on the first point... on the second????? Wha'????

"They have WMD" comes to mind among other things....

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Kasar]

Of course the best outcome was the "too big to fail" banks are now even bigger.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

Drug use is a political crime. The criminalization of recreational chemicals have long been political, and the victims of such actions often differ substantially from the politics of those in power.

Also: some types of sexuality are political crimes. The criminalization of at least one kind of sexuality has long been political. As for victims, these can be manufactured if they don't exist.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama has violated more civil rights than any President in history.

In all fairness, he built on the framework set up by Bush Jr's trashing of civil rights.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Vitriol Angst]

I think the FBI needs to start wearing these NASCAR jackets. We'd like to see "Goldman Sacks" on the front of your hoodie, and maybe a bit of "Chase" right were the tramp stamp goes -- just to ease our minds about "security of the nation" when some trial inexplicably seems to find nobody did anything wrong but billions of dollars went "poof!"

Al Kaida isn't going to come for me, it will be "Al's towing service" to get my car. Poverty kills more people than the competition.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Forty Two Tenfold]

What was the great harm caused by marijuana again?

harm became widespread due to those substances formerly being legal and ensnaring portions of the population.

Yeah, only latinos and negroes. White folk didn't have/generate that problem, right? No poppy seeds were available in the US EVER!

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

5) Walk down a big-city street and wave at all the cameras.

And if you wave with YOUR camera in hand, you'll be arrested for suspicious picture taking "terrorist' related activity...

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Forty Two Tenfold]

You should go work in the orchards. You're matchelss in cherrypicking.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Vitriol Angst]

They took TARP money because the Federal Reserve (their primary regulator) told them they had to.

You have to wonder who is really in charge of whom when money is forcibly stuffed in their pockets.

Of course later the Feds fined them massive amounts of money for bad things that Bear Stearns and WaMu did, but that's another story.

"massive" fines don't even equate to a weeks profits at some of these firms, though Stearns was road kill and likely not "on the gravy train" with the others. There were five firms that pushed huge sums in Naked Shorts to undervalue their stock and send the over-leveraged company into bankruptcy. Of course, at that time -- they were ALL over leveraged.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[ILongForDarkness]

Yeah under Bush they'd tell you what they were doing and then criticize you as unpatriotic/giving America to the terrorists if you disagreed. Now they just do the same thing but try to be sneaky about it, but at least they don't insult you (as much) when you disagree.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[cold fjord]

Communist Party USA

A bad idea that never really caught on in the US, but it exists. There are plenty more like it.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Thud457]

Haha. "Jungian slip." Bit of a spoonerism there.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[fatboy]

Obamacare is a market solution to Health care.

No it's not. A law who's fundamental structural base forces everyone to purchase a product, is not a market solution. It's the opposite of that.

A market based solution would remove insurance companies as middle men for purchasing health care. Insurance is supposed to take on the risk that you can't absorb. A Dr's visit for the cold or flu should not be absorbed by insurance, a hospital stay should be. That's the problem these days. The person that is purchasing Health Care is completely disconnected from the costs paid by the insurance provider, and we are taking it further in the wrong direction.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[daem0n1x]

Thank you for confirming my statement so well.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Grishnakh]

Instead, he wasted precious time on disastrous health care reforms

I wish people would stop repeating this. It's not true. He wasted precious time on disastrous health insurance reforms. He (and the Democrats) didn't do shit when it comes to health care. Insurance companies do NOT provide any kind of health care. Try going to a Blue Cross/Blue Shield office and asking them for a medical procedure. Why this distinction matters is that the problem with our healthcare isn't so much the insurance, but the out-of-control costs for the care itself (ridiculously expensive hospital bills, compared to what it costs to get the same procedure done in western European private hospitals, for instance). Obamacare didn't do anything at all to fix the problem of these out-of-control costs, it just changed the rules for the insurance that most people use to pay for them, basically spreading the cost out to more people and increasing most peoples' monthly premiums greatly.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Grishnakh]

There's only one socialist-leaning person in Congress: Bernie Sanders. And he's not a Democrat.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

army.mil

Yeah. There's a credible source.

You haven't answered my question: are you a member of Al-Queda? You hate America for its freedoms, traitor.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[MrL0G1C]

"Voting works perfectly well"

US and UK have 1st past the post systems which do a rubbish job of *representing* the people, any vote for a third party is completely wasted in most voting areas.

So, no - current voting systems do not work petfectly well.

Re: Put a fork in it, it's done.

[iamhassi]

Nothing compares to Obamacare. There has been no law that forced citizens to sign up for a govt program or face paying a fine in the form of extra taxes and if you do not pay the extra taxes face jail time.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

Europe doesn't know squat about America.
  - America.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[pnutjam]

A Doctor visit for a cold or flu (aside from being entirely unnecessary and useless) is a major expense that many people cannot absorb. If I need to get 4 people (typical family) tested for strep, that is $80 / with most insurances. Without, as you advocate, it's at least $280.

Many American family's do not have an extra $100 in their budget.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

Socialist. I don't think you know what a socialist is.

The Democrats are Fascists and the Republicans are Extreme Fascists.

Neither one bears any resemblance to "Socialists".

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[cold fjord]

Actually I contradict your statement. Existence is one question, support is another. There are a variety of bad ideas popular in Europe that aren't supported in the US, that is one of them. Any day you could convince 51% of Americans that communism is a good idea, they are waiting there to accept them and win elections. Don't hold your breath, the word is out about communism, but people are forgetting. Maybe in time....

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Doomsought]

You don't know any politicians. All the hate and vitriol is a ruse, and all of the issues that the two parties fight over are red herrings.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[daem0n1x]

Straw man.

Did I write anything about communism?

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Don't worry Bachman isn't running again but your point still stands.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[camperdave]

There is only one Germany. They unified back in 1990.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[demachina]

It is a market based solution, a bad one since participation is nearly mandatory and being compelled by punitive taxes.

The fact that multiple private insurers are running it and they compete on the exchanges makes it market based.

If it were single payer funded entirely by taxes and government paying all the bills like Medicare it wouldn't be market based.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Diss Champ]

You are missing the fatboy's point- at least as I understand it.

The REASON that a simple doctor visit is a major expense is because of how we have things structured. If doctors were paid by their patients, there would be plenty of doctors with reasonable advertised costs for a simple doctors visit. A large portion of the decrease in price would come from not having to pay as many middle-men.

The inability of so many people to budget for occasional $100 surprises is a different (and very real) problem. Not that the current approach to "insurance" doesn't leave less money in the consumer's pockets, but consumers are happy to overspend in a variety of arenas.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[houghi]

but the out-of-control costs for the care itself (ridiculously expensive hospital bills, compared to what it costs to get the same procedure done in western European private hospitals, for instance).

Here is how such a bill looks like. http://imgur.com/a/WIfeN
For those too lazy to click: A person with appendicitis received a bill of 55.029,31USD

It is better to put facts to the 'the costs are too high'. Many people have no idea just how bad it is.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[demachina]

JP Morgan had been planning to acquire WaMu for a West coast expansion prior to the crisis and they were gifted with them during the crisis by the Republicans.

Your interpretation is the simplistic one, maybe its accurate, maybe its not. There are accusations it was an engineered crisis and gifting of WaMu's assets to JP Morgan for cents on the dollar.

The only thing that is clear is JP Morgan came out of the crisis much bigger and more powerful, with fewer competitors than when they went in so it was a win win. Same is true of B of A and Wells Fargo.

Yes they've been paying fines but the Fed has made it so easy for them to make massive amounts of money every quarter since the crisis all the fines are inconsequential to them.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[cold fjord]

Straw man.

Did I write anything about communism?

Yes, your argument there is a straw man. This is what you wrote, "What left? The USA has only two parties, and both are right-wing."

We are up to at least 3 parties now, aren't we? And one of them is hard left of the sort any European would respect. (Do you want me to bring more into the discussion? We are far from being out of just communist parties in the US.)

The Democrats aren't all that right these days either. They have largely driven the moderates and conservatives from their party.

Re: Put a fork in it, it's done.

[brianwski]

I'm not for or against Obamacare, as a software engineer it simply does not affect me. (I kept my same health insurance I've always had.)

> there has been no law that forced citizens to sign up for.... Jail time

Nonsense. Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security/FICA/Unemployment Insurance - all these are itemized on my pay stub. Again, I am not for or against Obamacare, but there are lots of other government programs I am forced to participate in.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

"If everyone would just do what they're told their lives would be so much easier" Jesus Christ cold fjord no wonder so many people rail against you and call you a shill

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it wasn't paid back. So it is relevant.

Captcha: launder

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why outlaw when you can regulate? You won't eliminate the problem either way so you might as well use the option that gives you *some* control.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[cold fjord]

What was the great harm caused by marijuana again?

It's unclear if you forgot or never knew, which is consistent with your interest.

Heavy pot use linked to memory loss, schizophrenia link

There are other documented effects, and it has been thought to play the role of a gateway drug. I'll get you dig into it if you're really interested, ... and you remember.

Yeah, only latinos and negroes. White folk didn't have/generate that problem, right? No poppy seeds were available in the US EVER!

Opium was one of the first drugs regulated in various places in the US, and an early drug for Federal regulation. It affected people of all sexes, races, classes, and ages.

America's First Drug Epidemic 1850-1914

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[AF_Cheddar_Head]

Oh Reagan had no problem cutting the number if personnel in uniform to pay for one of those shiny pieces of hardware his buddies were trying to sell him.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Dcnjoe60]

It's the distance.

The US parties may collude on a variety of things (like counterterrorism, or if you prefer, "counterterrorism") but they have significantly differing views on the relationship of the role of government to the citizenry and the economy. For instance, on the national level, the US Democratic party has been pushing for things like the recent health-care reform laws (for good or ill), additional environmental regulation, increases in the minimum wage, and other increases in taxes and spending which see the government taking a larger role in the economy, including transfer payments (welfare, etc). They also resent military spending as a rule. The Republican party pushes for less government involvement in the economy, lower/flatter tax regimes, market solutions to issues like healthcare and wages, and a regulatory regime which is not simply less stringent, but also more streamlined where it is in fact present (and they do not resent military spending, at least not as a rule).

Things are different outside the economic arena, true, but 2008-2016's top issues were, in order: the economy, the economy, and the economy. So.

The real difference between the two parties in the US is not about government involvement or welfare, but who the government involvement and welfare benefit. For the Democrats, the government inserts itself and provides welfare for the people, particularly the middle class and below. For the Republicans, the government inserts itself and provides welfare for corporations and the upper class (they don't call it welfare, however, instead using euphemisms such as incentives and subsidies). Regardless, both party is about expanding the role of government. They just disagree on who should be impinged on by the expansion.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Dcnjoe60]

tarp was paid back so it is irrelevant.

True, it was paid back, but it doesn't change the OP's point. Nor, did the government make a good return on their "investment." While they did make a positive return, it was below what they could have received, which was by design. Put differently, if a business has the opportunity to invest $X amount and one investment yields a ROI of 15% and the other 3%, which would they choose? The government chose the 3%.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[king neckbeard]

I bet you support literacy tests and poll taxes as well. After all, those coloreds only have to study up and get a job.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Dcnjoe60]

Let's not forget that the whole point of TARP was to infuse capital so banks could continue lending. Of course, there were no safeguards in place to ensure that outcome and instead the banks used the funds to purchase other assets and investments.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[daem0n1x]

Straw man.

Did I write anything about communism?

Yes, your argument there is a straw man. This is what you wrote, "What left? The USA has only two parties, and both are right-wing."

Yes??? Where is communism written (or implied) anywhere?

We are up to at least 3 parties now, aren't we? And one of them is hard left of the sort any European would respect. (Do you want me to bring more into the discussion? We are far from being out of just communist parties in the US.)

The Democrats aren't all that right these days either. They have largely driven the moderates and conservatives from their party.

The Democratic Party is "hard left"? What have you been smoking, dude?

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Grishnakh]

It's even more useful to compare costs with other countries, especially rich western European nations where the cost-of-living is even higher than here in the US. Here's an article about a guy who flew to Belgium to have a hip transplant done out-of-pocket because it was so much cheaper than doing it in the US, even though the artificial hip joint implant was made here in the US, but only cost maybe a thousand dollars in Belgium, whereas it costs $15,000 here in the US, which is what he paid to have the whole procedure done in Belgium, including airfare and a hospital stay!

Yes, $55K for an appendectomy sounds like a lot of money, but lots of people will rationalize it thinking "doctors are paid a lot and hospitals are expensive, so that must be a reasonable price for that", but it's simply not true, and you can tell because it doesn't cost anywhere near that to get the same thing done in western Europe, even though most things over there are a lot more expensive than they are here and the overall cost of living is much higher than most parts of the US. I don't know offhand what an appendectomy costs in Belgium, but if the NYT article is any indication, you can probably have it done there for less than $10K, including airfare.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[david_thornley]

Not to mention a considerable increase in organized crime, which also continued.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[cold fjord]

Yes??? Where is communism written (or implied) anywhere?

Communism is Left. You asked "What left?" and stated that the US only has two parties. In fact it has many parties and a genuine Left as the existence of the CPUSA demonstrates.

I didn't state that the Democratic party is hard left. However you can find member of the hard Left in it, those that want to be elected for an office higher than dog catcher.

Apparently being caught out you are heading into troll-land. Is that your intent?

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Jane Q. Public]

Spoonerism? That would make it "Sungian" or "Gunjian", whichever way you were looking at it. I don't see it.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[riondluz]

Your ignorance is astonishing, you remind me of DavidBrooks, droning on and on in reasonable monotone about things the nature of which he knows nothing about; re-hashing talking points of subjects beyond his actual knowledge.
His words do nothing other than reflect his trust in the Establishment; overlooking the massive fail of the system because it doesn't touch him personally.

For starters try reading Dr. Carl Hart's
"High Price: A Neuroscientistâ(TM)s Journey of Self-Discovery That Challenges Everything You Know About Drugs and Society"

Or, just continue to be a sock-puppet and stay in the kill-filter

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Forty Two Tenfold]

Heavy pot use linked to memory loss, schizophrenia link

Wrong.

[regulation] affected people of all sexes, races, classes, and ages

Read up on the current state of affairs.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Rockoon]

...and yet to be justified by you.

You seem to be suggesting that the existence of a problem demands with absolute certainty that laws must be passed, regardless of the eventual effects of those laws.

"Something must be done!"

"Think of the children!"

When you are done making unsubstantiated declarations, perhaps you will so kindly examine the outcome of passing these supposedly justified laws (justified by the strong argument "something must be done!", clearly) and compare with the original problem that you were trying to solve. I suspect that you will see that the real problem is in fact the government, more harm than good yet again.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[HiThere]

Umh... US parties *claim* to differ on a large number of areas. When the party out of power gets into power, however, the same policies are continued, with one minor change. The Republicans are generally less sensitive to how much the majority of the citizens like them. There are exceptions, usually on the Republican side. Regan, e.g., was very interested in people liking him. So was Eisenhower. (His very campaign slogan was "I like Ike".) I *think* Obama is concerned with, just not very capable of, getting people to like him. This leads to a derived difference where the Republicans tend to institute repressive policies, and the Democrats make use of them.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[cold fjord]

Wrong.

Actually your link appears to support the research in the linked article I provided, specifically:

"This paper is among the first to reveal that the use of marijuana may contribute to the changes in brain structure that have been associated with having schizophrenia."

Chronic marijuana use could augment the underlying disease process associated with schizophrenia, Smith noted.

"If someone has a family history of schizophrenia, they are increasing their risk of developing schizophrenia if they abuse marijuana," he said.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[kirkb]

Every time somebody diverts attention from the real issue to the partisan blame games, America loses. The fact that yours is one of the first top-rated posts shows how well-trained Americans have become to attacking one another instead of facing the real sources of their problems.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's funny when I meet people who think voting still matters.

Agreed. Since the average citizen is ignorant, the voting process gives the illusion of freedom and choice yet ensures that all the big decisions are made without any real public involvement. So if citizens disagree with how those big decisions are made, and voting can't affect those decisions, what should citizens do? Sit back and wait for [molotov] cocktail hour?

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[syzler]

The out of control healthcare costs are why this administration is trying to reduce overall costs by:
* creating a 2.3% medical device excise tax for manufacturers and importers.
* increasing percentage (10%) of your income you must spend in unreimbursed medical costs before they can be used in itemized deductions on your tax return.
* forcing parents cover the cost of insurance of "children" until the "children" are 27 granted this makes it cheaper for the "children" but not for the parents
* creating an annual fee (i.e. tax) for certain health insurance providers (granted this does not directly increase the cost of healthcare)
Please note that these are just the first few I found (on government sites) after a few seconds of searching, so this list certainly is not exhaustive.

For references see:
* http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq-dependentcoverage.html
* http://www.irs.gov/uac/Affordable-Care-Act-Tax-Provisions

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your local sheriff is the only one who has the power to do a lot of fuck-all with national policy. Actually it's not funny that you didn't know that.

"In a letter dated June 17,2013, Eldorado County (Placerville) California sheriff John D’Agostini notified the United States Forest Service that he was stripping their Law Enforcement and Investigations unit of assumed authority to interfere with state laws in that county."
-----
"In the late 1990s, before Sheriff DeMeo took office, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), an agency of the Department of Interior, seized more of Hage’s cattle off of his ranch, using armed federal agents. The sheriff at that time left town on a fishing trip.

Subsequently, when Sheriff DeMeo took office in 2003, he told his deputies that illegal cattle seizures were prohibited and that any federal agents attempting to confiscate cattle would be arrested. Shortly thereafter, the BLM arrived at Hage’s ranch to perform a seizure. The Sheriff’s Deputy told the federal agents that there would be no seizure or taking of cattle, per DeMeo’s decision based on the Constitution. The Deputy was told that the BLM federal agents intended to arrest DeMeo and use armed force to take Hage’s cattle. Sheriff DeMeo advised the federal agent that their SWAT team would be faced with Sheriff DeMeo’s SWAT team if they proceeded. Sheriff DeMeo clearly stated that he refused any unlawful seizures on Wayne Hage’s estate. He further advised federal agents that if they could produce a lawful court order for seizing cattle, he would not take the cattle off of the land, but impound them there on Hage’s ranch. This is important because if seized cattle were to remain impounded on Hage’s ranch, then Wayne Hage could still show ‘beneficial use’ of his water rights."
-------
"AFP readers are familiar with the work of former Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack, who has spent the latter half of his life teaching sheriffs that they are the top law enforcement officers in their counties despite continuing federal intervention attempts.

The ears that were deaf for so long may finally be starting to hear.

“It’s becoming a national movement now,” Mack told AFP, citing Immigration and Naturalization Service failure at the Mexican borders, the phony drug war, plus IRS and other unconstitutional intervention within these states.

His plans to take this movement national will be launched at a January meeting, where he anticipates 200 sheriffs will be in attendance.

“The county sheriff is the last line of defense guarding our people’s liberty,” he said.

Retired USAF Col. Richard Niemela of Reston, Va. has been exposing the federal monster for years.

He told AFP:

“It’s the surreptitious domination by international globalists insidiously using unauthorized and illegal tactics to render null and void those historic and unique powers of the sheriff.”

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Grishnakh]

How the hell does any of this reduce healthcare costs? Taxing medical devices will only add costs to the patients at the end. Increasing unreimbursed medical expenses will only leave people poorer after paying lots of money in medical costs. Making parents cover their childrens' insurance will only raise their premiums. Taxing health insurance providers will only raise the cost of insurance. (This is probably a rhetorical question, as you appear to be making the point that these will only raise costs.)

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[syzler]

I forgot to add a sarcasm tag. I was responding to

Why this distinction matters is that the problem with our healthcare isn't so much the insurance, but the out-of-control costs for the care itself (ridiculously expensive hospital bills, compared to what it costs to get the same procedure done in western European private hospitals, for instance). Obamacare didn't do anything at all to fix the problem of these out-of-control costs...

The ACA not only "didn't do anything at all to fix the problem of these out-of-control costs", but actually made the problem worse.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[ustolemyname]

60% of the Canadian public votes against the Tories

That is not even a little bit true.
Only 61% of the Canadian voting-eligible public voted at all in the last federal election.
Of those that did vote, 60% voted for a different party, not explicitly against the Tories. Our electoral process is not configured to allow one to vote against a party.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[interkin3tic]

Its laughable to blame the mess this country is on voters when neither party ever fields candidates that are worth voting for.

You talk of the parties as if they're NOT made up of voters. It's not a decision made in smoky rooms by shadowy men twirling their moustaches, it's people who vote in the primaries. Idiot voters voting or not voting in the primaries gets you the candidates that aren't worth voting for. Were you not paying attention to the whole tea party thing lately? That's entirely voter driven, much to the dismay of party "leaders."

When someone does comes along who has principals and might be worth voting for the parties and the media quickly dispose of them one way or another before they ever reach a point they can do any damage to the status quo

Name a time when saints ever ran for office? Politics is from start to finish 100% compromise. Idealists who go into it at any level are quickly ground up and spat out. Furthermore, power does corrupt, and additionally there's an evolution there: politicianswho are willing to sell their ideals for campaign money have a natural advantage over those who don't. When voters are focused on idiotic intangible things like "Hope" or "small government" (without specifying HOW the government will get smaller), that's always going to be the case. Voters making specific demands of their politicians and voting out corruption is the only way that changes.

In other words, the media doesn't dispose of such candidates, that's merely a symptom of candidates you like failing to attract support. The media attacks everyone. The politicians like Bush who had the support of a ton of idiot voters ARE ATTACKED JUST THE SAME. The difference is that such politicians have a dedicated base of idiots who don't care how bad they are.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[cayenne8]

They're the definition of a subset of the Republic Party. The Teabaggers are the most radical, and most stupid, faction of the Republic Party. Nothing more, nothing less.

Just honestly curious, what do you think is stupid about them?

I like the parts about reducing our govt. to levels more in line with what is spelled out in the Constitution, more power to the states as it was set up, etc.

What about that do you think is stupid? Honest question...is it this, or you have other items you dislike and please list them.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[cayenne8]

Many American family's do not have an extra $100 in their budget.

Err...why should US families save a portion of their budget each paycheck aside for routine health needs, just like they do for savings, utilities, food, shelter, etc?

I would prefer that the HSA's (Health Savings Accounts, not a use it or lose it like FSA's at work) be easier for all US citizens to open to save their routine health care dollars into pre-tax. This is the way to give people power over their medical dollars, and just save insurance for emergencies, what used to be called "Major Medical".

Re: Put a fork in it, it's done.

[cayenne8]

I'm not for or against Obamacare, as a software engineer it simply does not affect me. (I kept my same health insurance I've always had.)

Don't worry, you will deal with obamacare soon. They delated the changes and mandates to the employer based health plans, but it is coming, they hope just after the next presidential election.

But, everyone else will get hit with this mess then, unless we can fix/repeal and start over.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Forty Two Tenfold]

Actually your link appears to support the research in the linked article

From the abstract:

CONCLUSIONS: The results of the current study suggest that having an increased familial morbid risk for schizophrenia may be the underlying basis for schizophrenia in cannabis users and not cannabis use by itself.

You're illiterate or simply retarded. Good day, sir.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Forty Two Tenfold]

A further proof that it's cold fjord who's got negligible if any real knowledge of the matter.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[cold fjord]

No, I simply bear unpalatable news. You should prepare yourself since more is likely to come in the future.

Good day to you.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[daem0n1x]

Dude, the US only has two significant parties. Your electoral system favours bipartidarism. As an example, in my country there are 6 different parties sitting in the Parliament. Our government has people from two different parties.

Both your significant parties favour the appropriation of wealth by the top echelons. That IS right wing.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[cold fjord]

Thank you for the link. It has a couple of key sentences you may have missed.

A number of studies support the hypothesis that cannabis consumption is an important risk factor for schizophrenia, which has been reported to increase with the frequency and dose of cannabis use.[41-43] Epidemiological studies confirm a high occurrence of schizophrenia in people smoking cannabis,[44] and chronic cannabis smokers show cognitive deficits similar to those seen in schizophrenic patients.[45] Moreover, cannabis use is associated with an early onset of schizophrenia; young people with genetic vulnerability to schizophrenia are particularly sensitive to the physical and mental effects of cannabis.[46]

A seminal 27-year longitudinal study involving more than 50 000 Swedish participants[41] showed that cannabis use in adolescence was dose-dependently correlated to the risk of developing schizophrenia, with individuals taking cannabis on more than 50 occasions being ca. 7 times more likely to develop schizophrenia. ......

Undeniably, the habitual use of cannabis increases the risk of developing schizophrenia, especially in vulnerable subjects, but evidence suggests that this may be largely attributed to THC.

If this is accurate, by simply removing the chemical responsible for marijuana's "high" it might have some therapeutic value. Maybe that is a good target for genetic engineering. Until then, marijuana use poses a threat to the mental health of young people, especially heavy use. Would you still be so interested in it if you didn't get a buzz from it?

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Forty Two Tenfold]

No, you're spreading Anslinger's fairytales. Your RDF isn't working.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

Even from an Australian perspective (and we're a pretty right leaning country) the Democrats are right wing

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Forty Two Tenfold]

1. No reference groups or underlying familial risk were examined in those papers. Not conclusive.

2. No need to completely remove THC from the medication.

3. No need to GM cannabis.

4. Dissenting voices (this one from David Nutt, the man behind the 2010 Lancet-published study) are stifled.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, then I would rather not live in your hypothetical "truly free country", it sounds like a wasteland of human misery.

I suspect most of the world shares my opinion on this matter, which is why we have narcotic laws in every country.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[YumoolaJohn]

A lot of people hate freedom. That's why we have the TSA, the NSA, free speech zones, stop-and-frisk, constitution-free zones, unfettered border searches, and your precious drug war. I'd tell you to enjoy all of it, but sadly, this nonsense affects me, too; why don't you pieces of trash move to North Korea, rather than ruin every other country on the planet?

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[YumoolaJohn]

1) Yes I have... Haven't seen anything that any other country doesn't do as part of a border crossing.

"Everyone else is doing it" is not a justification for violating people's rights and/or the constitution. Since the US is supposed to be the best country, mindlessly copying what other countries do is not something I'd expect from it; I'd expect us to try to be better than them.

2) No it's not.

What makes you think so?

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[king neckbeard]

Or because powerful international interests want that. Calling them 'narcotics' laws makes that quite clear, as the drugs involved have virtually nothing to do with sleep.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Eskarel]

I don't know enough about the Canadian election to comment on that specifically, but the public option isn't massively popular even though we'd probably like it to be. In today's US you'd probably be lucky to actually get 40% voting in favor of it in a referendum, but that's entirely the point, elections aren't a referendum on a single issue, they are a choice of packages.

Voting as it is currently configured in the US allows the voters to pick the policy package that you want and the policy package picked by the most people in a specific geographic area gets a representative to argue for that policy package in congress, or to place a vote for president. The geographic areas are fairly arbitrary these days and the money required for running for office somewhat limits the choices available but voting still does exactly that. It works perfectly well (note perfectly well is not the same as perfectly the well changes the meaning). You can still do a write in vote and US citizens can, subject to some reasonable eligibility requirements run for office in any election they so choose. The system is not broken, let alone irrevocably broken. There are issues of course, mostly having to do with the fact that we pretend we want to vote for a local representative who we personally know as an individual but at the same time almost never actually cast our vote that way, but that's not the same thing as being broken.

The reason people like the GP pretend that voting is irrevocably broken is that their vote doesn't give them the result they want which is NOT what voting is supposed to do. If your favored policy position isn't the one which garners the most votes and it isn't guaranteed under the Constitution as it actually exists and is interpreted by the courts(as opposed to how so many folks on the internet think it exists) then you don't get that policy package. I realize that of course you know better than everyone else voting because they're all idiot sheeple, but that doesn't mean that what you want gets up. If there's no candidate espousing your particular policy package, run for office or find someone else who will run for office and support their campaign. It's fairly expensive since you've got to get your message out to a very large number of people, but federal law requires that the TV stations charge you the exact same rate as they charge any other candidate so you can do it.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Burz]

(Say anything about gays that isn't genuinely flattering in a crowd of them today, for example, and see how fast you get tossed out. That's not "tolerance", that's intolerance of anything but their pet points of view.)

Jane's heart bleeds for Duck Dynasty Dudes and AM radio road ragers. Or should I say "Jane"...

BTW, last time I checked marriage was not a privilege.

Obama has violated more civil rights than any President in history...
The only solution is to shitcan both parties. They have been WAY more trouble than they're worth.

Typical selective false equivalence coming from a schizophrenic world view that supposedly upholds the legacy of Ayn Rand and Barry Goldwater by electing fundamentalist Christians who would prefer to legislate our bedrooms to death rather than promote the general welfare.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[greenbird]

Voting works perfectly well, it's just not simple. Voting and policy have a related relationship.

Ok. Tell me who I vote for to get this secret spying shit under control. Ehhh...I'm not hearing anything...

You, my friend, are living in a dream world.

For the most part this isn't surprising, the vast majority of the news time on the NSA scandal has been manufactured outrage about legitimate foreign targets

So what your saying is everyone in Europe is a legitimate target? Cause that's who they're collecting every single communication of. In more simple terms, bullshit.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

No it doesnt. Money works better nowadays in the U.S. Lobbying is a good example. Voting doesn't practically do much, so it does not actually work.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Magius_AR]

Let's not be diversionary: TARP was proposed, demanded, planned and implemented by a Republican president and secretary of the treasury.

Ah yes, because the actions of two men apparently determines the will of the entire Republican party and of all Republicans everywhere...

Who's being diversionary again?

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[greenbird]

There are aspects of so-called "victimless crime" about it, but not political crime. Drug use generates plenty of genuine crime, including crimes of violence.

That has to be one of the stupidest arguments of the prohibitionist crowd. As was proved by alcohol, prohibition generates much much more crime including much more violent crime.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Eskarel]

To start with, the goal of the first past the post system isn't to "represent the people", at least not in the context you actually mean it, it's to represent the largest voting block, which is exactly what it does.

Secondly, first past the post isn't actually the problem, instant runoff voting is pretty much just as broken it just allows you to make yourself feel better by voting for a third party, you still won't actually get your third party elected to any meaningful amount of seats. The actual solution, at least insofar as I can see is to either move to some sort of direct democratic process or to give up on the idea of your local representative actually giving a crap about you and do proportional voting, ideally covering the whole electorate(nationally for federal seats, the whole state for state, etc), combined with a form of preference system. You get .2% of the population to agree with you, you get a congressman, you get 10%, you get a senator. Obviously you'd be voting for party platforms not people specifically, at least aside from the president, but barring some form of major scandal that's what we do now anyway. That would spell the instantaneous end of the two party monopoly of the congress. It'd end gerrymandering and also make it substantially more difficult for corporate interests to buy congressional votes(it'd be cheaper to run campaigns since you're essentially electing a policy platform not a person, and since there would be an expectation for congress critters belonging to a party to vote as a bloc you'd have to corrupt the platform of the entire party which would be much more likely to see them kicked out).

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[greenbird]

A "police state"? In what respect?

It's about rule of law. It no longer exists in this country. There are far too many examples to start listing them here but the fact that you don't acknowledge them indicates it would be pointless to list them anyway since your obviously blind to them.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Eskarel]

If there's no one to vote for, run for office on that platform. You probably won't win, but you have that right and the capability.

I didn't say everyone in Europe was a legitimate target, though it's massively unclear how many actual European citizens actually got spied on and by who. I said that foreign governments are a legitimate target. Most of the stuff that's actually gotten coverage has been spying on foreign governments.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Burz]

The "Tea Party" has been a corporatist project since 2002.

There is a reason why they were sudden mass media darlings right after the 2008 crash; they have the capital-friendly narrative that corporations want grandfathered into a political 'renewal' should one become necessary. The saddest part is they can't even pay enough people to show up at their low-turnout protests.

Here is an enlightening comparison of fascist history with more recent developments:

The third stage: being there
All through the Bush years, progressive right-wing watchers refused to call it "fascism" because, though we kept looking, we never saw clear signs of a deliberate, committed institutional partnership forming between America's conservative elites and its emerging homegrown brownshirt horde. We caught tantalizing signs of brief flirtations -- passing political alliances, money passing hands, far-right moonbat talking points flying out of the mouths of "mainstream" conservative leaders. But it was all circumstantial, and fairly transitory. The two sides kept a discreet distance from each other, at least in public. What went on behind closed doors, we could only guess. They certainly didn't act like a married couple.

Now, the guessing game is over. We know beyond doubt that the Teabag movement was created out of whole cloth by astroturf groups like Dick Armey's FreedomWorks and Tim Phillips' Americans for Prosperity, with massive media help from FOX News. We see the Birther fracas -- the kind of urban myth-making that should have never made it out of the pages of the National Enquirer -- being openly ratified by Congressional Republicans. We've seen Armey's own professionally-produced field manual that carefully instructs conservative goon squads in the fine art of disrupting the democratic governing process -- and the film of public officials being terrorized and threatened to the point where some of them required armed escorts to leave the building. We've seen Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner applauding and promoting a video of the disruptions and looking forward to "a long, hot August for Democrats in Congress."

This is the sign we were waiting for -- the one that tells us that yes, kids: we are there now. America's conservative elites have openly thrown in with the country's legions of discontented far right thugs.

http://www.alternet.org/politics/141819/is_the_u.s._on_the_brink_of_fascism/?page=entire

A real grassroots movement emerged years later when Occupy Wall St. put a big chink in the corporate narrative armor, and evaporating any semblance of teabagger interpretations to 'inevitability' or even sanity.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[greenbird]

If there's no one to vote for, run for office on that platform. You probably won't win, but you have that right and the capability.

Explain to me how that gets someone into office who is going to stop the secret spying crap. Under the current system in the US there is no way to change the system.

I didn't say everyone in Europe was a legitimate target, though it's massively unclear how many actual European citizens actually got spied on and by who.

It's not unclear thanks to Snowden. They're collecting everyone's data. Wait Wait...Just like the NSA you're gonna claim that just collecting the data isn't spying, aren't you?

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Opportunist]

Oh There are a lot of people who are way better too, there are people who are linguistic geniuses. I myself am trying to learn Russian. With very limited success, I may add. When I look at people who speak pretty much every language spoken in the Middle East and half of Eastern Europe, like a coworker of mine does, I get quite envious.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Eskarel]

Voting determines who wins, as it is supposed to. If you don't like the major parties, vote for someone else, if you don't like the options, run for office, you probably won't win, but that's beside the point. If an issue is actually massively unpopular or massively popular in the electorate to the degree that it changes votes then lobbying doesn't matter. The problem is that a lot of the things that Slashdot is really passionate about (NSA, SOPA, etc) the vast majority of people don't care about and even Slashdotter's aren't generally willing to actually change their vote over it.

It's a common misconception by people that when they don't get the result they want from voting it's because voting doesn't work.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Eskarel]

No, it's not clear. A lot of Snowden's evidence is fairly crap. We have an idea of how many pieces of data were transferred from certain countries, mostly because of footnotes on powerpoint slides. There's been a lot of contradiction over who actually did the spying and who they were spying on, not to mention how many people each bit of Metadata actually represents.

We know that Norway spied on its own citizens and it seems clear that ASIO did the same thing in Australia.

In terms of your "how to get someone into office to stop the secret spying crap" it doesn't, but that's not the god damned point.

I reiterate, just because voting doesn't give you the result you want doesn't mean that voting is broken. Voting is not intended to get you the result you want it's intended to get the result that the people for whatever definition of the people your country uses(in the US it's the plurality of people in a given geographic district) want.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[greenbird]

No, it's not clear. A lot of Snowden's evidence is fairly crap.

It's pretty clear to anyone who is paying attention to what is happening. It's only doubtful if you buy the crap the government is feeding you which they have repeatedly backtracked on after further revelations put the lie to their previous declarations. Strange people were saying the same crap some ten years ago when some guy reported about a back room at AT&T with highly secret government computers monitoring all network traffic. Kinda funny that turned out to be undeniable true also.

I reiterate, just because voting doesn't give you the result you want doesn't mean that voting is broken. Voting is not intended to get you the result you want it's intended to get the result that the people for whatever definition of the people your country uses(in the US it's the plurality of people in a given geographic district) want.

Yeah, I'm sure the majority of the people in the US want to live in a police state. You really have no clue what is happening and it really saddens me that so many other people are right there with you. When a government official can blatantly commit perjury by lying to congress without consequences it's pretty clear that rule of law is gone in the US and without it also gone is any ability of the people to control the government. Clinton got in trouble for lying about getting a blow job. This guy lies about what is pretty clearly illegal and unconstitutional spying on US citizens and doesn't even lose his job. And don't give me any crap about the spying being legal. It's legal only by virtue of the constitution and rule of law no longer applying to the government. There are many many more examples of the government no longer adhering to rule of law and/or doing what is in the interest of the people paying them rather than the people they're supposed to representing. Just open your eyes and pay attention.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[MrL0G1C]

Or proportional voting like it's done for EU MPs not some weird complicated crap that doesn't work to represent people.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

a million internet points for you.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'd like to vote for a third party, but I don't want to throw my vote away."

Yes, a third party is supposed to spring fully formed into existence, with operations at every level, for you to vote on.

Instead, voting for the lesser evil is still voting for evil, and endorsing it.

Punch in the Face is polling at 48%. Kick to the Balls is polling at 46%. Those idiots in the Ice Cream Party are polling at 6%, but they can't possibly win. A vote for Ice Cream is a vote for Kick to the Balls, because they'll only steal votes that legitimately are owned by Punch in the Face. Why do you want to support Kick to the Balls? Are you nuts? Punch in the Face is clearly the lesser evil and way to go.

"I got punched in the face! I didn't want that!"

Sure you did. You voted for it.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[stoatwblr]

You don't have "right" and "left" in the USA and haven't had for a number of years.

You have "far right" and "extreme right"

This latest change is sleepwalking into past follies.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[bkcallahan]

"Obamacare is a market solution to Health care."

Sorry, but Obamacare isn't any solution I've seen yet.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

To a large extent, the apparent similarities between both parties are because both sides try to take the middle ground. If you get the "middle" voters, you win.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[Eskarel]

It's fairly clear if all you read is the news headlines, the evidence is actually a lot less clear. Greenwald has an ax to grind and Snowden himself is basically off the grid. I'm not saying bad things aren't happening, merely that the scale of the bad things is far from clear and often massively over inflated both in the news media and especially on places like Slashdot. There's no real information about how any of it actually works, what was collected, who it was collected on. We know there have been some abuses, but most of them are the usual sort of crap which happens in most places which collect personal information as opposed to particularly maliciou evil big government types. Specifically there is absolutely no evidence that I've ever seen that the government is actually collecting every single e-mail or recording every single phone call, let alone actually reading or listening to them despite it being frequently claimed on here. Hell, I've yet to be able to even find the source document which backs up the claim that RSA were paid by the NSA to include a backdoor. Lots of news stories, but no documentary evidence. It seems these days they just say "Snowden reveals" in the press and security Chicken Little's not only believe every single word but then add in stuff that wasn't ever revealed.

I didn't say the majority of the people in the US want to live in a police state, even assuming that what they're doing actually constitutes one. I said that a plurality of people in most electorates care more about other issues. If you were to run on a anti-NSA platform you wouldn't lose because the system is rigged, you'd lose because unless the rest of your platform was also something people wanted they wouldn't vote for you.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[jwhitener]

And it has been 4 years of a Republican controlled House. They have not proposed or passed a single law related to the economy.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[thoughtlover]

Two parties? Apologies, maybe it's the distance, but from over here in Europe it looks like the US has only one party with two slightly differing wings.

No, we do have two parties... I keep telling my friends and family that the two-party system is alive and well in the USA. The government and corporations are the two parties. Corporations (monied interests) have been trying to subvert the constitution since the country was formed*. The fact that we have a two-party system where nothing seemingly works beyond status quo belies the fact that we could have a representative government (or a third party; Green, Libertarian, Constitutionalist, etc.) and it still wouldn't work. TJ knew this when he saw the power special interests were exerting over the Federalist party*. His vain, and probably goodhearted, attempt to distance his virtues from that corruption resulted in another corrupt party, the Democratic party.

Money from special interests keeps real reform from being legislated, plain and simple. Congress still refuses to talk about term-limits, so we're looking at career politicians for some time. At some point, people seem to be inherently greedy and lose any moral compass they may once have had. So that's why I tell my friends, we do have a two-party system. Government and Corporations. SCOTUS really screwed the general public with the Citizens United case.

* “Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains.” --Thomas Jefferson, 1814.

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done.

[jwhitener]

But the American body politik is also crazy conservative

Not according to polls. Gay marriage, legalizing pot, getting our troops home, single payer, etc... the American public has consistently polled more liberal than our government.

Blacks, Latinos, Women (mostly liberal) are an increasingly larger part of the voting pool, yet this has not been visible in the makeup of Congress.

Gerrymandering is to blame: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/the-great-gerrymander-of-2012.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

If Congress people were elected by total votes cast across their state (instead of by political party controlled districts), the US would be a much more liberal country.

we will not be happy...

[wbr1]

...until the fear mongering military industrial complex bankrupts this country. Rome was not built in a day, but neither did it fall in a day. We are falling now, will we catch it?

Re:we will not be happy...

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. It is like watching a car crash in slow motion. Hopefully people will revolt before it is too late. If it isn't already.

Re:we will not be happy...

[Anonymous Coward]

we will not be happy...

We're already 'not happy'. This is just going to make us many much more unhappier.

Breaking News: The FBI has joined the NSA in their pursuit to prove all Americans are suspects until proven terrorists.

Re:we will not be happy...

[gweihir]

Historically speaking, the US peaked some time ago. There is no way but down now.

If the US were a modern state, maybe the trend could be stopped, but with waning economic power, over-sized military spending, religion becoming more and more important than science and education, it does look rather like the classical collapse. That one is basically never stopped unless externally. But the US is too large and to removed from the rest of the world for that to be likely to happen. If the US is very lucky, there will not be a totalitarian state before collapse and recovery, but that looks less and less likely.

Re:we will not be happy...

[epyT-R]

In addition, there's the pandering, divisive influence of identity politics distracting the citizens' attention towards each other.. What better way to get people to vote for bigger government than to bribe one group into dependence while shaming the other out of their self-reliance?

Re:we will not be happy...

[cold fjord]

we will not be happy .... until the fear mongering military industrial complex bankrupts this country. Rome was not built in a day, but neither did it fall in a day. We are falling now, will we catch it?

Rome didn't go bankrupt, it fell to barbarian invasion. Well, the barbarians just took another city, one we had taken from them, but now they have it back.

Al-Qaeda-linked force captures Fallujah amid rise in violence in Iraq

They are fighting in many places around the world to advance their causes. Eventually they are almost certain to become an enormous problem in Europe.

If you are worried about the US going bankrupt, it won't be because of defense spending, which is a part of the Constitutionally designated responsibility of defending the country, but rather social welfare spending combined with the growing weight of the deficit.

Medicare and Other Entitlements Are Crowding Out Spending on Defense

So to be accurate you should be complaining about Obamacare, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and so on, piling up a crushing weight of spending and debt. That constitutes the major part of Federal spending.

Re:we will not be happy...

[Anonymous Coward]

1. The USA peaked right before LBJ signed the Immigration Reform Act of 1965
2. Science and education are code words for atheism, elitism and collectivism.
3. Government waste is NOT government waste when it funds the projects that pay your salary, right?

Prove otherwise.

Re:we will not be happy...

[Anonymous Coward]

What does immigration reform have to do with anything except you finding a target to direct your Hispanic racism towards? You're not being racist? Prove otherwise.

Re:we will not be happy...

[bob_super]

Externally, the USA peaked right around 2000.
The economy was bubbling like crazy. The tech was spreading everywhere. The USSR was long gone. We just mopped the floor with a dictator, proving that we could when nobody else could. Everyone else was marveling at the super-weapons, stealth planes, and wondering what else was in secret store. USA domestic issues were trivial and the biggest problem _seemed_ to be in the pants of the president.
Remember that time of bliss? Not superpower, unchallenged hyperpower.

In 2001, the tech bubble burst, the lost jobs to outsourcing became obvious and painful, we pissed off our friends one after the other until late summer, and when they came to offer help, we started behaving like an angry bully who got punched back, as we underestimated what turned into a 13-year war, and planned another one against their best advice. And everyone foreign and domestic became a threat, from 2-year-olds in Iran to wheelchair-bound grandma. Some people got very rich. They probably don't only have assets in dollars.

Re:we will not be happy...

[Anonymous Coward]

You have too much faith in people. The people are stupid obedient morons who are perfectly happy to suck STASI cock. The people are the problem.

Re:we will not be happy...

[the eric conspiracy]

Interesting thesis but facts don't back it up.

1. Waning economic power. 'Waning' means decreasing. Well it isn't. It's just some alarmist claim, just like when Gen LeMay was going around claiming the Russians had 1500 ICBMs. Well after the fact it was found they had 4.

2. Over-sized military spending isn't a sign of collapse.

3. Religion becoming more important than science and education. Um this is not new. Religion has always been #1 in the US. If anything religion is declining in the US.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/michael-gerson-an-america-that-is-losing-faith-with-religion/2013/03/25/10d9fcb8-9582-11e2-bc8a-934ce979aa74_story.html

In fact 2012 was the year in which Protestants became a minority in America.

Re:we will not be happy...

[mattmarlowe]

The city of rome being sacked by barbarian invaders from 390-500AD is what historians commonly use as a milestone to mark rome's fall. It is however, more interesting, from a comparitive perspective to note the long decline and increasing struggles of rome from ~100BC onwards. This is partly because it clashes so much against the amazing and astonishing rise of rome during the preceeding 650 year period. It is almost like history plays itself forward and reverses itself in a pyramid shape across a 1100 year period. People can not help but wonder about it.

The actual sacking of the city is almost irrelevant to the story.

In any case, there are hundreds - if not thousands of discussions, movies, and books that one can ingest to get a better understanding. Rome and its leaders were aware that they were in decline relatively early on, but they could not stop the momentum.

With regard to military spending, some have argued that it was not the spending so much as the romes need for ever increasing borders to protect itself which required ever more soldiers to patrol/fortify which also involved ever more absorbtion of other cultures/people without traditional loyalty to rome or roman work ethic.

Likewise, many historians have suggested that during Rome's rise, the conflicting classes of roman society were able to compromise, share common values, sacrifice for common good, and accept the results of elections even when their candidates did not win. All of these necessary components of society stopped functioning around 50BC and there is no single reason. The decline was as much cultural as economic as military.

Re:we will not be happy...

[Anonymous Coward]

Externally, the USA peaked right around 2000.
The economy was bubbling like crazy. The tech was spreading everywhere. The USSR was long gone. We just mopped the floor with a dictator, proving that we could when nobody else could. Everyone else was marveling at the super-weapons, stealth planes, and wondering what else was in secret store. USA domestic issues were trivial and the biggest problem _seemed_ to be in the pants of the president.
Remember that time of bliss? Not superpower, unchallenged hyperpower.

Jan 17, 2001. Mere days from assuming the presidency and closing the door on eight years of Bill Clinton, president-elect George W. Bush assured the nation in a televised address Tuesday that "our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is finally over."

Re:we will not be happy...

[Opportunist]

It's more like watching an oil tanker move. The US is pretty much an oil tanker. Even with the engine off it still keeps moving forwards for a long, long time and it will still cover a lot of ground and slow down very slowly.

The problem is, once that tanker is standing still, getting it moving is going to take a LOT of power for very, very little gain. Who'd want to put that much energy behind it anymore instead of simply letting it sink and charter a ship that's still moving?

Re:we will not be happy...

[gweihir]

I would submit that it is not so easy to see these changes from the inside. They are glaringly obvious from the outside though.

Your argumentation, incidentally, is a sign of that. You completely miss the point on all counts, and are merely regurgitating propaganda.

Re:we will not be happy...

[Anonymous Coward]

There is enough wealth and comfort in the system that a revolt is impossible. All that can happen is the inevitable crash. Then you get enough misery spread about to cause a revolution, though it will be pointless to have one at that point, and infinitely more damaging than a middle-class revolution would be.

Think Bolshevik Revolution. That's what's coming once this country stops circling the drain from sheer momentum and takes the final plunge into chaos. Though the result may not be socialism. It will be the same police state, however. That will be a necessity.

And the very wealthy think they can concentrate enough wealth at the top to escape it, or buy it off, and some of them are right and will leave this place, but many of them live on borrowed time. Especially if they think they can stay here, and rule. For those arrogant fools, there will be no escaping it.

Re:we will not be happy...

[cold fjord]

The day came when ordinary Romans were no longer willing to be soldiers and defend Rome. The West is nearing that point, whether you refer to the willingness to take up arms individually, or support it as policy. By the time the people learn what enormous folly they are embracing it may be too late.

Re:we will not be happy...

[Opportunist]

A 5/10 on the troll scale, but I bite.

The USA peaked right after WW2 and into the mid-60s, that far I can agree. I do not agree with the reason, though. What really made the US big in that time is that everyone had money, and everyone was not only spending but also COULD spend. People were not spending aimlessly and frivolously, but they were investing. Building houses, buying cars, paying for junior's tuition. What we call "sustainable economy" today, spending money with the aim to have something lasting in the end. People bought US goods. Hell, maybe they would today, too, but they CANNOT because nothing gets built in the US anymore. Yes, Chinacrap is cheaper. But it moves money out the country. Not to mention, considering how long a TV lasted in the 60s and how long it lasts today, I question which one costs more in the end... but I ramble. What matters is that the money circulated inside the country back then, and it did not only go from the bottom to the top but the "trickle down" system worked back then. You could sustain a family on an income. The system worked. It hasn't since the 90s, if it didn't start to crumble earlier.

Science and education have nothing to do with atheism or collectivism, and it only has to do with elitism if it is done WRONG. Education MUST be a right, and tied to your brains. Not to your wallet. If your education depends on what's in your seat pocket and not on what's under your skull, the system is shot. Then you have indeed an elitist society, an aristocracy with a very low chance to pass up or down the ladder. And don't come with "but stipends". Get real.
Science is by definition agnostic. Not atheistic. Science does not believe. Science, good science at least, allows tests and will accept results even if it disproves a pet theory and what has been considered right. Yes, there are very bad scientists who will try to bury results that don't match their ideals. And I'm not talking about "religious" scientists. Some scientists take their science religiously. And that has nothing to do with science anymore. You have to accept that you may be wrong. That's what science is about. Or, in the eternal words of my old university prof, there's no such thing as bad results, unless you fake them to prove something. Results that disprove your theory still accomplish something, they proved you wrong. We have to accept that we may be wrong. Yes, I know, we don't like that. We've been taught since school that we should always try to be right, but in science, this is by no means the right approach. Science is about learning. And I think that should be our goal as humans. To learn. That's why we're here on this planet.

Re:we will not be happy...

[Anonymous Coward]

Spoken like a true socialist. Why should he have to prove himself innocent of a fallacious ad hominem?

What better way to ensure reliable voting blocks for marxist policies when they're made up of starving immigrants with no money?

Re:we will not be happy...

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you sure that what happen wasn't that Rome became something the ordinary citizens didn't want to defend?

Re:we will not be happy...

[the eric conspiracy]

Argument summary so far.

1. You listed a bunch of reasons why you believe the US is in decline.

2. I pointed out that each of your reasons was factually incorrect.

3. You claimed I am regurgitating propaganda.

It seems to me that you have not made your argument in any way. All of your facts are wrong and your rebuttal is baloney like "it's not so easy to see these changes from the inside".

Sorry, but your argument remains well short of demonstrating anything.

Re:we will not be happy...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right. Blame the victims.

Re:we will not be happy...

[Anonymous Coward]

the problem is: how to revolt? linch-mob style won't do any good. it would upset the economy too much and you'd end up with something similar or worse. always vote against incumbents? you're talking about plucking one bad apple out of a barrel of bad apples and replacing it with one supposedly good apple. how long will one good apple stay good in a whole barrel of bad apples? i'm reminded of how the boy kept plugging holes in the dike with his fingers. at some point, you realize the levee is gonna break but how do you replace it? build another one you say? where? you can't build it on the side with water and the side that doesn't have water...that space is occupied with homes, schools, businesses...the very things you want to protect.

imo, the only solution is succession of the states...to become their own sovereign nations or to form a confederation. those who rule from D.C. wield the power of gods. people can't fight gods. if power falls back to the states, the rulers are not gods - they are mere mortals again - and people CAN fight people. people can govern themselves and their rules on a local scale. if the people lose control, they can flee to another state. the problem then becomes Big Business - because that's where the jobs are. what if Big Business is in the state you want to escape but not in the state you want to flee to?

shit, i don't know what the solution is. buy some life jackets and wait for the levee to break.

Re:we will not be happy...

[isorox]

You have too much faith in people. The people are stupid obedient morons who are perfectly happy to suck STASI cock. The people are the problem.

True, and they ARE revolting. Everyone wins.

Re:we will not be happy...

[isorox]

That's right. Blame the victims.

If only there was some way for the population to change their government...

Re:we will not be happy...

[gweihir]

Nice! More propaganda! But you could do much better. I hear the books by Goebbels are excellent material in that area...

Re:we will not be happy...

[Anonymous Coward]

2. I pointed out that each of your reasons was factually incorrect.

Well, no. You basically stuck your fingers in your ears and went "nanny-nanny-nanny." That's not pointing anything out, other than perhaps your own ignorance.

Re:we will not be happy...

[Anonymous Coward]

USA peaked in the 90s in my opinion, **relative to the other countries**. In the 90s the Soviet Union fell, while China was not yet powerful (that happened the next decade). So the 90s were the peak of the USA's hegemony.

Re:we will not be happy...

[Anonymous Coward]

When will you begin putting your energy into "improving" your new fatherland? I would think commenting here is a waste of your time.

Re:we will not be happy...

[cold fjord]

Historically speaking, the US peaked some time ago. There is no way but down now.

If the US were a modern state, maybe the trend could be stopped, but with waning economic power, over-sized military spending, religion becoming more and more important than science and education, it does look rather like the classical collapse...

If the US collapses it will land on Europe. The native European population is heading for a demographic collapse in many countries. To compensate many European nations are accepting large numbers of immigrants that are fundamentally hostile to European values. The immigrants are beginning to replace the native population and are not assimilating. Europeans are increasingly abandoning the Christianity that contributed to building its civilization and now Islam is rapidly growing. There is already pressure in many countries in Europe to recognize Sharia law as valid, and many Muslims support it. That is before you get to the many and growing economic problems of the EU. The Euro is unlikely to survive in the present form. There is growing hostility among various European nations over economic issues. European states are beginning to enhance their security services and increase surveillance of their populations. That is a trend likely to continue. You are so busy enjoying what you perceive as the impending fall of a decaying America across the street that you don't notice that your own house is on fire. Europe is likely to be in a civil war of some sort within 50 years, and some see the possibility of another genocide attempt. At least you are likely to have the US to continue to hate as a cold comfort.

Re:we will not be happy...

[Opportunist]

I'm still working on improving my old fatherland, thanks. I'll go and save the US when I get around to it, but I tend to start small.

Re:we will not be happy...

[ultranova]

Over-sized military spending isn't a sign of collapse.

Large military spending is a sign of either corruption, being faced with a major threat or a dependency on foreign resources. All of these can easily become points of fracture if and when a major crisis occurs.

and I quote:

[Infestedkudzu]

"The more things change, the more they stay the same." - snake -

Re:and I quote:

[Mister Transistor]

The more things change, the more they SUCK.

- Butthead

Yet another excuse

[Endloser]

to ignore FOIA.

Of course

[epyT-R]

If their motto was about "Law enforcement" they'd at least have to put up the pretense that they are not only objectively enforcing the law, but that they are subject to the law as well. 'National Security' however, gives a whole new sense of self interest to their stated motivations. After all, since when has the Committee for State Security in any non-free nation taken any action that was not in its own best political interests? If anything, I applaud this change as it's a better description of their more recent activities.

Re:Of course

[cold fjord]

The FBI isn't becoming the KGB (Committee for State Security), it's becoming a hybrid of MI5 and the police. (MI5 doesn't have arrest powers.)

Has al Qaeda decided to stop trying to attack the country? Have the nations that make themselves adversaries of the US decided to stop trying to spy or undermine the US? If not, why would the US stop defending itself?

Re:Of course

[king neckbeard]

Why does it matter? We have more to fear from bath tubs than Al Quada, and it seems like they lost every competent agent about 12 years ago. The only people more inept are working in intelligence.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Has al Qaeda decided to stop trying to attack the country? Have the nations that make themselves adversaries of the US decided to stop trying to spy or undermine the US? If not, why would the US stop defending itself?

Because being alive is pointless if you have nothing to live for.

Burning the country's soul to keep the flesh alive will just create a brainless zombie.

Re:Of course

[cold fjord]

Al Qaida killed as many people on 11 September 2001 as the Japanese killed on 7 December 1941. The US went to war with both despite the fact that traffic deaths killed more people than enemy attacks in both those years by 10x or more.

Al Qaida has not reached the Gates of Vienna yet, but they aspire to eventually. There is a choice: Fight the fire in the frying pan, wait to fight it until the kitchen burns, or wait to fight it when the house burns. Plenty of people seem to be saying, "Don't fight it at all." That isn't the choice you have unless you are content to consign your children or grandchildren to being slaves.

Al-Qaeda-linked force captures Fallujah amid rise in violence in Iraq

Al Qaida and its allies have retaken Fallujah, which was taken by US forces in one of the harder battles in Iraq. They fight to take Syria, Yemen, and other lands. They cast a longing gaze at Spain. In time they think Europe and the world.

Alarm in Spain over al-Qaeda call for its "reconquest"
HAMAS Targets Spain

Re:Of course

[epyT-R]

Never assume incompetence will protect you.

Re:Of course

[king neckbeard]

There's nothing in the world more dangerous than an idiot with a weapon, and the NSA has a big weapon.

Re:Of course

[cold fjord]

If those entities are still huge threats that justify such pervasive action, then it's time for congress to declare war on countries harboring these agents

They did: Authorization for Use of Military Force

Most of these 'terrorist' groups are getting backdoor support from the governments whose countries they occupy.

In at least some cases, yes. That is why Afghanistan was invaded.

... take out a few mosques, randomly.

That isn't allowed under the law of war unless an enemy force is fighting from it. Even then it still isn't a great idea since Muslims get touchy about that even if they freely incinerate mosques and Korans.

More effeminate passive aggression will not solve this. They're either threats that should be dealt with, or they're not, and the troops should come home.

They are, and people on Slashdot, not to mention Europe and various parts of American society complain bitterly about it. Air strikes and drone strikes are only one of the means. Special Forces are another. There are others.

Either way, crap like the patriot act should be abolished, and the politicians who voted for it should be voted out of office.

The problem is that there are plenty of Muslims in the US that would gladly participate. Example from last month:

Plot to bomb Wichita airport thwarted

This problem won't go away soon.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Fear not! The NSA will save us all by spying on my mother in Chicago!

Re:Of course

[_merlin]

You conveniently ignore the fact that Al Qaeda had no chance of taking Fallujah before the US-led invasion. The US-led invasion has strengthened Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

But the NSA aren't idiots, they are the weapon.

We should be afraid of that weapon falling into the hands of idiots or villians.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that there are plenty of Muslims in the US that would gladly participate. Example from last month:

Plot to bomb Wichita airport thwarted

This problem won't go away soon.

That's not an example of US Muslims wanting to participate in anything, because Terry Lee Loewen isn't a Muslim. From your linked article:

At the news conference, Grissom said Loewen wasn’t associated with any religious group in Wichita and is believed to have acted alone. Although the investigation was ongoing and evidence response teams were processing multiple locations, no further arrests were anticipated.

"We have no indication that the defendant was involved or working with any member of any religious communities in Wichita," Grissom said. "His actions in no way reflect anyone else in our community."

You really should take a long hard look at your motives for posting incendiary, religiously bigoted crap like this - unless you're doing it for the money.

Re:Of course

[cold fjord]

You must not have read the article closely.

Loewen, 58, had been under investigation since this past summer after making threats to engage in a terrorist act of jihad against the United States. Loewen intended to kill himself in the process. ....

He frequently expressed his admiration of Anwar Al-Awlaki, the American-born al-Qaida leader who was killed in a 2011 drone strike in Yemen. Al-Awlaki emerged as an influential preacher among militants living in the West, with his English language Internet sermons calling for jihad against the U.S.

Authorities said Loewen spent months studying the airport’s layout, flight patterns and other details to maximize fatalities and damage. During that time, he developed a plan along with undercover FBI agents to use his access card to airport grounds and eventually thrust the vehicle loaded with explosives into the terminal. He planned to die in the explosion, a fate that he said was inevitable after convincing himself to become a martyr in a jihad against America, according to court documents.

Who is it that engages in Jihad again?

Maybe this will help: Terry Lee Loewen, the Mellow Kansas Man Who Dreamed of Jihad

There are many fine Muslim people in the world that are willing to live in peace. But there are also extremists who will not.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Who is it that engages in Jihad again?

If by Jihad you mean holy war, lots of people of many religions have engaged in it! Except for maybe the Buddhists. And the Pastafarians. ;-)

There are many fine Muslim people in the world that are willing to live in peace. But there are also extremists who will not.

That can be said for just about any religion. Why pick on Islam?

I might be wrong, but I believe the point GP was trying to make is that your claim "The problem is that there are plenty of Muslims in the US that would gladly participate" has zero merit. Since there have been so few instances of "Jihadist" terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11, it would seem to me that there aren't "plenty" of US Muslims willing to carry out acts of violence. But if you have any actual data to support your claim, feel free to share.

Otherwise, well...your position on the matter does in fact come off as ignorant and bigoted. But maybe you're just having a bad day or haven't been laid in a while - which would also explain the excessive bolding in your post.

Re:Of course

[cold fjord]

The data is readily available if you care to look, there have been hundreds of arrests and convictions for terrorism related offenses.

Islam is of particular interest since the extremist factions the US is at war with are from that faith. (Not obvious to you?)

There is no "might be" about it, both you and the GP are wrong.

The bolding is to help draw attention to specific information that should provide a useful clue - information about connections to extremist Islam and al Qaida. It doesn't seem to have helped you. I wonder why?

Your position is virtually indistinguishable from willful blindness or trolling. Either sign in or get an account if you want to continue.

Re:Of course

[epyT-R]

In at least some cases, yes. That is why Afghanistan was invaded.

So if it was invaded, why is it still standing today? What exactly are our soldiers doing there? 'peace keeping'? This is more of that passive aggressive problem, not the solution.

That isn't allowed under the law of war unless an enemy force is fighting from it. Even then it still isn't a great idea since Muslims get touchy about that even if they freely incinerate mosques and Korans.

That 'rule of war' did not stop 9/11 from being funded and executed. So why is kabul still standing if these people are threats that justify bullshit like the patriot act and pervasive surveillance?

They are, and people on Slashdot, not to mention Europe and various parts of American society complain bitterly about it. Air strikes and drone strikes are only one of the means. Special Forces are another. There are others.

Those are all piecemeal solutions. Again, if these people are threats that justify such abuse of our civil liberties, why aren't these enemy strongholds (and the capitals of their financial backers) burned to the ground yet?

The problem is that there are plenty of Muslims in the US that would gladly participate. Example from last month:

Agreed. It only got this way because of all the appeasement given the muslim community. They're often painted as victims of discrimination when they are not.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

The data is readily available if you care to look, there have been hundreds of arrests and convictions for terrorism related offenses.

You are the one making the claim that there are plenty of Muslims in the US that are willing to participate in acts of terrorism, so it is on you to back up that claim. The link you provided in support of your assertion is about the arrest of one mid-western middle-aged white dude who has likely never even set foot in a mosque.

I provided a link to an independent source of data that would seem to refute your claim, yet you still can't provide any credible, independent data in support of it...I wonder why? If there's this plethora of data out there that supports your position, it should be fairly easy to cite some.

Your position is virtually indistinguishable from willful blindness or trolling. Either sign in or get an account if you want to continue.

My position is that your claim about US Muslims and terrorism is ignorant at best. Your position so far seem to be "...I'm right because I say so!".

ps - I see no reason to get an account here, as you very obviously have no problem responding to AC posts.

We're doomed

[Anonymous Coward]

The FBI got roped into shit the CIA should have been handling in the Middle East. Now they're a counterterrorism unit, same as every other fucking law enforcement body in this country. The militarization of our police forces is now complete.

Re:We're doomed

[mjwalshe]

should split the national security away from the FBI and have the FBI just as a civilian federal police force and have something like MI5

Re:We're doomed

[the eric conspiracy]

We did. It's called the DHS which the FBI is not part of.

The FBI sees all the shiny over there and wants in.

Ugh.

Re:We're doomed

[mjwalshe]

Oh I thought the DHS where the ARP Warden Hodges / Jobsworth types that couldn't get a job in a proper TLA :-)

they had to...

[Connie_Lingus]

with the amount of information that Snowden has disclosed about the NSA's "domestic wiretapping" shit, what was the point of the FBI duplicating the efforts??

it would seem that the NSA already has the ability to know almost anything about anyone...the FBI simply realized it was time for greener pastures.

Re:they had to...

[binarylarry]

There's no money in law enforcement anymore but national security agencies get a blank check.

I smell $$$, not stealth

[Tablizer]

I suspect they are doing it because they want more "homeland security" funds, and use the mission statement as "evidence" they are multipurpose.

Re:I smell $$$, not stealth

[Endloser]

I suspect they are doing it so they can do whatever the fuck they want without recourse because nobody is up their ass investigating the blatant abuse. The FBI is kinda known for being pushy asshats.

At least they are honest

[gweihir]

The law has not been their guideline for a while now and cannot be changed fast enough for creating a successful police-state in th near future anyways. So assigning it a lesser importance compared to their primary goal is entirely rational.

For those still clueless: "National Security" as primary government objective was historically called "Police State". It is also not about the security of the citizens either.

Re:At least they are honest

[Anonymous Coward]

You old bastards are so goddamned paranoid. Is that a side-effect of aging? I really think you people have an orgasm every time something that was imagined in your childhood literature appears to be coming true. 1984 was just a fucking book. So was the bible, but I digress.

Re:At least they are honest

[Anonymous Coward]

1984 was just a fucking book.

Yeah, an instruction manual.

One or the other?

[gallondr00nk]

Are the two mutually exclusive? Call me naive, but would it be possible to protect national security within the law?

Actually, don't answer that. They should just change it again to "our primary function is to get more funding" and have done with it.

Re:One or the other?

[iluvcapra]

Are the two mutually exclusive? Call me naive, but would it be possible to protect national security within the law?

There's this whole legal commentary on the question of wether or not a nation's sovereign jurisdiction extends to those that fight its wars ("Most signs point to no"). It's bound up in the question of wether or not soldiers are bound to follow "illegal" orders ("No, but it's gotta be illegal in the first place"), and wether or not an officer of the government, in exercising this or that authority, is either executing an order or obeying the law.

National security is always going to be considered a superlative priority to the rule of law, because a state, secure to make, break and enforce whatever laws its polity may demand, is a precondition for the rule of law.

So yeah the FBIs exceeding it's ambit, but this is just a mission statement— it merely states what's been the de facto situation since the early aughts, and which nobody is really concerned about. The FBI is an internal security service, nothing more or less.

Re:One or the other?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, first of all, all the worthwhile "national security" objectives would be met by just fighting crime in the first place.

But just blanket saying "national security" enables you to go beyond the law and then just yell NATIONAL SECURITY!!! while shooting down some guy in his cottage without warning, totally illegally but "necessarily for national security".

That is truly scary ...

[Anonymous Coward]

So, the US turns yet another law-enforcement agency into an arm of the security apparatus.

You guys are well on your way to devolving into a police state and can't even understand what is happening.

With the US devolving into this kind of "we can do anything we want in the name of security", they will increasingly become a disruptive force in world politics.

You guys are turning into everything you've ever historically been against, which means you're now becoming terrifying, and nobody is prepared to listen to your self appointed moral high-ground -- because you've long since abdicated that.

Papers please, comrade. Me must protect the Rhodina.

Enjoy your new and improved fascism, which looks a little like Capitalism. And don't tell me you still have freedoms -- you have the illusion of the freedoms as long as your government doesn't deem it necessary to take them away.

America is going to be much more the worse by turning the FBI into anything but being primarily a law enforcement agency. Because the NSA and CIA have demonstrated they don't give a shit about laws.

Re:That is truly scary ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Should those of us that watch this happening flee the state or should we try to spread reason while being drowned out by everything else?

Maybe we can grow a charismatic leader from those "evil" stem cells to help us grow our own backbones.

Actually, if the MPAA / RIAA fall and there is a black hole of culture as they say will happen, maybe a portion of the eyes will open to the world around them. Well, that gives me a reason to infringe on as many copyrights from those publishers as I want as a political instead of simply false moral standing.

Fine

[symbolset]

Fold all these under the DOD and call it a day.

National Security?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does that mean that from now on, the primary function of the NSA will be law enforcement?
Or does it mean the FBI has become part of the NSA?
Or doe it mean that the NSA is part od the FBI?
Are the black helicopters comming to get me?

The military did not destroy Rome ...

[drnb]

we will not be happy until the fear mongering military industrial complex bankrupts this country. Rome was not built in a day, but neither did it fall in a day. We are falling now, will we catch it?

I'm no fan of the military industrial complex, nor a fan of an major source of government waste. We could get a more effective defense for less money. That said ...

The military industrial complex did not destroy Rome. It was the free bread and circuses and other freebies designed to buy the votes of the citizenry. This not only racked up the debt but it undermined the concept of citizenship. Undermined the idea that citizens (both patricians and plebeians) should contribute to the greatness of their country, not that the greatness of their country entitled them to freebies.

Re:The military did not destroy Rome ...

[Anonymous Coward]

The military industrial complex did not destroy Rome. It was the free bread and circuses and other freebies designed to buy the votes of the citizenry. This not only racked up the debt but it undermined the concept of citizenship. Undermined the idea that citizens (both patricians and plebeians) should contribute to the greatness of their country, not that the greatness of their country entitled them to freebies.

Nice whitewash there. It's common knowledge that the Roman Empire was destroyed by their transition to the metric system. The very same metric system that tried to infiltrate the United States back in the 70s.

Re:The military did not destroy Rome ...

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you call someone who criticises beard and circuses? A racist. However, the racists were right all along.

Re:The military did not destroy Rome ...

[iluvcapra]

The military industrial complex did not destroy Rome. It was the free bread and circuses and other freebies designed to buy the votes of the citizenry. This not only racked up the debt but it undermined the concept of citizenship.

OK, This is Mises's revisionism. Rome had corruption among the tribunes, but they also had praetorians killing emperors left and right; they had foederati and mercenaries defending the borders; they had a completely broken tax system which exempted most citizens from above-board taxation, which demanded a spoils-driven empire to merely sustain law and order. Rome also had a sclerotic civil administration that was never equal to the task of operating a vast continental empire, and lacked innovations even the Merovingians and Franks had, such as accounting of state appropriations.

We also have the multi-cultural development of the Roman state, it's long-term tendency towards centralization, it's failure to integrate foreign societies as it did in the Republican era. Gibbon's belief that the rise of Christianity depleted the state of its legitimacy and caused the elite to give up on civic improvement can also be studied with profit.

We also have the reorganization of the Roman state after the partition, and the Byzantine empire, which operated under approximately the same constraints as the Roman Empire, and would stage influence-buying sprees that made the Roman panem et circenses look like a church social, yet it lasted an extra thousand years.

It's also a point of argument wether or not the Roman imperial office actually fell, or merely just reorganized itself as the Catholic Church, which, again, used religion and the narrative of salvation as a replacement for panem.

The fact is that all states, or cultural orders, try to buy the consent of the masses; when they can, they do it with law and order, when they must, they do it with great feats of the state, military triumphs, evidence that whatever else may be wrong, we can beat the crap out of the Alemanni. If the Alemanni are no longer being defeated, worse, they're successfully sacking the city every couple years, the state tries to buy the people's obedience with "freebees." We moderns demand our government send men to the moon, and merely steal the oil of the barbarians and not slaughter them, so we might call that progress.

Re:The military did not destroy Rome ...

[Opportunist]

I know, I shouldn't butt in with facts when partisan bickering tries to prove points with made up stories, but I just can't resist...

What really fell Rome was simply the infighting. The last years of the empire are fraught with civil war and competing emperors that pit their legions against each other instead of trying to fend off the invading barbarians that flee from the Huns. That of course has very negative effects on tax incomes (because you can't tax what is destroyed), which in turn means that you lose even more of your military power (since you can't afford it anymore).

Rome existed long centuries after its emperors started to "buy" the love of the masses. Besides, you really think that throwing games for everyone in D.C. could cripple the economy of the US? Then why do you think that games in Rome could cripple that Empire?

Re:The military did not destroy Rome ...

[drnb]

Its the mindset of the citizenry, the shift that took place that is at the heart of so many of Rome's problems. In earlier centuries there was a greater sense of personal responsibility and duty. Universal conscription vs hire some barbarians is just one example. A common theme is that I am entitled to much and responsible for little. The games are just a metaphor for the distraction and buying off.

Re:The military did not destroy Rome ...

[Anonymous Coward]

A LOT of things destroyed Rome. Decadent dumbed down population (bread and circuses), overstretched military adventures, bat shit crazy power hungry leadership, Cthulhu, etc . . .

Re:The military did not destroy Rome ...

[drnb]

And why were mercenaries guarding the frontier? Because the concept of citizenship transformed from one heavy on responsibility to one heavy with entitlement. Romans no longer felt the need to personally defend their frontier, as compared to their ancestors who effectively had universal conscription. All of military age were expected to be ready to serve in time of war, even the "seniors" and "juniors" may be called up to serve in more severe times of crisis. Although these later were usually assigned to the defense of the city itself in order to free up those of military age to be part of the mobile forces.

The emperors were a symptom, not a cause. Again, I think the underlying cause is the transformation in beliefs about the responsibilities and entitlements of citizenship. Emperors were a resurrection of the Roman kings, and the kings were destroyed by those of the older mindset.

Re:The military did not destroy Rome ...

[istartedi]

I don't think the cause of Rome's decline is a closed topic among historians. IMHO Rome's fall was caused by simple economics. In the expansionist phase of empire, each conquest brought new wealth. Eventually the empire became too large to expand. At that point, the conquered territories brought no new additional wealth, but required expenditures to maintain. Hadrian's wall doesn't come cheap. It required taxes. The bread, circus *AND* the Roman military were not causes of the downfall--they were effects.

The cause of the downfall was resource exhaustion. They ran out of new resources to exploit.

The Romans themselves even acknowledged the difficulty of managing the empire by breaking it into four pieces for a while.

Re:The military did not destroy Rome ...

[drnb]

Over expansion may lead to contraction, not necessarily to complete collapse. I think one of the more iconic examples of the underlying cause, responsibilities vs entitlements, is that Romans no longer felt a need to personally defend their frontier, wherever that frontier line may be drawn. That it was OK to outsource it to the barbarians. That's quite a change from their ancestors who believed they were all personally liable for military service when of "military age".

Re:The military did not destroy Rome ...

[Anonymous Coward]

And why were mercenaries guarding the frontier?

Mercenaries were guarding the frontiers because they were cheaper than a standing army. Service guaranteed citizenship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auxilia

Money is a reason why most nations do not have their army guarding their borders but just regular border patrol - civilians. Ie. Another form of mercenaries.

Stop trying to squish entitlements as "The Reason" for fall of Rome. Rome fell for many reasons. To me at least, requiring that Roman legions were 100% citizens of Rome would kind of put a selective pressure where citizens that serves would be less likely to have offspring than the ones that avoided service.

Then there was the advent of cavalry, and later heavy cavalry, that made roman legions quite obsolete. That was one of the most important reasons for fall of Rome.

Anther very important reason was that Romans were not innovators. They were builders. Once they absorbed the knowledge of the Greeks, they didn't really improve upon it. Romans took the best parts of cultures and assimilated it. That alone was death to their empire.

Lots of reasons to choose from. But "entitlements" was certainly not it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_Roman_Empire

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_the_Western_Roman_Empire#Civil_wars

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostrogothic_Kingdom#The_Gothic_War_and_end_of_the_Ostrogothic_Kingdom_.28535.E2.80.93554.29

Re:The military did not destroy Rome ...

[Anonymous Coward]

JFK was a Democrat so I've always found it incredibly IRONIC that one of his most famous quotes is 'ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country'...wtf happened here?

Re:The military did not destroy Rome ...

[Anonymous Coward]

How is it racist to criticize someone's facial hair or the circus performers?

(wow. the captcha for this post was 'circus')

Re:The military did not destroy Rome ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't it have been easier to just say that you don't have a fucking clue about anything Rome related instead of demonstrating it?

Re:The military did not destroy Rome ...

[sandbagger]

The farther flung provinces in Ireland and Britain basically were left to rot but everyone closer turned into the French and Germans. It got called the Dark Ages by Italian snobs of later generations because there were no Latin records; of course not because they were using their own mature languages to run affairs along the Roman models.

By the way, if you want a laugh, check out some 'Men's Rights' web sites. They blame the fall of Rome on feminism.

Re:The military did not destroy Rome ...

[Anonymous Coward]

it wasn't the games or bread and circus that killed Rome, it was the in-fighting as you say. the bread and circus was just the distractions used to keep people from revolting.

Re:The military did not destroy Rome ...

[ultranova]

Because the concept of citizenship transformed from one heavy on responsibility to one heavy with entitlement.

Responsibility to what, exactly speaking? Foreign conqueror? An abstract concept of a nation? "All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?" Do you perhaps think a shorter list inspires more loyalty?

Romans no longer felt the need to personally defend their frontier, as compared to their ancestors who effectively had universal conscription.

So bread is a "freebie" but the blood in my veins is public property? Really? And what's this talk about "my" frontier - I don't own any land, so what's my stake defending your frontier?

The only way it could be my frontier was if I owned a share of the state, but in that case the bread and circuses are not "freebies", they're the dividend I'm entitled to as a shareholder. Or you can go fight the Huns by yourself while I walk away. Choose freely.

Re:The military did not destroy Rome ...

[Anonymous Coward]

but what you can do for your country

From each according to their ability.

Re:The military did not destroy Rome ...

[drnb]

... requiring that Roman legions were 100% citizens of Rome would kind of put a selective pressure where citizens that serves would be less likely to have offspring than the ones that avoided service.

Early Rome employed universal conscription. All men of "military age" were eligible to be called into service immediately. Emphasis immediately. You could be called, handed your kit and be in the ranks ready to march within a day.

Then there was the advent of cavalry, and later heavy cavalry, that made roman legions quite obsolete.

Early Rome also employed cavalry. Patricians usually served in the cavalry, later wealthier plebeians as well (had to supply your own horse).

Anther very important reason was that Romans were not innovators. They were builders. Once they absorbed the knowledge of the Greeks, they didn't really improve upon it. Romans took the best parts of cultures and assimilated it.

Severely misinformed. The Romans were quick to adapt. Yes, they assimilated but they also improved upon. Look at how the javelin evolved into the pilum. By the way, the pilum was used quite effectively against cavalry.

Lots of reasons to choose from. But "entitlements" was certainly not it.

You own citations refer to a "a loss of civic virtue" as an underlying cost. A transfer of loyalty from the state to a military commander as another, which is yet another manifestation of a loss of civic virtue. Citing this battle being lost, this territory lost, etc are the symptoms of the disease not the underlying cause. The underlying cause is a sense of entitlement, a notion that government owes me much and I owe it little; that core values are secondary to immediate gain.

Re:The military did not destroy Rome ...

[drnb]

Because the concept of citizenship transformed from one heavy on responsibility to one heavy with entitlement.

Responsibility to what, exactly speaking? Foreign conqueror? An abstract concept of a nation? "All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?" Do you perhaps think a shorter list inspires more loyalty?

My point is that there was a decline in loyalty. A decline in willingness to contribute.

Romans no longer felt the need to personally defend their frontier, as compared to their ancestors who effectively had universal conscription.

So bread is a "freebie" but the blood in my veins is public property? Really? And what's this talk about "my" frontier - I don't own any land, so what's my stake defending your frontier?

The only way it could be my frontier was if I owned a share of the state, but in that case the bread and circuses are not "freebies", they're the dividend I'm entitled to as a shareholder. Or you can go fight the Huns by yourself while I walk away. Choose freely.

Soldiers were at time given land on the frontier. The freebies referred to are those given to the later citizens living in the city of Rome, citizens who largely no longer answered the call to service when their fellow citizens on the frontier were being attacked. As their ancestors once did.

Re:The military did not destroy Rome ...

[drnb]

Wouldn't it have been easier to just say that you don't have a fucking clue about anything Rome related instead of demonstrating it?

Some of the preeminent scholarly works regarding the fall of Rome refer to a decline in "civic virtue". A loss of a sense of responsibility and duty to the Roman state, replaced with a greater loyalty to a person (general or politician) who offered the greater rewards. To inform yourself as to what this "civic virtue" and sense of responsibility once entailed try reading Livy.

Re:The military did not destroy Rome ...

[Uberbah]

It was the free bread and circuses and other freebies designed to buy the votes of the citizenry.

It's pretty obvious when someone rides their hobby horse into various topics and tries to rewrite reality according to their ideology. In your case, the not-sublte-at-all implication that ZOMG money to poor to buy food, shelter and medicine will be the end of civilization.

It's not clever. It's you being a sociopath and a social darwinist.

Re:The military did not destroy Rome ...

[Anonymous Coward]

The military industrial complex did not destroy Rome. It was the free bread and circuses and other freebies designed to buy the votes of the citizenry. This not only racked up the debt but it undermined the concept of citizenship.

The term "citizen" is no longer used in everyday discourse; the word "consumer" has replaced it. "Citizenship" in the US means what, exactly, when the country favors foreign workers, foreign capital, and outsources everything? We are now "consumers" not "citizens".

Re:The military did not destroy Rome ...

[david_thornley]

The free bread and circuses were largely because of the destruction of the small farmers by the large slave-worked farms. Once there were relatively few opportunities to make an honest living for the lower classes, they needed some sort of support.

Re:The military did not destroy Rome ...

[david_thornley]

In earlier centuries, the largest part of Roman citizenry was small farmers, who had a living and something to lose. That's what I'd consider basic necessities for a healthy polity.

Re:The military did not destroy Rome ...

[iluvcapra]

My point is that there was a decline in loyalty. A decline in willingness to contribute.

This would make freebees symptomatic, not a cause.

Re:The military did not destroy Rome ...

[ultranova]

My point is that there was a decline in loyalty. A decline in willingness to contribute.

And my point is that a state is not entitled to loyalty or servitude any more than, say, a corporation would be. It needs to pay for them. In practice, that means "bread and circuses", altough things like public healthcare works too.

Soldiers were at time given land on the frontier. The freebies referred to are those given to the later citizens living in the city of Rome, citizens who largely no longer answered the call to service when their fellow citizens on the frontier were being attacked.As their ancestors once did.

Their ancestors lived in a city-state and were answering the call to defend their own homes, not some stranger who lives on another side of the continent, where they couldn't get to even if they wanted to.

Also, they're not their "fellow citizens", they're subjects of the Emperor. It's not their Empire, it's his, so let him take care of it. Which is a perfectly reasonable stance. Why should the average peon care if the lord of the land is Roman Emperor or the King of Franks? And that again gets us to bread and circuses, brought to you by the Emperor and the Empire. Look how good you have it under us! Be inspired to give a shit!

Nationalism is a recent invention, and whether it's a good idea is questionable at the very best.

Re:The military did not destroy Rome ...

[drnb]

And my point is that a state is not entitled to loyalty or servitude any more than, say, a corporation would be.

That is a quite silly statement. The state is a vehicle for collective security and economic prosperity.

It needs to pay for them. In practice, that means "bread and circuses", ...

The security and economic opportunity provided by the state is the payment. The "bread and circuses" were buying political votes, nothing to do with paying for security.

Their ancestors lived in a city-state and were answering the call to defend their own homes, ...

Untrue. They were also called upon to defend colonies (fellow citizens), allies (often those who materially aided Rome when it was threatened, including supplying their own troops to aid Rome) and friendly neighboring states (perhaps an economic partner, sometimes a state that took in and sheltered Roman citizens when the sh*t hit the fan in Rome territory).

... not some stranger who lives on another side of the continent, where they couldn't get to even if they wanted to Also, they're not their "fellow citizens", they're subjects of the Emperor.

Whoa .. your time references are way off. I am largely referring to Republic Rome. Imperial Rome was not the start of the decay in "civic virtue" as Juvenal put it, it was one of the later effects. Here is the true original context "bread and circuses":
"Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses

Re:The military did not destroy Rome ...

[Stuarticus]

My point is that there was a decline in loyalty. A decline in willingness to contribute.

You mean contribute like paying taxes?

Re:The military did not destroy Rome ...

[drnb]

My point is that there was a decline in loyalty. A decline in willingness to contribute.

You mean contribute like paying taxes?

Even in ages where Roman citizens took more seriously their voting franchise, the legislative process, the judicial process, the defense of the city, etc ... they still were reluctant to pay taxes and felt they were overtaxed.

Freedom is safety

[Anonymous Coward]

The country will be more safe because we won't have these yahoos picking away at our constitutional rights.

Mission Accomplished

[kbolino]

We can get rid of the FBI now, right?

The transformation is startling

[Karmashock]

The degeneration of the federal government is really amazing to watch.

I hesitate to put blame on anyone for it because we're so politically divided and I think everyone is so factional that we can't get past that. If I say X is responsible then people from X camp will automatically defend them or vice versa.

Regardless, there are serious problems here and the country could well trend towards tyranny.

I have even seen editorials in major newspapers calling for a King or the repeal of all sorts of rights past generations risked their lives to protect.

Its really sort of amazing. Its like a different country altogether. I'd expect to see this sort of thing in the developing world... some unstable backwater. But in the US? Really sort of amazing.

I'm not sure what is causing it... I just think its in everyone's interest if we take a few steps back and carefully consider what we are doing to ourselves.

Re:The transformation is startling

[Anonymous Coward]

Relax. It's for the children. Don't you care about the children?

Re:The transformation is startling

[Anonymous Coward]

" But in the US? Really sort of amazing."

Nope, the vast majority of americans are below average intelligence compared to the world population as a whole.

Re:The transformation is startling

[l0ungeb0y]

I'm not sure what is causing it...

Follow the money

I just think its in everyone's interest if we take a few steps back and carefully consider what we are doing to ourselves.

I think it's entirely in some very well monied people's best interests.
ObamaCare is step one.

We are well on our way to a Brave New World of Indentured Servitude to our Corporate Masters via Gov't Mandates to buy from them, to be spied on and controlled by them. over time, all Social Welfare programs will be replaced by ones that will be benefit not the people but the Corporations, and we will be Mandated to buy their products or suffer the Tax Penalties.

Health Care was first, Education Loan programs, Social Security and even Food Stamps will be rolling out in the years ahead.

Re:The transformation is startling

[Karmashock]

I think its a good deal more complicated then that. I agree there are those interests and I agree they are seem to go out of their way to gather money and power to themselves. But I think what we're dealing with is a bit more complex then that.

That is... I think they're a cough... and not the cold. Get me? I think their advances are a symptom but not a cause. Sort of how old people or HIV patients tend to die of pneumonia. Something else creates a weakness and then that weakness leads to infection.

These people are always there. They have always been there and they will always be there. But in past generations we were strong enough to resist their consistent tug. Now... not so much... and the question is why? What has broken down that has allowed these forces to be relevant?

Re:The transformation is startling

[melchoir55]

I think this is a big part of it. US citizens are basically complete idiots (including myself) compared to other countries I would want to vacation in. I was "really smart" in elementary school, high school, and college. When I traveled to Europe, met foreign exchange students, or engaged with family friends who were from other countries, I was consistently impressed by their casual grasp of mathematics, history, and philosophy. And these are just the subjects you run into on a day to day basis! My "raw intellect" (my biology) is usually more than a match for who I meet, but the breadth and depth of my intellectual development didn't come close to competing with my foreign friends until I was well passed grad school with plenty of time to do catch-up after leaving the US school system.

The USA mostly doesn't care about its children. It doesn't even know what it *means* to care about children. The country burns resources other countries protect for their progeny. It gives education a token budget (compared to war, or law enforcement, or you name it) and the budget it does get is squandered by educators who are clueless about education.

There is a lot of bad in the USA. It has been in a tailspin since the 80s, and it was in decline before that. Our clear shift to a police state is the most obvious evidence of that, though it is the tip of the iceberg. There is always hope... but we are at the level of hope Gandalf had for Frodo getting to Mount Doom. When I think of what it would realistically take to get the USA into shape, I am struck by a profound sense of dread.

Re:The transformation is startling

[deconfliction]

Regardless, there are serious problems here and the country could well trend towards tyranny.

I'm often dramatic. I often effectively troll. I often speak first and think better of it later. I often overestimate threats. I often overestimate other's likelyhood of agreeing with my thinking.

But I am really not trying to be over-the-top when I react to you by saying "let me stop you right there. 'could well trend'??? Look at what has happened since 9/11. The only silver lining is that the form of the tyranny is one that understands that many facets of multiculturalism and tolerance are necessary, at least superficially, for them to get away with their style of leadership'. And that is a pretty big silver lining. Let's everybody repeat to ourselves a few times "first (unassassinated as yet) non-white-male president of the United States of America". Ok, now that we feel better about apocalyptic extremities (except for the racists and sexists to whome such a statement is the apocalypse)... Let's get back to the "trending toward tyranny" bit. Yes, this is a big deal. It seems to me lately that the FBI is becoming more of an organization that _allows lawbreaking_ to entrench its power, more than _prevents lawbreaking_ to serve it's just purpose. And I say this as someone who emailed kansas.city@ic.fbi.gov on December 15th informing them of my crop of cannabis being grown in Kansas. I haven't heard back from them yet. I'm pretty convinced that their organization has an M.O. of allowing, and in some cases, *encouraging* law breaking behavior, hoping that the 'perps' will *escalate* the law breaking, so that they can then come in and portray themselves as big-bad-guy-busting heroes of the day. And that just spins the cycle of them getting more terrorist-fighting power and budget. Wheras if they were actually following their just charter, they might actually have a butterfly effect on the fabric of society. Who knows how many interpersonal interactions the poor entrapped and escalating souls go through before they are brought down for the FBI's public glory. Instead of the FBI just sitting the perp down in the beginning, and respecting them as a human being, instead of using them as a pawn in a sick game best explained by watching all five seasons of 'The Wire' over and over again until you realize that maybe the war on drugs was a really stupid fucking idea all along.

Re:The transformation is startling

[Mitreya]

When I traveled to Europe, met foreign exchange students, or engaged with family friends who were from other countries, I was consistently impressed by their casual grasp of mathematics, history, and philosophy.

It is worth noting that in my experience, "foreign exchange students" do not accurately represent the overall population. Average and below-average students are far more likely to stay where they are.

Your family friends are probably not a random/average sample either.

Re:The transformation is startling

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure what is causing it

$4 trillion in vote buying revenue distributed to 150 million bought and paid for subjects. Millions of government employees comfortably ensconced beyond the reach of law. A central bank with a $2.8 billion / day money hose to keep the bubbles inflated.

I know what's causing it. How is this eluding you?

They're reporting today that our trillion in education debt is now 1.2 trillion. Another job for the money printers.

This whole fucking circus has an expiration date. Move to whatever part of the nation you want to live in after the devolution of the United States, because it's going to break up; when the shit finally hits the fan and grandma's EBT card quits working Washington will lose its power.

Re:The transformation is startling

[bill_mcgonigle]

I'm not sure what is causing it... I just think its in everyone's interest if we take a few steps back and carefully consider what we are doing to ourselves.

Do theories that have predictive value carry weight? Because UBL expected this result and gave his reasons for how he could precipitate it.

Re:The transformation is startling

[Karmashock]

I don't think he did... and in any case this doesn't help the radical islamists. If the US goes down this path long enough we'll be a different culture. A culture perhaps that would be okay with genocide. And that would be bad news for the islamists.

In any case, I don't advocate any of this... and I don't see the point of looking at UBL's point of view on the matter since he wanted to destroy us.

Re:The transformation is startling

[Anonymous Coward]

Going further, my family has a knack for collecting worthless degrees. Philosophy, history, literature, and so on. They may be great for conversation and even better for enlightenment but practical they are not. A strongly capitalist society like the US has no use for those people. Far better is it to teach our schoolchildren about bureaucracy, politicking, bank loan management, and simply making some cold hard cash. Those are practical skills that the US education system does teach (unintentionally) better than any other.

Re:The transformation is startling

[bill_mcgonigle]

he wanted to destroy us.

No, he specifically wanted us to destroy ourselves, and sought to set in motion a chain of events that would cause this.

I don't see the point of looking at UBL's point of view on the matter

Why would you discount the enemy's analysis of our weaknesses?

Re:The transformation is startling

[Anonymous Coward]

The US won't descend into complete tyranny. There are too many intelligent people these days. We've civilized quite a bit. And on the plus side, most folks are too fat and lazy. Little hard to bring about the end of civilization when doing so would mean the end of your TV show and a dead battery in your power assist scooter.

Re:The transformation is startling

[Anonymous Coward]

I won't say you're an idiot, but very poorly informed. You talk about not just the US but the entire planet in such generalized terms nothing you say is much value. But you succeeded in getting the most internet points. So there's that I guess.

It isn't just the US filled with ignorant bigots, backwater fools, corruption, violence and greed. Don't be a fool. Hell, the French are some of the most racist and arrogant cunts there are. And big pussies to boot.

"The USA mostly doesn't care about its children..." What a foolish statement.

"When I think of what it would realistically take to get the USA into shape, I am struck by a profound sense of dread."

When I read shit like what you wrote, I too become struck by a profound sense of dread.

Re:The transformation is startling

[Savage-Rabbit]

When I traveled to Europe, met foreign exchange students, or engaged with family friends who were from other countries, I was consistently impressed by their casual grasp of mathematics, history, and philosophy.

It is worth noting that in my experience, "foreign exchange students" do not accurately represent the overall population. Average and below-average students are far more likely to stay where they are.

Your family friends are probably not a random/average sample either.

For what it is worth it's not exclusively the best and the brightest that sign up for being exchange students in the USA. A whole lot of them are average specimens who sign up mainly because they are members of "Fanclub USA", because American students throw fantastic keg-parties and because they have Cheerleaders over there (who turn out to be a bit less cute in real life than they are in the movies). A significant proportion of the exchange student traffic in the other direction seem to be male USians who signed up because they heard that French/German/Swedish girls are hot, or female USians ones who think French/Italian/Spanish guys are hunky and more 'sensitive' than their US counterparts (they are not, they're just better at pretending).

Re:The transformation is startling

[Karmashock]

Because I don't particularly respect the quality of his intellect.

His attack was incompetent. It only succeeded because our immigration department is even more incompetent and because "Someone" put blocks in that prevented the CIA/NSA/FBI from talking to each other. This led to the terrorists being able to operate in the US without being properly flagged.

Furthermore, Osama didn't think we'd get as far as we did in Afghanistan so his perfect grasp of things wasn't all that perfect.

As to this notion that 9/11 is what is destroying the US... I think not. Our issues are more profound then that. We are looking at generational fracture lines that have been building for about a century.

Re:The transformation is startling

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, I am not so sure about the negative assessment of your country!

I think 'taking a couple steps back' is a very important and good
thing to do though. I have hope that the US will be a very strong and
healthy country again, after a somewhat bouncy ride and a peaceful
revolution and a very strong change in attitude. Hippie-style.

I feel there is a west-wide collective, internet-fueled neurosis for
'transhumanist perfection'. There is an inherent paradox in perfection
and we should carefully examine what we consider to be 'better' when
we actually try to achieve something. I have the impression that this
need for perfection goes deeper and while we try to (very
successfully) put ourselves out of work, we do not exactly know how to
fill the voids that we afraid of if we really would live in a so
called post-scarcity economy (if we ever will, and if we are able to
figure out what 'economy' even means then)

And, talking about neurosis: I think the internet has made us,
especially us nerds, think about life and our goals as some kind of
battle for rationally based perfection. However, and this is something
which I _very strongly_ believe now, we are simply not perfect
rational beings, and we never will be. This scares a lot of us,
intensely so. But I think we should not be scared but rather allow and
keep room for subjectivity, for intuition, in addition to our rational
thought. How much of this intuition we will allow is, and always has
be, a personal, individual balance.

We use language for everything. We say we understand something, but we
cannot fully explain what understanding means. Language is making
strings of words. Each word can be to some point explained by other
words, concepts, etc. But at some point, and this has always and will
always be the case, words become tied to our emotions in a very deep
sense. We can only ever reach so far to the bottom of ourselves using
words. Can we say we are rational when we have and always will have,
taboos, for example? I do not think so. Words have different meanings
for different people, and I have the impression that driven people can
reach 'deeper' but are also more easily scared by allowing
non-rational intution in their lives. Being driven allows us to gain
deep insights, but it also kicks us around at times. I feel this is is
very deeply connected to who we are, and how society works. And, yes,
I am one of those easily scared ones. We always will try really hard
though. And someone will give us rational explanations for why
something is a certain way. And his or her words will somehow make
sense, and because it gives us a rational framework on how to make
sense of the world (which eases our great pain of having to rely on
our intuition and being afraid of somehow falling of the cliff with
it), and we will start to think within it. 'The matrix'. And because
most of the matrix is logic (but in the end tied to emotions with some
core words), we rational nerds think really hard that it actually
makes total sense.

I think some major parts of this 'rational neurosis' are:

- That science is a superset of philosophy and not the other way
around. There is a place for the 'soft sciences' in this world,
although I agree with the general sentiment of the hard scientists
that they tend to decay into babble and need to be scrutinized very
closely.

- Transhumanism and the belief that we are approaching some kind
perfection (but we are only approaching perfection for advertising
analysts)

- Add to that the idea that 'the internet' solves all the problems. We
just need another self-quantifying device to track and sell us. This
area is something that Evgeny Morozov worked out pretty well (If you
don't know him, look him up, I think he will be very important

Re:The transformation is startling

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

When I think of what it would realistically take to get the USA into shape, I am struck by a profound sense of dread.

It would take one BBC-esque national public broadcaster. One.

Re:The transformation is startling

[bythescruff]

Nonetheless, melchoir55 is right. Ask anyone who went to high school at an American international school in Europe; the local kids going to European schools were receiving a much higher standard of education. They worked a lot harder, too; we had it easy by comparison.

Another example: if a UK university offers a place to a student with an American high school diploma, the university will often require the student to do a preliminary year at the university to catch up with European students before starting the degree itself.

Re:The transformation is startling

[EmagGeek]

Here's the thing about tyranny. It's like being a frog in a pot. By the time you suspect you might "trend toward tyranny," you're actually living in full-blown tyranny.

Tyranny creeps in first where you can't see it, and it surrounds and envelopes you before you realize it has already taken over your life.

Re:The transformation is startling

[Karmashock]

So we should just cut our throats with kitchen knives... what is your point?

Re:The transformation is startling

[Anonymous Coward]

"There is a lot of bad in the USA. It has been in a tailspin since the 80s, and it was in decline before that."

The United States was founded by people who believed in God and the principles set forth in the Bible. The decline began when God was thrown out of the public square and public education. When it was made legal to murder innocent children yet to be born, that greatly accelerated the decline. We are now seeing the seeds of decline planted decades ago beginning to bear fruit. Your sense of dread is not misplaced, because of Pandora's box has been opened and Humpty Dumpty cannot be put together again.

Another small issue...

[Anonymous Coward]

If your job is national security, then your role is military not civilian.

The question is who they define as 'the nation'

[Anonymous Coward]

National Security is the term used when you've stopped giving even an inkling of a crap about the people you supposedly had been created to "serve and protect".
The laws were getting in the way, which of course leaves us wondering just whom they are protecting and from what... Because the answer to the first part certainly ain't us.

Yep, the citizens, the nasty citizens

[Anonymous Coward]

That's exactly who the military-industrial complex wants to scape-goat, the citizens, rather than its own excesses.

Never mind who was the ones keeping those citizens from having productive opportunities, and exporting resources elsewhere, rather than developing infrastructure and other improvements at home.

LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

We were a Police state since Ray-Gun

National Security

[Anonymous Coward]

"'A matter of internal security.' - the age-old cry of the oppressor.

Captain Jean-Luc Picard, Stardate 43489.2

Federal Bureau of Incompetence

[MobSwatter]

"We ain't cops, we are corporate mercenary's, and we ain't gonna tolerate no democracy bull trying change that!"

Did they change

[BringsApples]

Did they change their fact sheet, or definition of "law enforcement"? It looks like they didn't remove "Law enforcement" as their primary objective, but rather renamed it from "law enforcement" to "national security". If they changed what they actually do, then we're looking at no more FBI raids on governmental buildings, as we've seen in the past, as well as a private citizens, for things that used to be covered by the FBI's jurisdiction - and I guess, what state police do that now? Does this mean that drug runners will be better off crossing state lines?

And if it's just verbiage that's changed, does that mean that governmental problems and drug runners will now be addressed as threats to national security?

Either way, this is weird.

Re:Did they change

[iggymanz]

the statsi will do raids, and actions against private citizens, and anyone else who is a threat the the State and to the Order.

other countries have gone down this same path

Re:Did they change

[Anonymous Coward]

does that mean that governmental problems and drug runners will now be addressed as threats to national security

Yea, and this has been happening for a while now. War on Drugs, killings of drug runners and cappo's, targeted killings of people operating in foreign countries with no intent of ever setting foot or affecting any physical or other asset in the US. Renditions of 'people of interest', prosecutors trying to frame you for everything and anything they can get their hands on in 'fishing trips' through your data so they can lock you up for life (and once you're locked up for X years, we can always slam more and more years on to it because you talked back to - apologies, I meant "assaulted" - a private company prison guard... shall I go on?
If you appear on their radar, you're a 'problem to be dealt with' and you're done...

Overlap upon overlap...

[Anonymous Coward]

So now busting up drug rings is a national security issue, but I thought we had a DEA for that, or was the the ATF, and does the FBI, DEA or ATF ever go after the CIA for providing the drugs in the first place? I already thought we had an agency for national security issues. I believe it was called something like the National Security Agency. And we have a Department of Homeland Security which I guess Homeland Security is something like National Security, but one has to do with reading your emails and the other has to do with feeling up your grandmother.

And now helping catch and profile serial killers is that a national security issue or now is it unimportant.

And is breaking into the Watergate building is that a national security issue now?

Makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

It does make sense if you think about it. If you're a law enforcement agency then you are not only expected to uphold the law, but are subject to the law as well. While "national security" agencies can do whatever the F they want without consequences or any kind of oversight. And FTFA (paraphrased) "Had the FBI continued investigating financial crimes at the same rate as it was doing, about 2,000 more rich possible political-campaign contributing criminals would be behind bars,"

It definitely *IS* a ruse !

[Taco Cowboy]

The two-party gag is merely a ruse

How many governmental agencies are in charge of "National Security" ?

Navy
Army
Air Force
Marine
Coast Guard
NSA
CIA
FBI
TBA ...

How many governmental agencies are in charge of "Law Enforcement" ?

SEC (for financial/security)
DEA (for drugs)
ATF (for guns)
Marshall (for witness protection)

With FBI withdrawing from "Law Enforcement", who is in charge of interstate criminal activities, racketeering, and so on ??

Re:It definitely *IS* a ruse !

[gweihir]

With FBI withdrawing from "Law Enforcement", who is in charge of interstate criminal activities, racketeering, and so on ??

No need for that. The more crime (real or imagined) there is, the more people are afraid, stupid and easy to manipulate. That has been a top priority of the US administration since 9/11 gave it the prefect pretext to implement measures planned long before.

Re:It definitely *IS* a ruse !

[troll -1]

But racketeering is now terrorism. Make us all enemies of the state and you can lock us up without a trial.

Re:It definitely *IS* a ruse !

[demachina]

"With FBI withdrawing from "Law Enforcement", who is in charge of interstate criminal activities, racketeering, and so on ??"

Wall Street?

Re:It definitely *IS* a ruse !

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah "law enforcement" is an inconvenient term, it reminds people that there are laws. And that might get a bit awkward...

Re:It definitely *IS* a ruse !

[reboot246]

How far they have come! Remember, the agency that eventually became the FBI could not even make arrests until 1934.

Re:It definitely *IS* a ruse !

[Nyder]

The two-party gag is merely a ruse

How many governmental agencies are in charge of "National Security" ?

Navy
Army
Air Force
Marine
Coast Guard
NSA
CIA
FBI
TBA ...

How many governmental agencies are in charge of "Law Enforcement" ?

SEC (for financial/security)
DEA (for drugs)
ATF (for guns)
Marshall (for witness protection)

With FBI withdrawing from "Law Enforcement", who is in charge of interstate criminal activities, racketeering, and so on ??

My guess is they are going to start classifying various crimes as terrorist acts. Thus the FBI will still get to go after them but with better funding and the ability to say they are protecting America from "terrorists".

Re:It definitely *IS* a ruse !

[demachina]

How did you make that list and leave DHS out? A few of those agencies are part of DHS but seriously DHS is THE homeland security agency since 9/11 and
"homeland" and "national" are synonymous.

Re:It definitely *IS* a ruse !

[Anonymous Coward]

With FBI withdrawing from "Law Enforcement", who is in charge of interstate criminal activities, racketeering, and so on ??

don't you see? *EVERYTHING* will be tagged "national security" by every government entity so that the document formerly known as 'the constitution of the united states of america' (now known as simply really old, really scratchy toilet paper) need not apply and the government need not disclose a drop of information about anything it does.

Re:It definitely *IS* a ruse !

[rtb61]

The FBI has simply made an accurate a truthful correction according to law. It is not up to police forces or investigative agencies to enforce the law, that is the sole prerogative of the courts. Policing and investigative agencies are required to prove their actions as legal in a court of law, if they fail, then the court should enforce the law and seek the prosecution of the offending officers.

The role of Policing and investigative agencies is to assist the public upholding the law never ever to appoint themselves as judge, jury and executioner and attempting to force the public to adhere to their often ill informed interpretation of the law and to subject the public to immediate physical punishment whether by direct physical assault, attack with chemical weapons, attack with electric shocks with serious risk of injury, and out and out immediate on the spot public execution (all of which are apparently the standard penalty for contempt of cop).

Now the message should be forced upon those various organisations to remind them of their legal responsibilities and the strict limits to their powers. The courts of course should be doing far more to 'enforce' the laws upon those officers who commit criminal acts.

Re: It definitely *IS* a ruse !

[negRo_slim]

Disorderly Conduct is quickly becoming a terroristic act. What with cowboys and indians becoming a criminal activity and all... Bing it.

Re:It definitely *IS* a ruse !

[Jane Q. Public]

"No need for that. The more crime (real or imagined) there is, the more people are afraid, stupid and easy to manipulate. "

Well, it's mostly imagined. Crime has been going steadily DOWN for 20 years. Even serious crimes are down to HALF of what they were 30 years ago.

But what I want to know is this: since when does the FBI get to amend its own mission statement? Where did they get the authority to do that? (Rhetorical question: they don't have the authority to do that. So either somebody higher up did it, or they did it illegally.)

Re:It definitely *IS* a ruse !

[Anonymous Coward]

How many governmental agencies are in charge of "Law Enforcement" ?

Just federally? Almost 150
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_law_enforcement_in_the_United_States

Re:It definitely *IS* a ruse !

[TheGratefulNet]

funny: america was CREATED by a bunch of 'terrorists'.

the english viewed the yanks as such (some still do, to this day).

the american revolution would not be allowed to happen, if it were today. and many people believe we need a reboot of america, but if we try to change our own government like we did 200+ yrs ago, we'd be arrested and locked away for years without access to lawyers or due process.

contrary to what some may think, the role of the gov is NOT to keep itself going! they think so, but that was not the original intention of the constitution.

Re:It definitely *IS* a ruse !

[cold fjord]

With FBI withdrawing from "Law Enforcement", who is in charge of interstate criminal activities, racketeering, and so on ??

The FBI isn't "withdrawing" from law enforcement. That revision is pretty clearly simply acknowledging that they have a broader mission, they don't just do law enforcement. They can still continue investigating ordinary criminal activity too.

Re:It definitely *IS* a ruse !

[gweihir]

You are aware that most criminal cases in the US are now settled, i.e. no court involved, right?

Re:It definitely *IS* a ruse !

[Anonymous Coward]

We do, but that is not related to the original insurrection. Blowing people that you don't like up out of the blue is what makes people say that. If you use a drone or suicide vest, the result is much the same for the target.

Re:It definitely *IS* a ruse !

[Anonymous Coward]

But what I want to know is this: since when does the FBI get to amend its own mission statement? Where did they get the authority to do that? (Rhetorical question: they don't have the authority to do that. So either somebody higher up did it, or they did it illegally.)

You can't be serious. You don't even know what "mission statement" means in this context, do you? Here's a clue: yes, the FBI can amend their mission statement. Whenever they want. Every day if they so desire. Know why? Because it's completely meaningless from any legal or organizational standpoint. It's a marketing phrase, plain and simple. If you think for one tiny second that it has anything to do with what the FBI actually does, well... I guess it worked.

Falling for it does make you a fucking idiot, though.

Re:It definitely *IS* a ruse !

[swb]

Why did I have to scroll down 1/3 of the way through the comments to find someone finally asking how/why the FBI gets to change its mission statement?

At a minimum I would expect that to be a significant policy change signed off by the White House and executed by the Justice department. My hope is that it would be something that would require an act of Congress.

Although part of me thinks that its "mission statement" is not a statement of official government policy but merely one of those empty organizational statements meant to engage the middle management in a fantasy that they are running the organization.

Re:It definitely *IS* a ruse !

[Anonymous Coward]

With FBI withdrawing from "Law Enforcement", who is in charge of interstate criminal activities, racketeering, and so on ??

No need for that. The more crime (real or imagined) there is, the more people are afraid, stupid and easy to manipulate. That has been a top priority of the US administration since 9/11 gave it the prefect pretext to implement measures planned long before.

Holder will deal with the issues on a case by case basis.

Re:It definitely *IS* a ruse !

[Anonymous Coward]

funny: america was CREATED by a bunch of 'terrorists'.

the english viewed the yanks as such (some still do, to this day).

the american revolution would not be allowed to happen, if it were today. and many people believe we need a reboot of america, but if we try to change our own government like we did 200+ yrs ago, we'd be arrested and locked away for years without access to lawyers or due process.

contrary to what some may think, the role of the gov is NOT to keep itself going! they think so, but that was not the original intention of the constitution.

Come on! All you have to do is launch a missile at the White House, Congress, and Senate buildings when all members are sitting (a rate event) and wipe the real terrorists off the US landscape. Of course you would have to simultaneously take-out "Too Big Too Fail" investment (cough, cough) banks and brokerages. Unfortunately, simply hanging the elected and unelected officials would not get the message across to the average citizen unless packaged as a reality television series. Obama, a constitutional lawyer, spits on the US Constitution and Bill of Rights to a greater extent than Bush II.

Re:It definitely *IS* a ruse !

[cold fjord]

Courts have to approve plea agreements, so yes, courts are involved. Judges do reject plea agreements at their discretion.

Example: Judge rejects plea bargain

Re:It definitely *IS* a ruse !

[cold fjord]

funny: america was CREATED by a bunch of 'terrorists'.

the english viewed the yanks as such ...

That is bullshit and you know it. They were rebels against the British crown, not terrorists. There is a difference.

... many people believe we need a reboot of america, but if we try to change our own government like we did 200+ yrs ago, we'd be arrested and locked away for years without access to lawyers or due process.

You mean like the convention that wrote the US Constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation? I don't recall, how did that turn out?

contrary to what some may think, the role of the gov is NOT to keep itself going! they think so, but that was not the original intention of the constitution.

The Constitution has procedures for amending it to change the way the government works, and what rights you have. It has been amended numerous times, including the most famous amendments referred to as the Bill of Rights.

Have you ever heard the phrase, "Be careful what you wish for, you might get it."? You might be one of the people it was coined for.

Re:It definitely *IS* a ruse !

[Vitriol Angst]

The Declaration of Independence is a manifesto. It's terms that could not be met if England wanted to keep Americans under their thumb. The "consent of the governed" is not on the table anymore.

It has always been thus that the comfortable have to balance their profits versus the willingness of the disenfranchised to give their lives for autonomy -- and right now it seems to be low risk versus high reward for them. I expect they laugh a lot at our antics and complaints.

Re:It definitely *IS* a ruse !

[camperdave]

How many governmental agencies are in charge of "National Security" ?

Navy Army Air Force Marine Coast Guard NSA CIA FBI TBA ...

How many governmental agencies are in charge of "Law Enforcement" ?

SEC (for financial/security) DEA (for drugs) ATF (for guns) Marshall (for witness protection)

With FBI withdrawing from "Law Enforcement", who is in charge of interstate criminal activities, racketeering, and so on ??

Responsible for? All of them, and a few more besides. In charge? That's a complicated jurisdictional question, but ultimately "We, the People".

Re:It definitely *IS* a ruse !

[amicusNYCL]

With FBI withdrawing from "Law Enforcement", who is in charge of interstate criminal activities, racketeering, and so on ??

You don't understand. The FBI is not "withdrawing" from anything. Everything that they used to be in charge of, well, that stuff is now a national security matter and not just a legal matter.

Re:It definitely *IS* a ruse !

[AK Marc]

What's the list of federal agencies that have "special agents"? That's the actual list of agencies with law enforcement duties. Off the top of my head, I've met Special Agents for the IRS and SS (odd how we abbreviate every agency but that one), one enforces tax law, the other is in charge of counterfeiting law. I have no idea if the EPA, FAA, FCC, or any others have "special agents".

Re:It definitely *IS* a ruse !

[JTsyo]

How would that be different to what happened 200 years ago? The British considered the American rebels traitors and could have hung them. They didn't since the US also held British prisoners. What they did do was hold them in prison ship, in which many a prisoners died.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_of_war_in_the_American_Revolutionary_War

The two times that I know of that there was a rebellion in the US (Whiskey Rebellion and Civil War), an army was drafted and the rebellion crushed. Why do people think things would be different now?

If you have enough people to start a revolution, you have enough people to get people that think like you elected. I would think it would be much easier to get people to vote rather than take up armed resistance.

Re:It definitely *IS* a ruse !

[JTsyo]

Secret Service for counterfeiting, Border Patrol for the borders, Park rangers for national parks, as mentioned elsewhere there's DHS and even NASA has a SWAT team.

There's a whole host of others
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_law_enforcement_in_the_United_States

Re:It definitely *IS* a ruse !

[steelfood]

Yes, I hear we do cause unimaginable terror when we travel to Great Britain. They're particularly afraid of our arrogance, short- and narrow-sightedness, free spirit, loud and overall obnoxious social behavior. Even hooligans shy away when you pronounce yourself a proud American.

Or, as the British might say it, our taste in tea is perfectly horrid.

Re:It definitely *IS* a ruse !

[memnock]

I think the distinction between the two is pretty blurred. I'm too lazy to look, but there have been plenty of stories just on /. about law enforcement agencies that have totally ignored laws and/or acted without regard for morals. I almost think this whole discussion is moot due to this situation.

Re:It definitely *IS* a ruse !

[greenbird]

Well, it's mostly imagined. Crime has been going steadily DOWN for 20 years. Even serious crimes are down to HALF of what they were 30 years ago.

Except of course Copyright Infringement. They still have a special department to act as a police force for the content industry...errr...I mean to stop those evil copy thiefs.

But what I want to know is this: since when does the FBI get to amend its own mission statement? Where did they get the authority to do that?

Are you kidding? You really still believe government agencies and police forces in the US still need authorization to do anything? They don't need no stinkin authorization.

Re:It definitely *IS* a ruse !

[greenbird]

My guess is they are going to start classifying various crimes as terrorist acts.

Well, they're already classifying peaceful protests as such so I'm thinking were just a little way past that.

Salient quote from TFS

[Anonymous Coward]

You get all the wonderful arguments about how if you don't get your way, buildings will blow up and the country will be less safe.

Isn't that the same argument made by... terrorists?

Re:Salient quote from TFS

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it obvious that the USA is a terrorist state?

You know who else?

[russotto]

You know who else says "if we don't get your way, buildings will blow up and your country will be less safe"? That's right, Hitl... I mean, Al Queda.

Re:You know who else?

[Anonymous Coward]

I hear Al Queda eats sugar too.

No surprise

[Livius]

After re-writing laws, judicial precedent, and the US Constitution itself, amending a mission statement does not seem so radical any more.

USA is not the only Police State

[Taco Cowboy]

What took you so long? We've known it's a police state for over a decade already. What is wrong with you?

USA is a police state, but USA is *NOT* the only police state.

Many of the so-called "Western Democracies" have turned into police states.

Take United Kingdom, for example.

What has GCHQ been doing for the past few decades ?

And when "The Guardian" newspaper printed the revelation from Edward Snowden files, what did the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom do ?

He threaten the paper with censure.

Let's not forget the contribution of "Great Firewall of UK", aka the "David Cameron Porn Filter" which filtered out many non-porn site, including Slashdot.org

It's also England which has blocked out the Pirate Bay.

Re:USA is not the only Police State

[cold fjord]

USA is not a police state.

FTFY

Re:USA is not the only Police State

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhm, no you didn't.

Re:USA is not the only Police State

[isorox]

which filtered out many non-porn site, including Slashdot.org

Citation?

Re:USA is not the only Police State

[Anonymous Coward]

"Waaaaaah, he started it!" is not a valid counter-argument.

Re:USA is not the only Police State

[Anonymous Coward]

Also don't forget that the UK has a history of tyranny going back a thousand years. Cromwell and the Irish purges for example. Then there's England's Bloody Code in the 18-19C where there were thousands of executions; even children were tortured to death or hung for trivial crimes.

Re:USA is not the only Police State

[JigJag]

As far as I am concerned, UK = USA *, so your argument is moot for me.

Now do the same exercise with a real European country.

JigJag

*: food and accents differ, weather too, maybe.

Re:USA is not the only Police State

[Bob the Super Hamste]

You are forgetting dental hygiene in you list of exceptions.

Re:USA is not the only Police State

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually a lot of so 3rd world democracies are a police state too. Take Malaysia for example. They have a secret police that can snatch anyone and dump them in jail with no trial or contact to family in the guise of "National Security", which can be anything from bad mouthing the Prime Minister's wife to being in the opposition party. They've been at it much longer than the U.S.

Re:USA is not the only Police State

[Stuarticus]

The great filter with an opt-out? That one?

Re:USA is not the only Police State

[AK Marc]

Just because the Germans did them worse doesn't mean the US didn't run concentration camps in WWII and funnel civilian American citizens into them, based on racial profiling. Just because the USSR did a police state worse than the US doesn't mean the US doesn't have one. Just because there exists a worse example isn't a counterpoint. In the US you can be assaulted by the police and arrested for almost anything. Why doesn't that qualify?

And yet they didn't prevent 9/11 OR Boston,

[Anonymous Coward]

nor did they catch The Unabomber until the guy's brother gave them
a tip. In other words, incompetence is far more the rule than the exception,
though of course the fuckers want you to believe you can't fart without
them knowing about it.

I used to be friends with a "special agent". He told me a lot of things that
you would not usually get to hear about unless you were also employed
by the same company, which I was not.

But the thing he told me that stuck with me more than any of the other
bits was his firm conviction that the FBI was a pack of incompetent fools
who relied on snitches to solve crimes, nearly all the time. Actual events
tend to back this up. Look at all the things they have not figured out until
the info was handed to them on a platter by a snitch.

So you can spend the rest of your life being miserable and worrying about
when "they" are coming for you, but for most of us ( myself included ) the
reality is that they are never going to come for you because you are far
too boring to merit any attention. Yes, things are unpleasant at the airport and
at customs, but even then most people don't get hassled and life goes on,
just as it did for most people in Nazi Germany or any other nasty state.
So you can be miserable about things you are powerless to change, or
you can use your brain to live in a manner which means you are never
bothered by any of it. Having said that, I do not like how things are any more
than the rest of you do, but I lived through the era of Nixon, Kent State,
The Weathermen, the whole Viet Nam mess, and most of my life has been
utterly unaffected by any of it. Ok, I did get beat up by the cops during a protest
in D.C. back in the 70s, but I knew that job was dangerous when I took it.

To reiterate, life goes on, both because it can and because it must.
So the choice of whether or not to be miserable about how things are is up to you.

Life is short, a hell of a lot shorter than most of you grasp. Have fun while you
can and forget the crap you are powerless to change. And if you need some
help realizing what the whole show is about, listen to "Won't Get Fooled Again"
by The Who. Even if the current swine are deposed, swine who are remarkably similar
will rise to replace them. It is the NATURE OF MAN, and that isn't going to change.

**

Re:And yet they didn't prevent 9/11 OR Boston,

[Anonymous Coward]

the
reality is that they are never going to come for you because you are far
too boring to merit any attention.

... until your existence offends someone, who decides to snitch on you. Then you are fucked. And you deserve to be fucked, because it is the nature of man, right?

You complacent fucking fascist.

Re:And yet they didn't prevent 9/11 OR Boston,

[Anonymous Coward]

the
reality is that they are never going to come for you because you are far
too boring to merit any attention.

... until your existence offends someone, who decides to snitch on you. Then you are fucked. And you deserve to be fucked, because it is the nature of man, right?

You complacent fucking fascist.

You have an active imagination and a fair bit of paranoia, but
don't mistake that for reality, because it is not.

Some day someone you don't really know at all is going to
give you a very hard lesson when you insult them just because
you feel like doing so.

I wrote the post you responded to, and I am the furthest thing from a fascist.
I am in favor of the least amount of government possible, and I am horrified
by what the US government is doing and has done. But I am also man enough to
know I am powerless to change what is going on because it involves forces
and powers which are well above my available resources to counteract.
Voting won't change it, protesting won't change it, and violent action will
only get me killed or imprisoned for life. I choose none of these options
because I value my own life highly enough not to waste it on futile behavior.

You, on the other hand, are a sad little person who resorts to calling people names
and uttering paranoid ravings instead of making an attempt at a rational argument.

Maybe some day you will grow up enough to realize that the source of most of your
misery is you.

**

Re:And yet they didn't prevent 9/11 OR Boston,

[Anonymous Coward]

... until your existence offends someone, who decides to snitch on you. Then you are fucked.

The Kinks wrote a song called "Destroyer" for you :

"met a girl called lola and i took her back to my placefeelin' guilty, feelin' scared, hidden cameras everywherestop! hold on. stay in control

girl, i want, you here with mebut i'm really not as cool as i'd like to be'cause there's a red, under my bedand there's a little yellow man in my headand

there's a true, blue, inside of methat keeps stoppin' me, touchin' ya, watchin' ya, lovin' ya

paranoia, need destroyer. paranoia, they destroy ya'

well i fell asleep, then i woke feelin' kinda' queerlola looked at me and said ooh you look so weirdshe said man, there's really something wrong with you

one day you're gonna' self-destructyou're up, get down, i'll come work you outyou get a good thing goin' then you blow yourself out

silly boy ya' self-destroyer. silly boy ya' self-destroyer
silly boy you got so much to live forso much to aim for, so much to try foryou blow it all with, paranoiayou're so insecure you, self-destroyer

(and it goes like this, here it goes) paranoia, they destroy ya(here it goes again) paranoia, they destroy ya

dr. dr. help her please i know you'll understandthere's a time device inside of me i'm a self-destructin' manthere's a red, under my bedand there's a little green man in my head

said you're not goin' crazy, you're just a bit sad'cause there's a man in ya, knawin' ya, tearin' ya, in to to
silly boy ya' self-destroyer. paranoia, they destroy ya'

self-destroyer, wreck your healthdestroy friends, destroy yourselfthe time device of, self-destructionlies, confusion, start eruption

(yea, it goes like this, here it goes) paranoia, they destroy ya(here's to paranoia) paranoia, they destroy ya(hey hey, here it goes) paranoia, they destroy ya(and it goes like this)

paranoia, they destroy ya(and it goes like this)"

Re:And yet they didn't prevent 9/11 OR Boston,

[Anonymous Coward]

Rational argument won't change that fact that you are the absolute worst kind of fascist: the complacent selfish obedient slave who is terrified of causing offense. Regular boring Americans are jailed for doing nothing more than minding their own business while walking down a public street, but that's OK as long as you stay out of trouble, because the only thing that matters to you is you.

Re:And yet they didn't prevent 9/11 OR Boston,

[Anonymous Coward]

Those lyrics be pirated! Hold on while I snitch on you. You'll get a very hard lesson now! Also, your existence offends me.

Re:And yet they didn't prevent 9/11 OR Boston,

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, your existence offends me.

Go kill yourself, you dickeating moron, then you won't notice me any more.

Just like the German Protection Squadron

[Culture20]

Schutzstaffel!

You are not a police state...

[frrrp]

You are an occupied state. The military/surveillance industry has moved beyond simply corrupting the political process via high-priced, slick and efficient think tanks/lobbyists and now effectively owns the White House. Your current crop of politicians are either terrified into submission by security Grand Guignol theater; bought off like cheap hookers; or blackmailed into compliance by dirt accidentally turned up by the "legitimate" surveillance programs. Using estimates from Dana Priest and William Arkin at WashPo, the combined membership of the military and security apparatus is now pretty close to 2% of the entire population - funnily enough, the same number Orwell gave for the Inner Party in _1984_. Democracy has ceased to be - you now live in the United Occupied States of America. Who you vote in makes fuck all difference. Get used to it. The only hope the rest of the planet has is in your imminent bankruptcy and economic implosion. Unfortunately, neither privatised prisons nor a perpetual war footing are viable long term business models. Just look at what happened to your prototype - the former Soviet Union.

Wait a minute. . .

[physicsphairy]

'You get all the wonderful arguments about how if you don't get your way, buildings will blow up and the country will be less safe.'

Isn't it usually the terrorists who make this argument?

Re:Wait a minute. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you suggesting AQ (I love that the boogeyman is such a common topic of discussion they get a 2 letter acronym) should change their mission statement to counter-terrorism and start demanding protection money? That's brilliant! Kinda like the "firemen" from "F-451" or "Gangs of NY".

Re:Wait a minute. . .

[VortexCortex]

Yes. What's your point? Since they were created we've known that's what the FBI is up to.

The DHS is the enforcement arm of the "national security" secret police, so the FBI is moving up in the world. The DHS is already showing up a ball games, I wouldn't be surprised if they start replacing local cops -- Or, those offices just get re-branded, they're already being militarized. Anything to don the prestigious cloak of national secrecy.

Kind of makes the NSA redundant though, eh? Nothing to worry about though, eh? They're not checking for our "papers, please", they're just building dossiers on everyone of us just in case.

Re:Wait a minute. . .

[some old guy]

Of course.

State security services == domestic terrorism. That's the whole point.

A frightened population is a docile population. The only matter is who the people fear more.

The truth is, I do not know where to put DHS

[Taco Cowboy]

Even now I have really no idea what role DHS is playing.

NSA deals with high math stuffs

FBI deals with people

DEA deals with drugs

ATF deals with weapons

But what DHS deals with ? Terrorists ?

I think I'm about to puke !

Re:The truth is, I do not know where to put DHS

[demachina]

"But what DHS deals with ? "

Anything and everything? It should be a source of concern that they have a massive budget and you don't actually now what their overarching mission is.

You should be worried about them at least as much as the NSA and DOJ. If there is another big excuse (i.e. Katrina, Occupy or 9/11) there is a fair chance their VIPR teams are going to be the ones frisking you if you try to travel.

One of the things you should be most concerned with is they are pumping large quantites of money in to local police departments all over the country in order to miltarize them (i.e SWAT teams, military grade weapons, armored vehicles, surveillance)

Re:The truth is, I do not know where to put DHS

[cold fjord]

"But what DHS deals with ? "

Anything and everything? It should be a source of concern that they have a massive budget and you don't actually now what their overarching mission is.

You should be worried about ....

One of the things you should be most concerned with ...

We have a fundamentally different approach to this question. You recognize the lack of information and say, "you should worry" and "you should be concerned." I say, if you don't know, go to the web site and find out. If you both to look into the question you learn that the Department of Homeland Security is almost entirely simply a regrouping of existing Federal agencies under a new headquarters to try to make them more efficient since those agencies perform related functions. In essence the Department of Homeland Security does a significant portion of what is done by the Ministry of Interior in other nations. ("Interior" as a name was already taken in the US. Should we still panic at adopting another European institution in all but name?) As to "militarizing" the police, there is room for a certain amount of concern, but the US isn't anywhere close to forming a gendarmery as used by many European nations, and others. The local city or country SWAT team that gets occasional use isn't close to being in the same league as a national gendarmery like France's National Gendarmerie, Spain's Guardia Civil, or Italy's Carabinieri. The US doesn't really have a national police force as other nations do. It is almost entirely handled at the local or state level.

So What's the NSA got left to do?

[Cockatrice_hunter]

I think the FBI just stole the NSA's schtick.

Re:So What's the NSA got left to do?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the FBI just stole the NSA's schtick.

The NSA is now the National Surveillance Agency.

Don't just blame politicians

[Tablizer]

Face it, 9/11 made voters stupid also. Everybody was panicked at the time by terrorists smashing planes, trains, and automobiles into stuff; ricin-laced letters, etc. Civil liberties looked like bygone idealism as obsolete as the Brady Bunch's plaid pants (which by now are back in style). Citizens are fickle and think short term. It's as if they just evolved from apes a few million years ago or something.

I'm just thankful they didn't change it to...

[PapayaSF]

I'm just thankful they didn't change it to "diversity."

Shift in domestic surveillance

[Anonymous Coward]

This just means that the current NSA domestic surveillance will be shifted to the FBI.

Re:What about New Republicans

[Anonymous Coward]

True. But Republican(Tea Party) politics has changed since 2008...

FBI has been soft on law enforcement for years

[Animats]

The FBI used to be the premier white collar crime enforcement agency. That hasn't continued into the Internet era. A few years ago, the FBI admitted that their Internet crime-fighting resources were allocated 50% to "national security", 40% to "child pornography", and 10% to dealing with reported crimes. The "child pornography" operation is mostly a group out of the Baltimore office that sends oult child porn and sees who bites. That mindset also drives the anti-terrorism operation. A big part of the FBI's anti-terrorism operation is running sting operations against wannabe "terrorists", mostly disgruntled losers.

As a result, too much of the FBI's Internet-related activities are self-generated work. That's bad for a law enforcement agency. Dealing with citizen complaints and solving reported crimes keeps a law enforcement agency effective and honest. They are performing a service function, and their effectiveness can be measured by the percentage of reported crimes they solve.

Self-generated work is bad for law enforcement. It leads to corrupt vice squads, anti-drug teams that operate more or less autonomously, "national security" squads digging for conspiracies that aren't there, and a culture of secrecy about what the law enforcement agency is doing all day.

Re:FBI has been soft on law enforcement for years

[Anonymous Coward]

Self-generated work is bad for law enforcement. It leads to corrupt vice squads, anti-drug teams that operate more or less autonomously, "national security" squads digging for conspiracies that aren't there, and a culture of secrecy about what the law enforcement agency is doing all day.

And it eventually results in Reichstag-ing. At first, it'll be a lot of small events, with limited affects. Then, something major, such as the fire staged by the police in an iconic building in Berlin.

Re:At least they are honest -- No.

[whoever57]

If they were honest, they would rename the FBI the "Stasi". I think that the Stasi's stated priority was national security.

You're arguing that Cocain should be legal?

[clay_buster]

The 80s and 90s are littered with the bodies of proof that cocaine, in its various forms, is a dangerously addicting drug.

Re:You're arguing that Cocain should be legal?

[YumoolaJohn]

Since I believe in freedom, I believe cocaine should be legal. I'm not sure why anyone in a country that's supposed to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave" would believe otherwise; surely they don't think that safety is more important than freedom?

Re:You're arguing that Cocain should be legal?

[cold fjord]

It's land of the politically free, not common-sense-free. Maybe you're a little too enthusiastic about use of some of those "products."

Re:You're arguing that Cocain should be legal?

[YumoolaJohn]

It's land of the politically free, not common-sense-free.

Freedom only in the realm of politics isn't something to aspire to, and that's not what is promised. And if it's "common sense" (Whatever that means; it might've been "common sense" in certain places that the world was flat at one point.) to ban entire products because they're unhealthy, then I don't want anything to do with this "common sense" nonsense. I want freedom, not some idiot's notion of "common sense."

Re:You're arguing that Cocain should be legal?

[cold fjord]

If you likewise want the freedom to get rip roaring, fall down drunk and shoot a machinegun in the air downtown you are likely to be disappointed as well. Liberty and license are two different things.

Re:You're arguing that Cocain should be legal?

[YumoolaJohn]

You've made it clear that liberty isn't your thing, despite living in "the land of the free and the home of the brave." Sadly, you don't want to be free, and you're surely not brave.

Re:You're arguing that Cocain should be legal?

[cold fjord]

I am free, and it will be a cold day in hell before you'll have anything to teach me about being brave. Between the two of us I have little doubt about who is more likely to be a slave to a habit, and it isn't me.

Re:You're arguing that Cocain should be legal?

[YumoolaJohn]

I am free

But freedom isn't what you want. It is not your goal.

Between the two of us I have little doubt about who is more likely to be a slave to a habit, and it isn't me.

What I do or don't do is completely irrelevant. But I've never taken any drugs. Just like I can support gay marriage without being gay, I can support the legalization of drugs without wanting to do drugs. I just care about other people's freedom... unlike you.

Re:You're arguing that Cocain should be legal?

[cold fjord]

I don't see you as actually concerned about genuine freedom, with liberty. You seem to be interested in license instead. There is a difference.

Re:You're arguing that Cocain should be legal?

[YumoolaJohn]

There is no difference. I'm concerned with liberty of all forms. You seem to be saying that everything you don't care about isn't liberty. I see it as a rights issue when governments ban drugs, not a mere license issue.

Re:You're arguing that Cocain should be legal?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a slave to the state spooge, traitor.

Are you a member of Al-Queda? You certainly hate America for its freedoms.

Re:You're arguing that Cocain should be legal?

[Anonymous Coward]

It was an argument against the idea that outlawing certain drugs was not a political move.

A bad set of priorities

[InterGuru]

In the last dozen years we have had about two dozen victims of terrorism and 100,000 victims of gun crime. Yet we are devoting so many more resources to terrorism. The main danger of terrorism is causing overreaction. Bin Laden's strategy was to bankrupt the United States and we are helping him succeed.. The main danger of terrorism is causing overreaction. With this, NSA and Iraq he is on the way to success,

Re:A bad set of priorities

[edibobb]

Well said.

Re:A bad set of priorities

[isorox]

In the last dozen years we have had about two dozen victims of terrorism and 100,000 victims of gun crime. Yet we are devoting so many more resources to terrorism. The main danger of terrorism is causing overreaction. Bin Laden's strategy was to bankrupt the United States and we are helping him succeed.. The main danger of terrorism is causing overreaction. With this, NSA and Iraq he is on the way to success,

Your post was true 10 years ago, you're way beyond it now. Bin Laden went to his grave knowing he had won, truly and completely. The only question is will China be enough to stop an Islamic superstate from emerging from the forthcoming civil war.

Self-Assessment

[bill_mcgonigle]

but that they are subject to the law as well.

I don't want to start an "is too"/"is not" argument here, but I do have one request of Slashdotters:

Think about what criteria you would use to judge if you're living in an authoritarian police state, if that distinction is important to you, and what you'd do about it if you decide it is. That might be last year, next year, or in a thousand years - you set the criteria. But do think about it - societies that fail to do so do not turn out well.

I have plenty of security!

[edibobb]

Why does everybody in the government think I'm inherently unsafe?! We should cut the budget by of every governmental empire that has the word "security" in their job description, by 73.2%. Then maybe they would stop chasing so many dragons and fighting so many windmills.

Admission OF Fraud

[Anonymous Coward]

And from the Horse's mouth no less.

FBi Chasing Federal $$ Since 1896!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hot N Hell.

The "BOI" and now FBI has been chasing Federal $$ since inception.

Whether the "Slave Trade" or "Native Justice" or "Anarchists" or "Soviets" for "Al Capone" or "Jihadists" the "Bureau" always cums through to grab the "balls" of the dollars and start yanking it for what it might or might not be worth.

 

ATF isn't 'Law Enforcement'

[Firethorn]

ATF is actually about as much law enforcement as the FBI should be about 'National Security'. It's actually primarily a tax agency ala IRS. Speaking of which, even the IRS has officers with law enforcement powers.

Of course, it's my opinion we're spending too much on 'National Security' and not enough on 'Law Enforcement', at least on the federal level. There's an awful lot of interstate scamming/internet fraud that needs to be controlled.

Re:ATF isn't 'Law Enforcement'

[stoploss]

ATF is actually about as much law enforcement as the FBI should be about 'National Security'. It's actually primarily a tax agency ala IRS.

Historically this was accurate: until 2002, the ATF was part of the Department of Treasury. It's part of the Department of Justice now.

Perhaps you were speaking about its de facto role, but I believe it is noteworthy to mention the current organizational hierarchy.

With the recent crop of AG's can you blame them?

[Marrow]

Can you really blame them for wanting out of the LE business. Its not like they see any big wins as a result of their work.

Regular crimes are already terrorism

[Etherwalk]

My guess is they are going to start classifying various crimes as terrorist acts. Thus the FBI will still get to go after them but with better funding and the ability to say they are protecting America from "terrorists".

Starting? They're doing it. "Terroristic threatening" is a crime now, and "Weapons of mass destruction" now include grenades and IEDs and the like.

Re:Regular crimes are already terrorism

[Anonymous Coward]

And IEDs include combining Mentos and a 2 liter jug of soda.

Re:Regular crimes are already terrorism

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget every person is now charged with "assaulting a police officer" for simply asking a question or not complying fast enough of competing shouted orders from multiple police officers. "Get down!" "Don't move!" "Put your hands on your head." "Keep your hands where I can see them. Don't move!" Then the police open fire and empty their magazines into the alleged criminal under the pretence the police were in fear of their lives.

Re:Regular crimes are already terrorism

[Anonymous Coward]

The term "terroristic threats" has nothing to do with political terrorism and was common parlance in both the legal system and popular consicousness long before the current (post-2001) terrorism hysteria.

Re:Regular crimes are already terrorism

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget "resisting arrest"

If you really believe that

[Sycraft-fu]

Then I have two questions for you:

1) Why the heck are you still here? If you truly believe that the US is an oppressive police state, yet they are still clearly letting people freely travel across their borders (I just got back from Canada a couple weeks ago) then why are you not getting out now? If you really believe that the US has fallen in the police state, but it hasn't figured this out in isn't restricting the populace from leaving, then the logical thing to do is get the hell out before they do. That you would stay yet believe this is rather odd.

2) Why are you posting things against the government online? Again, if you believe that this is a police state and that the government goes after those that speak against it, why would you tempted by speaking against it online? It's not like a post like this on Slashdot is going to do any good, it won't start a revolution, or even change anybody's mind for that matter, so the only possible result would be the you would get in trouble. As such it makes no sense that you would call attention to yourself, with no gain it all.

Or, maybe, like so many people online you just like to whine and bitch, and you lack any real worldwide or historical perspective. If that's the case, please do us all a favor and quit it. It gets rather old hearing people cry that the US is evil, a police state, fascist, a dictatorship, whatever, and yet do nothing about it.

If you truly believe that this is the case, then you need to do something. If you want to stay, then you either need to keep your head down, your nose clean, and try to make yourself as invisible to the state as possible so you don't get in trouble. Or, you need to rebel you need to fight against the power, you need to try to make things better. If neither of those appeal to you, then leaving is the logical conclusion, since they aren't stopping you.

If I believe that the US was as bad as many of the whiners online do, I would leave. I wouldn't want to live in continual fear, I wouldn't want to live in a society where I couldn't speak freely, so I get out. I don't believe that's the case, as is evidenced by the fact that I speak freely online, so I'm happy to stay.

So please clarify what you believe, and don't just whine online.

FBI should go straight to the point.

[boorack]

Why are they doing this masquerade ? They should declare what their real purpose is nowadays: "Protecting government and corporate criminals from ordinary people".

National Security == Police State

[rberger]

They might as well rename the FBI to GESTAPO We are now officially to far gone to continue to observe Godwin's Law.

line #2 on the fact sheet

[Anonymous Coward]

"The FBI does not keep a file on every citizen of the United States."

Due to be changed in the next revision.

Re:line #2 on the fact sheet

[VortexCortex]

Nah, that's what the NSA is for. See, they don't build one file on every citizen. That's not how search engines work. The files are created from the data they have if ever they "like you" for a crime, or dislike your political stance. Ask the anti-war, women's rights, or civil rights activists about the counter intelligence program trying to silence them. Land of the Free -- So long as you choose to think how we say.

Is this so they can piggyback recent laws?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this so they can piggyback recent laws made for other agencies which actually had national security as their primary target?

You have that exactly BACKWARDS

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush & Company were far more opaque. Obama is at least telling you that he's tapping your phones.

(You do realize Bush & Company started that one, without telling you...)

Life trumps happiness!

[EzInKy]

Libertarians agreeing on this is all it would take to put the authoriatarians on the run. It is only this very subtle difference between the left and the right that keeps the dictators in charge.

Re:At least they are honest -- No.

[gweihir]

Personally, I like "State Security", it has a nice descriptive ring to it, especially when abbreviated.

JFK was very different from today's Democrats

[drnb]

JFK was a Democrat so I've always found it incredibly IRONIC that one of his most famous quotes is 'ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country'...wtf happened here?

JFK was very different from today's Democrats. He believed in moderate taxation. Only moderate federal meddling in local affairs. He was much like the conservative Democrats or moderate Republicans that just can't get elected any more.

JFK was also later misrepresented by more liberal Democrats. For example the notion that he was going to withdraw the U.S. from Vietnam. His brother Robert, who served as his Attorney General, had stated that JFK was committed to fighting in Vietnam and defeating communism. His commitment to manned spaceflight was also misrepresented. He voted against manned missions as a senator, he thought manned flight too expensive and thought what we would now refer to as robotic mission would be a better idea. He became pro manned spaceflight as a concession to Lyndon Johnson, who was his Vice President, and due to Yuri Gagarin's spaceflight. Space, another arena where the communists must be defeated.

hopes for just two things: bread and circuses

[drnb]

It was the free bread and circuses and other freebies designed to buy the votes of the citizenry.

It's pretty obvious when someone rides their hobby horse into various topics and tries to rewrite reality according to their ideology. In your case, the not-sublte-at-all implication that ZOMG money to poor to buy food, shelter and medicine will be the end of civilization.

It's not clever. It's you being a sociopath and a social darwinist.

Actually it is you who is having their ideology cause them to see things that are not there, to falsely interpret things. "Entitlement" is an old word, it predates your hot button politics.

No one said anything about food, shelter, or medicine for the poor. What is being referred to are freebies to any voter, poor or not. Its simple vote buying. And selling your vote to whoever promises you the most is part of the formula for decay. In the earlier days of Rome more care was shown for the abilities and policies of political candidates. They were more inclined to vote for what was best for the country, not necessarily what was best for themselves.

Here is the context for "bread and circuses" that clearly eludes you:
"Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses" - Juvenal, Satire 10.77–81
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses

Loss of civic virtue - old Roman argument

[drnb]

OK, This is Mises's revisionism

Wrong. The loss of civic virtue argument goes back to ancient Rome.

"Rome, even more than Greece, produced a number of moralistic philosophers such as Cicero, and moralistic historians such as Tacitus, Sallust, Plutarch and Livy. Many of these figures were either personally involved in power struggles that took place in the late Roman Republic, or wrote elegies to liberty which was lost during their transition to the Roman Empire. They tended to blame this loss of liberty on the perceived lack of civic virtue in their contemporaries, contrasting them with idealistic examples of virtue drawn from Roman history, and even non-Roman barbarians."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civic_virtue

Re:Loss of civic virtue - old Roman argument

[iluvcapra]

Wrong. The loss of civic virtue argument goes back to ancient Rome.

The OP didn't make the civic virtue argument, he made the Roman welfare queen argument.

Point taken though: he did not make the currency debasement argument.

Re:Loss of civic virtue - old Roman argument

[drnb]

Wrong. The loss of civic virtue argument goes back to ancient Rome.

The OP didn't make the civic virtue argument, he made the Roman welfare queen argument. Point taken though: he did not make the currency debasement argument.

I am that OP and I did make the civic virtue argument: "Undermined the idea that citizens (both patricians and plebeians) should contribute to the greatness of their country, not that the greatness of their country entitled them to freebies."

Or if you prefer here is the original quote of Juvenal:
"Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses

cold fjord is a shill

[Anonymous Coward]

You didn't really bother to read his post, did you? Just couldn't wait to get your authoritarian apologia on.

Of course, he didn't. This would've been to time-consuming for a paid shill. He is mainly focused on quantity, not the quality of posts.

Also, he will never post meaningful anwers to comments exposing deliberate cold-war style propaganda in his links. He will just post more bullshit links, as if he was a bot.

The so-called "Soviet Story" is known to be propaganda fake. It uses materials from Nazi camps as illustrations for "Soviet" atrocities, fake documents, etc... Take a look at The Soviet Story — The tissue of lies to see what I'm talking about.

Has the Cold War ever ended? Or it is still being waged on a defeated Soviet Union by todays global hegemon and the leading purveyor of violence and atrocities in the world, the US?

I don't understand this whole "terrorism" thing...

[LittlePud]

IANAL.

Why do we keep inventing and enforcing new "terrorism" laws when (AFAIK) every terrorism offence could simply be classified as "traditional" common-law crime and just prosecuted as such? Examples: conspiracy, murder, arson (includes bombing), kidnapping, forcible confinement (hostage taking), extortion (blackmail), piracy (hijacking), treason/sedition/espionage, etc.

"National Security" = "Tool of Oppression"

[Anonymous Coward]

Being a "law enforcement" agency limits them to enforcing existing laws. Being a "national security" agency allows them to do whatever the hell they want in the name of "keeping us safe."

Nobody asks the most obvious question.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is no one wondering WHY there are terrorists plots targeting the US?
Of course there are attacks elsewhere. For different reasons.

But maybe this entire security theatre nonsense wouldn't be necessary if the reason would cease to exists.

Reasons like acting like an arrogant, self-entitled bully manipulating and forcing it's way as it's pleases. Just for example.

What are armed drone attacks on civilians if not terrorism made in the USA?
Just as an example.

Terrorism is always despicable. But that applies to the US, too. You can't slap someone in the face and expect the victim to say thank you. Applies to both sides.

However, currently it seems to be a childish argument about who slapped first. "You did. No you did. No you did."

Just stop the nonsense. Retreat from where you don't belong to, leave other countries do as they please (within their boundaries). End of.

Re:Nobody asks the most obvious question.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just stop the nonsense. Retreat from where you don't belong to, leave other countries do as they please (within their boundaries). End of.

Not going to happen. The actual reason is economic, not cultural. Look at the countries that the US has invaded, I can guarantee that there is something there a US corporation wants to profit from. If there is nothing of value there, the US won't invade, no matter how much humanitarian aid is desperately needed.

Re:Nobody asks the most obvious question.

[Anonymous Coward]

And that's why terrorism will continue. The USA have no special right to behave like as asshole and then expect everyone to accept that.
Was 9/11 an inside job? No.
Was it caused by the US itself due to it's behaviour? Oh yes.

Too many national security groups?

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay so if the NSA is the National Security Agency...

What exactly was the point of the Department of Homeland Security?

And now that was have the NSA and the DHS, why is the FBI suddenly the Federal Bureau of National Security?

Suddenly we've got three "companies" vying for the same title.

Who's going to track down criminals across state borders? Who's going to be the go-to group for kidnappings? Didn't that use to be the FBI or is that only on tv?

Who allowed national security to become a competitive business? Why would they ever cooperate when whoever figures out the most national security threats first gets the bigger slice of the pie? Is that how 911 happened? The groups didn't communicate because they were too busy trying to one-up everyone else and when 911 happens they go "oops sorry we don't work well together as a team."

Seems like the American people need to either fire two of these agencies, or split them back into separate areas of "business".

2 words

[Forty Two Tenfold]

GUNS, ETHANOL. No problems there, I guess? Also, the law was so efficient in eradicating "drug problem" that even alcohol prohibition worked! ANd now the USA is drug-free!

Re:2 words

[cold fjord]

Alcohol use fell greatly due to prohibition, and the rate of use took many decades to return to the previous level.

Did Prohibition Really Work? Alcohol Prohibition as a Public Health Innovation

Are you suggesting that there would be the same or less drug use if it wasn't illegal?

You don't go into any detail about what you think the issue is with "guns", but I assume you've heard that ownership of them is a Constitutionally protected right. Some people think that a murder with a gun is a gun problem when it is a murder problem.

Study shows concealed-carry laws result in fewer murders

Re:2 words

[Anonymous Coward]

Alcohol use fell greatly due to prohibition

No. Reported alcohol use fell greatly. How much of it did these losers fail to catch? And what of the effects of the mafia, which was greatly strengthened thanks to prohibition? All of this is irrelevant, however; the main concern should be freedom.

Don't ever claim to be for small government; you are trash.

Re:2 words

[cold fjord]

The start of prohibition meant the loss of production of 2 billion gallons of beer and 150 million gallons of liquor. That didn't just appear out of thin air for people to drink, so yes, consumption did fall greatly. After prohibition ended sales were slow to rise again.

I have little doubt that you are free enough to get yourself into serious trouble due to poor judgment. I hope someone is watching over you.

Re:2 words

[Anonymous Coward]

You have no evidence of that. After prohibition, it simply took a while before the black market all but disappeared.

Citation needed

[fulldecent]

GOOGLE: "the primary function of the FBI is national security" site:gov

Zero results.

Re:Citation needed

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/quick-facts

Re:Citation needed

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you. This is not as clear as I expected from the image and text shown in the blog.

Wow, we sure need a leader in the Whitehouse

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead we've had Bush II and III.

9/11 was a bad day, but the misery and loss to quality of life it caused were minor compared to the the last economic glitch.

So what do we do?
    Give the folks who caused the economic problems a pat on the back and send them on their way.

Simply amazing.

Mod parent down!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice try, but you already lost.

NSA + FBI = STASI

[Anonymous Coward]

Who needs informants when you have the NSA?

meanwhile lying in court is OK

[Anonymous Coward]

From 1995 the DA of Milwaukee for 'bout 4 decades noted in the American Bar Association that next to tax evasion, perjury is under-prosecuted.

If the foundation of the nation is under the Rule of Law and almost no one is ever nailed for lying in a court case - what rule of law exists?

Re:At least they are honest -- No.

[cold fjord]

Personally, I like "State Security", it has a nice descriptive ring to it, especially when abbreviated.

Thanks, but I'll stick with the BKA, CDU, and the Bundesrepublik Deutschland. You can keep the SS along with the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, the Ministerium für Staatssicherheit and Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands. I'm not a fan of that sort of progressivism.

A Seismic Shift

[leptechie]

Altering wording like this may not seem to amount to much, and sure Law Enforcement is still on their list, but the focus has a drastic impact:

• Law is defined by Congress - so the FBI executes Congress' will by enforcing law
• Terror is defined by.. not sure really; whoever is afraid of terrorists? So they execute the will of whoever defines terrorism? Um...

The Executive Branch certainly seems afraid of terrorists, and the DoJ gets to define it as they please. This is like writing your own job description to say you can focus on whatever you've decided is important, and your boss' instructions can be overruled when you think you've got more important things to do. Is this a blank cheque-book or is there still a balance between the branches?

Comrades our new Mission!

[JohnWolfe6498]

Perhaps after updating their mission statement they can update their name to Second Chief Directorate...

George Orwell, again...

[anmre]

“He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.” George Orwell, 1984

Nope

[s.petry]

Stop listening to what they are saying and watch what they do. If there was a difference you would see different actions, and perhaps different results. This is not the case.

Let me give an easy example. If I say "I am for pacifism" and then punch you in the nose you would question my claim of pro pacifism. If I again claim "I am pro pacifist" and punch you in the nose a second time, you should figure out really quickly that I am in fact a liar and not pro pacifism.

Look at the Democrat voting record, bills introduced, etc.. and no matter what they claim they are doing the same thing that the Republicans are doing. And of course vice versa. If they claim something different while they do things opposite to their claims, they are liars and not "different philosophies".

Examples (easy to verify). Obama claimed to be for closing Guantanamo, ending wars in the Middle East, pro US Economy, would end the corruption in banking, etc.. etc.. etc.. and none of those things were done. In fact wars in the Middle East have been expanded and Banks were not even investigated. TPP should answer any questions you have about his concern for the US Economy.

Stop making excuses for these people and see them for what they really are!

Makes sense, really ...

[Rambo Tribble]

... after all, it's hard to claim your mission is law enforcement when you break so many of them.

Re:At least they are honest -- No.

[gweihir]

You seem to be irony-challenged...

Re:Put a fork in it, it's done

[king neckbeard]

Actually, there are pretty limited adverse effects of pure, clean opiates with relatively well known dosage. That's why you could get heroin in a pharmacy in the early 20th century. They can be addictive, especially when taken intravenously, but the primary reasoning behind it was almost certainly to oppress certain ethnic groups.

'Is the US on the brink of fascism?'

[Burz]

A really good read... http://www.alternet.org/story/141819/is_the_u.s._on_the_brink_of_fascism

The Americian Police State

[tripwire45]

We've been a police state since the Nixon administration if not before: http://books.google.com/books/about/The_American_Police_State.html?id=1XWQolKIuokC

Can you blame them?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you had the choice between two versions of the same job, but one came with more prestige, less oversight, less rules hassle, and more resources, wouldn't *you* take it?