A lot of people have this struggle with faith. Or the struggle between ethics, and morality, as competing systems of "right and wrong".
And the logical argument that, any system of right and wrong that is in conflict with God's Law of morality, is necessarily false, is a fundamentally flawed argument; one that Plato figured out over 2000 years ago. It comes out of ignorance, and is nurtured by hatred and fear. And sadly, those are the modern hallmarks of a large proportion of Christianity.
It's been said by some that - oh those Muslims are just a young religion, and Christians were once barbaric, and went through a reformation phase, and "grew up" - and we just have to give the Muslims a few hundred more years to do the same. Bullhockey. That's an overly complex rationalization of what is a simple problem. The simple problem is: Killing and hating and discriminating against your fellow man is wrong. Everyone knows it. Everyone who has ever done it can feel it. And then they look for some excuse as to why it must not have been wrong, to relieve their guilt. The moral framework is so flawed, and so pervasive, that the whole enterprise is corrupt. The fact that they've been murdering eachother, and even their own, for hundreds of years, proves it.
I went through a phase where I thought I was an atheist. But I still caught myself praying. Then I decided to stop blaming God for things humans did in his name. I really wish I knew WHY all this misery and killing and hate happens. Why a supreme being would allow humans to stamp his name on their actions. If I just say, it's in human nature - then I have to hate human nature, or conclude that we're just a miserable foul species that deserves extinction - the sooner, the better. And that just confirms it, that I'm one of them.
You do not have a RIGHT to live in a drug-free environment.
Your right to throw your fist ends at my face.
Your right to regulate drugs, ends at my body.
If you don't like drugs, don't take them.
If you don't want any drugs around you, buy a big huge parcel of land, put up some no-trespassing signs, sit in the middle, and never leave it. But what I do with my body, on my property, on my time, is my business.
Oh, I could easily see higher home insurance premiums for neighborhoods where there's a higher "incidence" on the justification of higher risk of home breakins by junkies.
When New York raised the cigarette tax, for a time in the 90's there were armed gangs of Canadian smugglers who were having bloody shootouts and turf wars. That was just over people who didn't want to pay an extra 50 cents a pack.
If we had not invaded, international pressure was high to do something to ease the Iraqi people's suffering (end sanctions) which would have allowed Saddam to sell oil, which would have flooded the market, at a time where prices were already very near historic lows - (1998=$10/bbl. . . 2000=$20/bbl).
Since we invaded, and we invaded specifically in a way guaranteed to prevent the market being flooded with oil, oil prices have gone up. ($70-$80/bbl). An oil-producer's WET DREAM. The price has been driven up by speculation. Not actual production costs.
And, what business was George W Bush and Dick Cheney in before they ran for office?
The funny part is - the joke is on all the stupid rednecks who supported this war because they thought it was going to keep gas prices down. It was intended to do the OPPOSITE. Suckers!
Hate to break it to you, but there were embargo violations happening throughout the 1990's with USA companies - with the full knowledge and acceptance by the US government. Illegal oil sales, weapons sales, and sales of "dual-use" equipment (things that could be used for one purpose, but also could be used in WMD development). These violations continued past Bill Clinton's presidency, through Dubya's, and ramped-up sharply all the way into 2002 during the troop build-up. In fact, Dick Cheney's company took part in some of these illegal activities, while he was CEO.
So - the argument that "sanctions weren't working" because of the evul cheese-eating French is completely bogus.
Sanctions weren't working because there was no will to make them work across the board.
If there's legitimate criticism to be leveled at the UN - here it is. They were strong enough to punish players like Iraq, Somalia, etc. But too weak to even criticize players like the US, China, Russia, and France. I don't think that's an argument for disbanding the UN. But the model under which it operates really needs to be re-examined in this post-cold-war era. Because it no longer functions effectively.
Heh - you sound like my old art teacher complaining about "sofa-sized paintings" that rule art shows and galleries.
... . and it's true. It's like we see ONE TRUE ROLE to fulfill for a given artform. Yes, art can express human feelings and thought. Art can communicate. Art can also be functional at the same time. And Art can act as a means for an artist to make a living. And Art can also act as a means to prop up an industry, which pretends to have something to do with this idealistic "One True Role" - and, in the end, this industry can not even exist, were it not for that pretension.
Why do we listen to music in our cars?
Because we want to think that we're "cool" because listening to music is "cool" - it implies a possession of a mind that thinks and a heart that feels and an ear that hears. Whether we're listening to music to prop up that image of ourselves for our own benefit, or the person in the next car at the light who can hear the thumping because you've got the bass turned up so loud, doesn't matter.
Is there a genuine element of self enjoyment or pleasure to listening to music, or enjoying any other form of art? Sure there is. Even when it's crap, and you're just participating in an industry as a bland consumer - propping up hoards of leisure-suit wearing promoters and executives, and maybe giving a few very lucky STARS a very comfortable lifestyle, there's a certain enjoyment to feeling like you're enriching your culture. Isn't your living room better off with a crappy painting hanging over your sofa, than no painting at all? I mean, the colors match the upholstery so well - you just HAD to be in-tune with what the artist was thinking when you picked out the sofa. That means your life isn't meaningless.
Actually you need more engineers to lower or at least slow increases in salaries of engineers to keep US as an attractive place for engineering companies.
That's one way of looking at it.
Another way of looking at it is; perhaps we, in America, need to end this fetishization we have with a "strong dollar". I think the idea has gained hold in the finance industry, and measures have been under way for some time*, to allow the dollar to devalue to the point where we can be competitive in the global market again. That will be a very painful adjustment for a lot of Americans. Especially middle class Americans. But in the long term, it's probably the only thing that's going to stop the bleeding.
*this is probably one of the reasons why we're seeing such a steep ramp-up in commodities prices, and ceo-salaries over the last 5 years, and also why we're having a liquidity crisis. They see what is coming, and they're positioning themselves for the future-valuation of the dollar. The rest of us don't have that kind of negotiating power.
I would LOVE to go on and work on a Master's or PhD.
But, I like to eat, see. . .
(to be honest, I'm probably not one that's actually "cut out" for that sort of thing, though I'd like to think of myself that way - and I'd sure like to give it a try. But then there's that whole mortgage and car-payment thing. . . )
Relax, it's not stealing, as long as you are over 18, are not a convicted felon, and vote, and the tax is levied legally by legally elected politicians. Or perhaps you'd care to cease walking on, driving on, or using any products that were shipped to you on, roads built with taxpayer funds. . . (etc.)
A) Instead of giving everyone else's money to one group, give it to one that will have an even lower return on investment...
B) Bring our troops home, causing more instability in an already unstable region....
You haven't really made much of a case for either assertion.
You really think investing in having a large number of well-educated engineers and scientists is likely to yield a poor return? Past experience has proven the opposite.
You really think that our illegal, and uselessly dilute occupation of Iraq isn't causing more instability? Past history with similar instances in the region have proven the opposite.
Yes; My wife did a stint as a special-ed teacher, and the one thing she absolutely did not have the stomach for, was the very political nature of the job. There was a certain "game" one had to play, and as the teacher, you were the hot-potato, between the principal, and the student's parents. You were the blame for all the problems. Never the praise for the successes. And, of course, there's never any talk about getting the parents to accept any responsibility for their own kids' upbringing. That's the part that drove my wife out of that field after only one year. She loved the work she did. She loved the progress she made with the kids (her specialty was autistic kids). But the political games with the parents were just too much stress.
Even if this PhD would agree to work for less money; because he'd rather HAVE the job for say $20k/yr, than be denied the job because they had to pay him $80k/yr - they would not be allowed to hire him for the lesser amount. There are very strict rules about how much schools (and other government agencies) are required to pay staff of certain educational levels. It's possible to get MORE than what's normal for a lower-level of education. It's not possible to get less. So the dilemma is, the over-qualified guy is out of a job, because the district doesn't have the budget for him.
Maybe a better plan would be to take the money that would be spent on a NHS (National Health Care System) - and build free National Medical Schools to train new doctors - FUCK THE AMA. Vastly increase the number of new, qualified physicians in the job market.
Physician salaries plummet. Medical costs go down. Every OTHER industry in America begins to prosper again, because they can now afford to provide health care for their employees again - and we won't need to Nationalize or Socialize anything. All we need to do is break the AMA's Monopoly on Physician Schooling.
(yeah, there's still the drug-company problem. . . one thing at a time).
If it were all private universities, I could see how you could call it "Corporate Welfare" - but since we're talking about State Universities - I'm not sure how you could call it that.
None of this implies a necessity for under-qualified students, or dumbed-down programs. While this is how these kinds of things often work, there's no rule that says we can't do things differently this time, and be smart about how we spend our tax dollars. Oh yeah, I forgot, there IS a rule: Government=bad, Private=good, therefore, don't bother even discussing how tax dollars can be WISELY spent.
On the other hand, by flooding the job market with qualified Scientists and Engineers, you'd depress wages, so that, in itself, would have the effect of being Corporate Welfare - but the same argument can be made for ALL public education. Or Roads. Or the FCC. Or the FAA. Or the DoD. etc. So, these "burger-flipping" engineers might take their skills, and some of them will keep flipping burgers. Some of them will find good jobs, but maybe not make as much as they would have made, say, in 1986, when engineers were in really high demand (4 years before the bottom dropped out of the aerospace market, and they re-trained for IT; which is partially what jump-started the IT boom in the 1990's). Some of them may even start their own companies. Hm.
But if their skills get out of date - then maybe a supplementary re-training program could be tacked-on.
After my first reply, I more carefully re-read your post, and I found something to disagree with.
I agree with a protester's right to speak freely, and dissent. I *do* wish that voices of dissent in this country could be more widely heard.
I do not agree with a protester's right to "send a message" or to "interfere" or to "punish". Your right to swing your fist ends at my face.
I can see why someone feels it's necessary to do so. In today's world - where the voice of the people is so overwhelmed by big-money interests. Where the system is rigged like a big, crooked casino. There's really a loss of hope, and a feeling of helplessness. A loss of faith in the democratic system. (see my.sig).
It may, indeed, be necessary for a protester to "interfere" or to "punish" or to "send a message". But there is no inherent "right" to civil disobedience.
A protester who takes those matters into his or her own hands, takes the responsibility of facing the consequences of those actions. And in this increasingly fascistic system, with databases, wiretapping, teargas, tasers, rendition, torture, - those consequences are becoming more and more severe.
But I still don't want anyone to have the "right" to inflict civil disobedience without consequences. Because I don't agree with everyone who decides to take up a sign and march. This society needs change, and desperately. But there's plenty of people out there who are just as happy to march with a sign, throw bricks, light crosses on fire, and change things in ways you wouldn't want to see.
I don't personally agree with "free speech zones" - I think they are a clear violation of civil rights.
But on the other hand, when you're talking about a military base, there has to be a limit as to where protesters can do their business. (for example; I'd say the runway is off-limits, the safety of landing air traffic trumps protesters' right to speech, especially when they can freely exercise their speech 100 yards away, on the other side of a chain-link fence; or an even better example, at a missile range, like Cape Kennedy or Vandenberg AFB, within the safety limits of 2 miles of a launch operation. - you have a right to speak. You do not have a right to interfere with an operation that is costing taxpayers tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars. - and in one specific case I'm aware of; animal rights activists infiltrated a beach by VAFB to protect an endangered bird nesting area; but really, all they wanted to do was be a pain in the ass during a launch - they ended up *destroying* two nests, and getting fined. The air force maintains a group of specialists at this site specifically to monitor and protect the sensitive environmental concerns, including the Snowy Plovers, the base, itself, is actually a huge nature preserve, and the wildlife is far better protected by the air force than in many national forests. While the air force is far from perfect - they've got their share of toxic spills, and other issues from the past, the great benefit of keeping people the hell out of this area does far more to protect the environment than the well-meaning, but angry, young, activists.)
In instances where a public speaking event by an official, like the President, at a public place, like a hotel or a stadium, where protesters were shunted off to an empty field a mile distant - that's clearly wrong. There's no justification, or safety rationalization for that.
And on your second point - as I understand it, TALON tracks groups, and groups may have contact information for Points of Contact, and leaders. But they do not maintain membership lists, or track associations. (and as a disclaimer: I have no official connection with anyone involved with the program - this is all publicly available, uncontrolled information; if there are un-public uses, or abuses, and I'm not saying there aren't, I have no knowledge of that. - )
TALON is really just used to schedule when bases need to ramp up security to accommodate peace protester groups. It's actually there to benefit the protesters. Not some scary conspiracy to track them. If a protest is staged at a base, and there isn't enough security, there can be traffic issues, counter-protest issues, saboteurs can use genuine peaceful protests as cover for distraction, there are a lot of legitimate reasons for the operators of a secure facility to have a way to coordinate and even cooperate with protest groups. The army has to do their job; protect the country - but protesters are often "the country" they're trying to protect.
The mainstream media doesn't report this angle of the story. I don't know why - maybe it's bias, or maybe it's just not controversial (profitable) when told this way.
Slashdot Mirror
ls.bat:
dir
A lot of people have this struggle with faith.
Or the struggle between ethics, and morality, as competing systems of "right and wrong".
And the logical argument that, any system of right and wrong that is in conflict with God's Law of morality, is necessarily false, is a fundamentally flawed argument; one that Plato figured out over 2000 years ago. It comes out of ignorance, and is nurtured by hatred and fear. And sadly, those are the modern hallmarks of a large proportion of Christianity.
It's been said by some that - oh those Muslims are just a young religion, and Christians were once barbaric, and went through a reformation phase, and "grew up" - and we just have to give the Muslims a few hundred more years to do the same. Bullhockey. That's an overly complex rationalization of what is a simple problem. The simple problem is: Killing and hating and discriminating against your fellow man is wrong. Everyone knows it. Everyone who has ever done it can feel it. And then they look for some excuse as to why it must not have been wrong, to relieve their guilt. The moral framework is so flawed, and so pervasive, that the whole enterprise is corrupt. The fact that they've been murdering eachother, and even their own, for hundreds of years, proves it.
I went through a phase where I thought I was an atheist. But I still caught myself praying. Then I decided to stop blaming God for things humans did in his name. I really wish I knew WHY all this misery and killing and hate happens. Why a supreme being would allow humans to stamp his name on their actions. If I just say, it's in human nature - then I have to hate human nature, or conclude that we're just a miserable foul species that deserves extinction - the sooner, the better. And that just confirms it, that I'm one of them.
. . . what about the tentacle-rape channel?
Now wait a minute, the Boy Scouts are completely benevolent, trustworthy, and open, in my experience.
It's that creepy Order of the Arrow group that keeps me up at night. . .
You do not have a RIGHT to live in a drug-free environment.
Your right to throw your fist ends at my face.
Your right to regulate drugs, ends at my body.
If you don't like drugs, don't take them.
If you don't want any drugs around you, buy a big huge parcel of land, put up some no-trespassing signs, sit in the middle, and never leave it. But what I do with my body, on my property, on my time, is my business.
Oh, I could easily see higher home insurance premiums for neighborhoods where there's a higher "incidence" on the justification of higher risk of home breakins by junkies.
Yeah, but I bet that Mjolnir suit makes it a lot easier to carry all that heavy shit though. . .
When New York raised the cigarette tax, for a time in the 90's there were armed gangs of Canadian smugglers who were having bloody shootouts and turf wars. That was just over people who didn't want to pay an extra 50 cents a pack.
It was "For the Oil" - to KEEP THE PRICES HIGH.
If we had not invaded, international pressure was high to do something to ease the Iraqi people's suffering (end sanctions) which would have allowed Saddam to sell oil, which would have flooded the market, at a time where prices were already very near historic lows - (1998=$10/bbl. . . 2000=$20/bbl).
Since we invaded, and we invaded specifically in a way guaranteed to prevent the market being flooded with oil, oil prices have gone up. ($70-$80/bbl). An oil-producer's WET DREAM. The price has been driven up by speculation. Not actual production costs.
And, what business was George W Bush and Dick Cheney in before they ran for office?
The funny part is - the joke is on all the stupid rednecks who supported this war because they thought it was going to keep gas prices down. It was intended to do the OPPOSITE. Suckers!
Hate to break it to you, but there were embargo violations happening throughout the 1990's with USA companies - with the full knowledge and acceptance by the US government. Illegal oil sales, weapons sales, and sales of "dual-use" equipment (things that could be used for one purpose, but also could be used in WMD development). These violations continued past Bill Clinton's presidency, through Dubya's, and ramped-up sharply all the way into 2002 during the troop build-up. In fact, Dick Cheney's company took part in some of these illegal activities, while he was CEO.
So - the argument that "sanctions weren't working" because of the evul cheese-eating French is completely bogus.
Sanctions weren't working because there was no will to make them work across the board.
If there's legitimate criticism to be leveled at the UN - here it is. They were strong enough to punish players like Iraq, Somalia, etc. But too weak to even criticize players like the US, China, Russia, and France. I don't think that's an argument for disbanding the UN. But the model under which it operates really needs to be re-examined in this post-cold-war era. Because it no longer functions effectively.
Heh - you sound like my old art teacher complaining about "sofa-sized paintings" that rule art shows and galleries.
.. . and it's true. It's like we see ONE TRUE ROLE to fulfill for a given artform. Yes, art can express human feelings and thought. Art can communicate. Art can also be functional at the same time. And Art can act as a means for an artist to make a living. And Art can also act as a means to prop up an industry, which pretends to have something to do with this idealistic "One True Role" - and, in the end, this industry can not even exist, were it not for that pretension.
.
Why do we listen to music in our cars?
Because we want to think that we're "cool" because listening to music is "cool" - it implies a possession of a mind that thinks and a heart that feels and an ear that hears. Whether we're listening to music to prop up that image of ourselves for our own benefit, or the person in the next car at the light who can hear the thumping because you've got the bass turned up so loud, doesn't matter.
Is there a genuine element of self enjoyment or pleasure to listening to music, or enjoying any other form of art? Sure there is. Even when it's crap, and you're just participating in an industry as a bland consumer - propping up hoards of leisure-suit wearing promoters and executives, and maybe giving a few very lucky STARS a very comfortable lifestyle, there's a certain enjoyment to feeling like you're enriching your culture. Isn't your living room better off with a crappy painting hanging over your sofa, than no painting at all? I mean, the colors match the upholstery so well - you just HAD to be in-tune with what the artist was thinking when you picked out the sofa. That means your life isn't meaningless.
Actually you need more engineers to lower or at least slow increases in salaries of engineers to keep US as an attractive place for engineering companies.
That's one way of looking at it.
Another way of looking at it is; perhaps we, in America, need to end this fetishization we have with a "strong dollar". I think the idea has gained hold in the finance industry, and measures have been under way for some time*, to allow the dollar to devalue to the point where we can be competitive in the global market again. That will be a very painful adjustment for a lot of Americans. Especially middle class Americans. But in the long term, it's probably the only thing that's going to stop the bleeding.
*this is probably one of the reasons why we're seeing such a steep ramp-up in commodities prices, and ceo-salaries over the last 5 years, and also why we're having a liquidity crisis. They see what is coming, and they're positioning themselves for the future-valuation of the dollar. The rest of us don't have that kind of negotiating power.
GOD YES!
I would LOVE to go on and work on a Master's or PhD.
But, I like to eat, see. . .
(to be honest, I'm probably not one that's actually "cut out" for that sort of thing, though I'd like to think of myself that way - and I'd sure like to give it a try. But then there's that whole mortgage and car-payment thing. . . )
Ah -so OUR immigrants are okay, but the immigrants who are coming into Europe are going to destroy them. Is that what you're saying?
Relax, it's not stealing, as long as you are over 18, are not a convicted felon, and vote, and the tax is levied legally by legally elected politicians. Or perhaps you'd care to cease walking on, driving on, or using any products that were shipped to you on, roads built with taxpayer funds. . . (etc.)
A) Instead of giving everyone else's money to one group, give it to one that will have an even lower return on investment...
.
B) Bring our troops home, causing more instability in an already unstable region...
You haven't really made much of a case for either assertion.
You really think investing in having a large number of well-educated engineers and scientists is likely to yield a poor return? Past experience has proven the opposite.
You really think that our illegal, and uselessly dilute occupation of Iraq isn't causing more instability? Past history with similar instances in the region have proven the opposite.
Think it through, man.
Yes;
My wife did a stint as a special-ed teacher, and the one thing she absolutely did not have the stomach for, was the very political nature of the job. There was a certain "game" one had to play, and as the teacher, you were the hot-potato, between the principal, and the student's parents. You were the blame for all the problems. Never the praise for the successes. And, of course, there's never any talk about getting the parents to accept any responsibility for their own kids' upbringing. That's the part that drove my wife out of that field after only one year. She loved the work she did. She loved the progress she made with the kids (her specialty was autistic kids). But the political games with the parents were just too much stress.
Well, it's not just that;
Even if this PhD would agree to work for less money; because he'd rather HAVE the job for say $20k/yr, than be denied the job because they had to pay him $80k/yr - they would not be allowed to hire him for the lesser amount. There are very strict rules about how much schools (and other government agencies) are required to pay staff of certain educational levels. It's possible to get MORE than what's normal for a lower-level of education. It's not possible to get less. So the dilemma is, the over-qualified guy is out of a job, because the district doesn't have the budget for him.
Maybe a better plan would be to take the money that would be spent on a NHS (National Health Care System) - and build free National Medical Schools to train new doctors - FUCK THE AMA. Vastly increase the number of new, qualified physicians in the job market.
Physician salaries plummet. Medical costs go down. Every OTHER industry in America begins to prosper again, because they can now afford to provide health care for their employees again - and we won't need to Nationalize or Socialize anything. All we need to do is break the AMA's Monopoly on Physician Schooling.
(yeah, there's still the drug-company problem. . . one thing at a time).
If it were all private universities, I could see how you could call it "Corporate Welfare" - but since we're talking about State Universities - I'm not sure how you could call it that.
None of this implies a necessity for under-qualified students, or dumbed-down programs. While this is how these kinds of things often work, there's no rule that says we can't do things differently this time, and be smart about how we spend our tax dollars. Oh yeah, I forgot, there IS a rule: Government=bad, Private=good, therefore, don't bother even discussing how tax dollars can be WISELY spent.
On the other hand, by flooding the job market with qualified Scientists and Engineers, you'd depress wages, so that, in itself, would have the effect of being Corporate Welfare - but the same argument can be made for ALL public education. Or Roads. Or the FCC. Or the FAA. Or the DoD. etc.
So, these "burger-flipping" engineers might take their skills, and some of them will keep flipping burgers. Some of them will find good jobs, but maybe not make as much as they would have made, say, in 1986, when engineers were in really high demand (4 years before the bottom dropped out of the aerospace market, and they re-trained for IT; which is partially what jump-started the IT boom in the 1990's). Some of them may even start their own companies. Hm.
But if their skills get out of date - then maybe a supplementary re-training program could be tacked-on.
After my first reply, I more carefully re-read your post, and I found something to disagree with.
.sig).
I agree with a protester's right to speak freely, and dissent.
I *do* wish that voices of dissent in this country could be more widely heard.
I do not agree with a protester's right to "send a message" or to "interfere" or to "punish". Your right to swing your fist ends at my face.
I can see why someone feels it's necessary to do so. In today's world - where the voice of the people is so overwhelmed by big-money interests. Where the system is rigged like a big, crooked casino. There's really a loss of hope, and a feeling of helplessness. A loss of faith in the democratic system. (see my
It may, indeed, be necessary for a protester to "interfere" or to "punish" or to "send a message".
But there is no inherent "right" to civil disobedience.
A protester who takes those matters into his or her own hands, takes the responsibility of facing the consequences of those actions. And in this increasingly fascistic system, with databases, wiretapping, teargas, tasers, rendition, torture, - those consequences are becoming more and more severe.
But I still don't want anyone to have the "right" to inflict civil disobedience without consequences. Because I don't agree with everyone who decides to take up a sign and march. This society needs change, and desperately. But there's plenty of people out there who are just as happy to march with a sign, throw bricks, light crosses on fire, and change things in ways you wouldn't want to see.
I don't personally agree with "free speech zones" - I think they are a clear violation of civil rights.
But on the other hand, when you're talking about a military base, there has to be a limit as to where protesters can do their business. (for example; I'd say the runway is off-limits, the safety of landing air traffic trumps protesters' right to speech, especially when they can freely exercise their speech 100 yards away, on the other side of a chain-link fence; or an even better example, at a missile range, like Cape Kennedy or Vandenberg AFB, within the safety limits of 2 miles of a launch operation. - you have a right to speak. You do not have a right to interfere with an operation that is costing taxpayers tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars. - and in one specific case I'm aware of; animal rights activists infiltrated a beach by VAFB to protect an endangered bird nesting area; but really, all they wanted to do was be a pain in the ass during a launch - they ended up *destroying* two nests, and getting fined. The air force maintains a group of specialists at this site specifically to monitor and protect the sensitive environmental concerns, including the Snowy Plovers, the base, itself, is actually a huge nature preserve, and the wildlife is far better protected by the air force than in many national forests. While the air force is far from perfect - they've got their share of toxic spills, and other issues from the past, the great benefit of keeping people the hell out of this area does far more to protect the environment than the well-meaning, but angry, young, activists.)
In instances where a public speaking event by an official, like the President, at a public place, like a hotel or a stadium, where protesters were shunted off to an empty field a mile distant - that's clearly wrong. There's no justification, or safety rationalization for that.
And on your second point - as I understand it, TALON tracks groups, and groups may have contact information for Points of Contact, and leaders. But they do not maintain membership lists, or track associations. (and as a disclaimer: I have no official connection with anyone involved with the program - this is all publicly available, uncontrolled information; if there are un-public uses, or abuses, and I'm not saying there aren't, I have no knowledge of that. - )
The non-sensationalist version of this story?
TALON is really just used to schedule when bases need to ramp up security to accommodate peace protester groups. It's actually there to benefit the protesters. Not some scary conspiracy to track them. If a protest is staged at a base, and there isn't enough security, there can be traffic issues, counter-protest issues, saboteurs can use genuine peaceful protests as cover for distraction, there are a lot of legitimate reasons for the operators of a secure facility to have a way to coordinate and even cooperate with protest groups. The army has to do their job; protect the country - but protesters are often "the country" they're trying to protect.
The mainstream media doesn't report this angle of the story. I don't know why - maybe it's bias, or maybe it's just not controversial (profitable) when told this way.
Advertising SALES works - otherwise companies wouldn't buy ads.
Don't worry, when Ash Ketchum saves the day, Lugia will restore the flow of the world's ocean currents!