When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession
By Charles Adams.
Disclosure, I was born and raised in the West, and have never lived in the south.
Long story short, The south being primarily agrarian exported most of its products overseas. They usually took payment in terms of finished goods, which were thus taxed upon import.
The North East being an industrialized society had a primarily internal market for its finished goods thus it did not export or import.
The book was a real eye opener for me. His analysis of federal tax receipts from 1830-1840 showed about $107 million, 90 million paid by the south, and only 17 million paid by the north.
He uses a number of international observers to make the point (including Charles Dickens who did a number of articles at the time stating the war was about taxation), and has some great political cartoons from the era to reinforce it.
Semantics semantics, how about "the incongruity of your statement is apparent?" You tell me to mind my own business while we are disucssing the monitoring of individuals within a public space....
Since it is a public space, does it not become public business?
Trix, the first goal (not primary goal) of any kind of terrorist action is to create fear, hence the term TERRORism. Playing on that fear to create change is a strategy or the "ISM".
Regarding your comment that "their" ultimate goal is to convert the world to islam is I think
invalid. I think the overwhelming majority would just like to be left alone.
BTW you cannot seriously believe in Islamo-fascism while at the same time discounting a
tendency towards fascism here at home.
In regards to the Middle East,I know we aren't going anywhere. It's immoral IMO but sadly it seems morality is something many in government
and the general populace are willing to sacrifice for convenience.
Again I reiterate the loss of our freedom is not
the terrorists goal, their first goal is creating fear.
On the other hand our government's goal is the greater centralization of power. This has been an ongoing phenomenon since the founding of the republic. This centralization of power in fewer
and fewer hands is what I take objection to.
Our official have a strategy of using the same fear of terrorism to achieve their goals. Pre 9/11 people were up in arms whenever there was a program for facial recognition systems in public, a national ID proposal, or attempts to weaken the bill of rights. Post 9/11 the fear
of terror is played upon to justify all these
centralization measures. Now is it some shadowy cabal bent on world domination? Most likely not.
Much more probable is that those with power are interested in keeping what they have and finding ways to gain maore.
The hundreds of pages of the patriot act were
written long before 9/11 and were just dusted off
to be voted on when the time was right.
I may be naive in your estimation, but I have come to believe that the only choices we truly have in this life are the ideals we live by, and
how well we try to uphold them.
My personal belief is the centralization of power
is corrupting and inherently a bad thing. I believe that human beings are imperfect. Thus
by allowing a smaller group of people to control a greater amount of power is to invite its inevitable abuse.
Government is IMO a necessary evil. Thus the smallest possible government we can get by with it the best we can hope for.
The cameras and their acceptance is a symptom
of the greater problem.
Under what "law" is the State entitled to assign this cop to me?
Frankly, this is what cctv is doing IMO. Example, a big anti war demonstration downtown or some other protest. Want do you want to bet the powers that be would analyze the cctv footage of that day to try and ID some of the protesters?
What happens when your photo ID is tied in so a comparison can be run? Anonimity goes out the window.
BTW, under the current law I don't believe a uniformed policeman would be violating anything by following you around in public. The same justification you use for cctv applies, you are in public and have no expectation of privacy.
Which I consider a terrible waste of money for preventing terrorism.But an excellent use of money for preventing crime in the subways.
If you want to cut crime, take the 212 million and hire more agents at night. Which do you think is more effective at cutting crime, a camera or an officer standing on the platform?
If you do not live here, then why are you so passionate about this. because this will be used as a precedent to justify its expansion to other cities.
look I appreciate your concern and all for me, but mind your own business. Lol the irony is delicious! Mind my own business while the cameras mind it as well....
Also, please explain to me what it is exactly that the terrorist will have won? They win a little bit whenever we surrender the ideals our free and open society is based upon.
True they may not "hate us for our freedom", but whenever we put up cameras, search people,ban nail clippers, etc. we are doing these things because of their actions. Every time you bump up against these things you are reminded of their acts, and your fears it will happen again. That is their goal, to create terror, and to keep you from forgetting it.
Suppose a cop was assigned to follow you wherever you go in public. You are not suspected of doing anything wrong, he's just following you wherever you go. According to your view this would be justified correct? How long would you allow this to go on before you try and put a stop to it? What then is the difference that makes cameras more acceptable? Is it the "out of sight out of mind" principle?
Frankly I'd suggest they drop the cameras and put more cops in the subway. Cameras cannot stop a crime, a cop can. A policeman can watch you while you are within his view, but his sight is not archived, cannot be linked to facial recognition, cannot be played back ad ininitum. A cop is there and any of his actions can be witnessed by others.
There are no witnesses with the camera jockey. They can and will do stupid crap like checking out chicks, make blooper tapes etc.
The line I draw is this: when I am in public I may have a limited expectation of privacy if you are there and see me, fine. When my interaction in public is capable of being stored, played back and analyzed however, that crosses the line into my privacy.
and you sir can take comfort in the fact that by installing the cameras, and the random searches and whatever else the politicians dream up, that the terrorists have indeed won.
BTW, did I ever say there was some sort of shadowy cabal bent on the destruction of the USA? No. I believe that these abuses are done primarily through moral and political expediency. The ends do not justify the means.
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. "
Really, and what exactly do you gain with the cameras?
Cameras will not stop suicide bombers. You know it, I know it, the politicians know it too. If they could, London which probably has the highest density of cameras anywhere would have been able to stop at least the second attack.
So what good are they? Will it stop some crime? Perhaps. But I'd bet what you and others who support this crap really get from them is the FEELING of safety. You are willing to accept governmental intrusion for the ILLUSION of security. That to me is just sad.
Ahh I see. I disagree with your worldview and instead of refuting either point one or two you resort to name calling. Very amusing coming from someone who just posted with a title "the fallacy of the slippery slope "
Contrary to your opinion there is a plethora of evidence of government abuse/surveilence during the vietnam era. Thats the whole reason the CIA and FBI were not allowed to communicate pre-9/11. They had the power once and abused it. So you keep on trusting your officials, chances are they won't notice you if you remain within accepted norms. But hey, what do I know, I'm "crazy" right?
but we're talking about putting cameras in the subway if you hadn't noticed
yes I noticed, and you might be right, except for two factors. 1) cameras will not stop suicide bombers.
and
2) there is ALWAYS an exception for things like these to be used (hence abused) in other CRIMINAL (i.e. non-terrorist) investigations. Not just crimes committed in the subway, they will be used to track people using the subway to get around. You are naive to think otherwise.
As an innocent citizen, how long would you find it acceptable for a cop to follow you? An Hour? A Day? I think you would start complaining in short order.
As far as Iran, yes they are despotic. Do they have a right to be pissed with Israel? Perhaps seeing the way the Palestinians have been treated. Does either excuse our meddling in their internal affairs beforehand? No.
Regarding Mecca, this link "Saudi Arabia has Islam's two holiest cities, Mecca and Medina. Many Muslims oppose the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia. They say non-Muslims should not be welcome in land that is holy to Muslims."
"The Air Force presence in the Gulf region is a vital one for US military strategy, and the United States should consider it a de facto permanent presence, even as it seeks ways to lessen Saudi, Kuwaiti and regional concerns about US presence"
"Reflecting the gradual shift in the focus of American strategic concerns toward East Asia, a majority of the US fleet, including two thirds of all carrier battle groups, should be concentrated in the Pacific. A new, permanent forward base should be established in Southeast Asia"
"As a supplement to forces stationed abroad under long-term basing arrangements, the United States should seek to establish a network of 'deployment bases' or 'forward operating bases' to increase the reach of current and future forces. Not only will such an approach improve the ability to project force to outlying regions, it will help circumvent the political, practical and financial constraints on expanding the network of American bases overseas"
No slippery slope? So holding an american citizen indefinitely without trial is acceptable. (That's part of the Sixth amendment gone.)
Charged with an offense carrying six or less months in jail PER CHARGE? You have no right to a jury trial. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury. (I'd say that's the rest...)
Secret searches without a warrant? (ala Patriot act, administrative subpoenas) Thats the Fourth down.
Finally, I've got two more bits of advice.
First, YOU WILL NEVER be safe. Life is inherently unsafe. Deal with it. If in your preference warrantless searches are reasonable, fine, urge your representatives to CHANGE the Constitution. To pay lip service to the Constitution while shredding it is an injustice to your relatives who died bringing it into existence.
Second, we cannot choose our family, nor the circumstances we are born into. The real choice we do have is the ideals by which we live. You may choose a "safer" world in which you are prodded and probed, and generally treated like cattle.
If defending the principles of dignity, liberty and justice is your version of unrealistic and childish behavior so be it, I'm guilty as charged.
However, how does having security cameras and motion sensors violate basic rights?
Hmmm lets try this :
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "
I'd say if I pay taxes to build the damn subway, then I've got a right to privacy when I use it.
Don't forget the random searches of bags etc. ant to bet if they find drugs or whatever during said search they'll arrest the poor slob?
I was under the impression that we are presumed INNOCENT until proven guilty. (Quaint I know) I guess I was one of the few who actually paid attention in Civics.....
You understand they are over here because WE ARE OVER THERE, and have been since the Cold War? What would your natural reaction be if an Iraqi army was occupying Washington D.C.?
We toppled a democratic government in Iran, and put the Shah in power. Then we act shocked when the people over there revolt and are pissed at us? We have troops around Mecca, and the holy sites in Iraq and yet "they hate us for our freedom"? We are playing at empire, and terrorism is its natural consequence.
You know the best part? The asshats in power let us deal with the fallout while they have their praetorian guards and run for a "secure and undisclosed location" whenever the shit hits the fan. I bet we could fix all this with a simple constitutional amendment :
"All elected officals must solely use PUBLIC transportaion during the course of their term."
If you want a government of the people, by the people and for the people, you can't be afraid of mingling with them can you?
The article even says it can't stop a suicide bomber. But hey, lets burn any semblance of privacy for feel good measures instead of looking at the root causes.Why does noone EVER mention in the media that by playing global corporate cop around the world we PISS people off? I can tell you right now that if the chinese or russians were over here, inevitably some americans would be suicide bombers against them.
Cause and effect.
It's sad to think we went from men like this:
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775.
or this :
"They that can give up essential liberty, to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
or this:
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest for freedom, go home and leave us in peace. We seek not your council nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
--Samuel Adams
To the SHEEPLE we have today.
I guess Franklin was right,
The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, "A republic, if you can keep it."
Have you no compassion? I think the part where I stated I donate to charities I BELIEVE in, answers that question.
People should give to charity of their own accord, but when they don't and someone "helps" them do the right thing that's a good thing,
Really, so if a homeless guy "helps" you do the right thing by taking your stuff I suppose you don't call it theft?
There is NO moral difference between theft by an individual and theft by the state. Now you may say that the majority voted to take your stuff, but a even a majority cannot make an immoral action moral. (Case in point the holocaust)
I have great admiration for any entity that improves the quality of life of the poor, more so if it does so at the expense of the rich.
Again if I work hard I should be able to choose what I do with the gains from my labor.
Nations and borders are artificial constructs, and in no way should constrain human compassion.
Fine, go to where you percieve the need is greatest and help them. remember the whole "give a man a fish, vs TEACH a man to fish"?
I pay my taxes which help the poor locally and abroad;
Your taxes for the most part DO NOT help the poor. Most go to the military industrial complex directly. Those given as "aid" are drawn right back in by that same complex.
BTW it won't matter who gets elected dem or rep in 2008, we'll still be spending more for weapons than the next 6 nations combined. We'll still be screwing the poor and working classes by means of intentional inflationary policies (making it impossible for them to save money). We'll still screw the young by spending the Social security "surplus" and them some.
"US has ranks second to last among developed nations for foreign aid as a percentage of the economy"
First, it IS NOT the job of the government to give out our money. It is up to the citizen to donate on his/her own.
Second, Who cares what the rest of the world does? I did not vote for their leaders, nor they the united states. They have no say in our government and we should have none in theirs.
There is no legal or moral justification to take tax money from a citizen of this country and give it to a different country. You want it done, donate it on your own.
FWIW I am not a christian and did not vote for bush.(He is IMO the worst president since FDR).
I also donate to local charities I believe are worthwhile.
From the article: 'radically we have moved away from regulation based on professional analysis of scientific data...to regulation controlled by the White House and driven by political considerations.'"
So the "professionals" are irked that they are no longer in charge and the relgious right is? Both sides cry when the other kid has the ball. Solution, remove the ball from the playground.
Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.
or this :
Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
although one could argue the 14th was not properly ratified. Many "unreconstructed" southerners still hold the view that you are a citizen of your state first, and these united states second.
but I can not imagine it would be anything as good as we have today
again, I recommed the book ""When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession""
The author points out that the transition from slavery to freedom took place peacefully in 19 or 20 different countries. He argues that the use of force to bring an end to slavery made the situation worse. He also provides some insight on northern race laws which in many ways were as bad or worse than what the south had.
The positive thing is that the US holds itself to the same standards, trampling over cultural and historical precidence with violence to end slavery in the south
Reread your history man.
We supported Saddam, Rumsfeld was in Iraq when Saddam had the kurds gassed. The Reagan administration supplied the biological starter stock to iraq for its bioweapons program, and provided intel to iraq during the iran-iraq war.
I'd say that is not holding itself up to high moral standards.
BTW, your view of Lincoln and the civil war is just whitewashed BS. For the first two years of the war Lincoln repeatedly stated the war WAS NOT about slavery, he supported a constitutional amendment guaranteeing slavery, the emancipation proclamation dealt with freeing slaves ONLY in states not in "rebellion" thus maryland, (a slaveholding state still in the union) was not affected.
The war was about taxation. If you read the european reports from the time you will see that to be the case. Example the federal government collected roughly 107 million in excise taxes between 1830-1840. Of that 90 million was paid by the south, 17 million by the north. Most of the federal spending was in the north, so the agrarian south was getting screwed.
The election of the republican party was the final straw. They were a REGIONAL (e.g. northern party) which as part of their party platform included greatly increased tarrifs. Thus screwing the south even more. I highly recomend this book.
"When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession"
Slashdot Mirror
tasked with preserving records "for the life of the republic"
Task completed......
I would suggest this book:
When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession
By Charles Adams.
Disclosure, I was born and raised in the West,
and have never lived in the south.
Long story short, The south being primarily agrarian exported most of its products overseas.
They usually took payment in terms of finished goods, which were thus taxed upon import.
The North East being an industrialized society had a primarily internal market for its finished
goods thus it did not export or import.
The book was a real eye opener for me. His analysis of federal tax receipts from 1830-1840
showed about $107 million, 90 million paid by the south, and only 17 million paid by the north.
He uses a number of international observers to make the point (including Charles Dickens who did a number of articles at the time stating the war was about taxation), and has some great political cartoons from the era to reinforce it.
In the 1830s-1840s over 90 % of federal tax money was collected from the south, while most of the
federal spending was in the north.
I'd say this is reciprocity....
Semantics semantics, how about "the incongruity of your statement is apparent?" You tell me to mind my own business while we are disucssing the monitoring of individuals within a public space.... Since it is a public space, does it not become public business? Trix, the first goal (not primary goal) of any kind of terrorist action is to create fear, hence the term TERRORism. Playing on that fear to create change is a strategy or the "ISM". Regarding your comment that "their" ultimate goal is to convert the world to islam is I think invalid. I think the overwhelming majority would just like to be left alone. BTW you cannot seriously believe in Islamo-fascism while at the same time discounting a tendency towards fascism here at home. In regards to the Middle East,I know we aren't going anywhere. It's immoral IMO but sadly it seems morality is something many in government and the general populace are willing to sacrifice for convenience. Again I reiterate the loss of our freedom is not the terrorists goal, their first goal is creating fear. On the other hand our government's goal is the greater centralization of power. This has been an ongoing phenomenon since the founding of the republic. This centralization of power in fewer and fewer hands is what I take objection to. Our official have a strategy of using the same fear of terrorism to achieve their goals. Pre 9/11 people were up in arms whenever there was a program for facial recognition systems in public, a national ID proposal, or attempts to weaken the bill of rights. Post 9/11 the fear of terror is played upon to justify all these centralization measures. Now is it some shadowy cabal bent on world domination? Most likely not. Much more probable is that those with power are interested in keeping what they have and finding ways to gain maore. The hundreds of pages of the patriot act were written long before 9/11 and were just dusted off to be voted on when the time was right. I may be naive in your estimation, but I have come to believe that the only choices we truly have in this life are the ideals we live by, and how well we try to uphold them. My personal belief is the centralization of power is corrupting and inherently a bad thing. I believe that human beings are imperfect. Thus by allowing a smaller group of people to control a greater amount of power is to invite its inevitable abuse. Government is IMO a necessary evil. Thus the smallest possible government we can get by with it the best we can hope for. The cameras and their acceptance is a symptom of the greater problem.
Under what "law" is the State entitled to assign this cop to me?
Frankly, this is what cctv is doing IMO. Example,
a big anti war demonstration downtown or some
other protest. Want do you want to bet the powers that be would analyze the cctv footage of that day to try and ID some of the protesters?
What happens when your photo ID is tied in so a
comparison can be run? Anonimity goes out the window.
BTW, under the current law I don't believe a uniformed policeman would be violating anything
by following you around in public. The same justification you use for cctv applies, you are in public and have no expectation of privacy.
Which I consider a terrible waste of money for preventing terrorism.But an excellent use of money for preventing crime in the subways.
If you want to cut crime, take the 212 million and hire more agents at night. Which do you think is more effective at cutting crime, a camera or an officer standing on the platform?
If you do not live here, then why are you so passionate about this. because this will be used as a precedent to justify its expansion to other cities.
look I appreciate your concern and all for me, but mind your own business.
Lol the irony is delicious! Mind my own business while the cameras mind it as well....
Also, please explain to me what it is exactly that the terrorist will have won? They win a little bit whenever we surrender the ideals our free and open society is based upon.
True they may not "hate us for our freedom", but whenever we put up cameras, search people,ban nail clippers, etc. we are doing these things
because of their actions. Every time you bump up against these things you are reminded of their acts, and your fears it will happen again.
That is their goal, to create terror, and to keep you from forgetting it.
Really?
Hypothetical question:
Suppose a cop was assigned to follow you wherever you go in public. You are not suspected of doing anything wrong, he's just following you wherever you go. According to your view this would be justified correct? How long would you allow this to go on before you try and put a stop to it? What then is the difference that makes cameras more acceptable? Is it the "out of sight out of mind" principle?
Frankly I'd suggest they drop the cameras and put more cops in the subway. Cameras cannot stop a crime, a cop can. A policeman can watch you while you are within his view, but his sight is not archived, cannot be linked to facial recognition, cannot be played back ad ininitum.
A cop is there and any of his actions can be witnessed by others.
There are no witnesses with the camera jockey. They can and will do stupid crap like checking out chicks, make blooper tapes etc.
The line I draw is this: when I am in public I may have a limited expectation of privacy if you are there and see me, fine. When my interaction in public is capable of being stored, played back and analyzed however, that crosses the line into my privacy.
and you sir can take comfort in the fact that by installing the cameras, and the random searches and whatever else the politicians dream up, that the terrorists have indeed won.
BTW, did I ever say there was some sort of shadowy cabal bent on the destruction of the USA? No. I believe that these abuses are done primarily through moral and political expediency. The ends do not justify the means.
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. "
James Madison
Really, and what exactly do you gain with the cameras?
Cameras will not stop suicide bombers. You know it, I know it, the politicians know it too. If they could, London which probably has the highest density of cameras anywhere would have been able to stop at least the second attack.
So what good are they? Will it stop some crime? Perhaps. But I'd bet what you and others who support this crap really get from them is the FEELING of safety. You are willing to accept governmental intrusion for the ILLUSION of security. That to me is just sad.
Ahh I see. I disagree with your worldview and instead of refuting either point one or two you resort to name calling.
Very amusing coming from someone who just posted with a title "the fallacy of the slippery slope "
Contrary to your opinion there is a plethora of evidence of government abuse/surveilence during the vietnam era. Thats the whole reason the CIA and FBI were not allowed to communicate pre-9/11. They had the power once and abused it. So you keep on trusting your officials, chances are they won't notice you if you remain within accepted norms. But hey, what do I know, I'm "crazy" right?
but we're talking about putting cameras in the subway if you hadn't noticed
yes I noticed, and you might be right, except for two factors.
1) cameras will not stop suicide bombers.
and
2) there is ALWAYS an exception for things like these to be used (hence abused) in other CRIMINAL (i.e. non-terrorist) investigations. Not just crimes committed in the subway, they will be used to track people using the subway to get around. You are naive to think otherwise.
As an innocent citizen, how long would you find it acceptable for a cop to follow you? An Hour?
A Day? I think you would start complaining in short order.
As far as Iran, yes they are despotic. Do they have a right to be pissed with Israel? Perhaps seeing the way the Palestinians have been treated. Does either excuse our meddling in their internal affairs beforehand? No.
Regarding Mecca, this link
"Saudi Arabia has Islam's two holiest cities, Mecca and Medina. Many Muslims oppose the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia. They say non-Muslims should not be welcome in land that is holy to Muslims."
And yes, Empire
Some choice reading
"The Air Force presence in the Gulf region is a vital one for US military strategy, and the United States should consider it a de facto permanent presence, even as it seeks ways to lessen Saudi, Kuwaiti and regional concerns about US presence"
"Reflecting the gradual shift in the focus of American strategic concerns toward East Asia, a majority of the US fleet, including two thirds of all carrier battle groups, should be concentrated in the Pacific. A new, permanent forward base should be established in Southeast Asia"
"As a supplement to forces stationed abroad under long-term basing arrangements, the United States should seek to establish a network of 'deployment bases' or 'forward operating bases' to increase the reach of current and future forces. Not only will such an approach improve the ability to project force to outlying regions, it will help circumvent the political, practical and financial constraints on expanding the network of American bases overseas"
read the thing yourself.
I'd say when the chief strategists go around saying "Pax Americana" (mentioned four times in the document above) yeah thats playing empire
Really?
No slippery slope? So holding an american citizen
indefinitely without trial is acceptable. (That's part of the Sixth amendment gone.)
Charged with an offense carrying six or less months in jail PER CHARGE? You have no right to a jury trial.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury. (I'd say that's the rest...)
Secret searches without a warrant? (ala Patriot act, administrative subpoenas) Thats the Fourth down.
Finally, I've got two more bits of advice.
First, YOU WILL NEVER be safe. Life is inherently unsafe. Deal with it. If in your preference warrantless searches are reasonable, fine, urge your representatives to CHANGE the Constitution. To pay lip service to the Constitution while shredding it is an injustice to your relatives who died bringing it into existence.
Second, we cannot choose our family, nor the circumstances we are born into. The real choice we do have is the ideals by which we live. You may choose a "safer" world in which you are prodded and probed, and generally treated like cattle.
If defending the principles of dignity, liberty and justice is your version of unrealistic and childish behavior so be it, I'm guilty as charged.
However, how does having security cameras and motion sensors violate basic rights?
Hmmm lets try this :
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "
I'd say if I pay taxes to build the damn subway, then I've got a right to privacy when I use it.
Don't forget the random searches of bags etc. ant to bet if they find drugs or whatever during said search they'll arrest the poor slob?
I was under the impression that we are presumed INNOCENT until proven guilty. (Quaint I know) I guess I was one of the few who actually paid attention in Civics.....
You understand they are over here because WE ARE OVER THERE, and have been since the Cold War?
What would your natural reaction be if an Iraqi army was occupying Washington D.C.?
We toppled a democratic government in Iran, and put the Shah in power. Then we act shocked when the people over there revolt and are pissed at us? We have troops around Mecca, and the holy sites in Iraq and yet "they hate us for our freedom"? We are playing at empire, and terrorism is its natural consequence.
You know the best part? The asshats in power let us deal with the fallout while they have their praetorian guards and run for a "secure and undisclosed location" whenever the shit hits the fan. I bet we could fix all this with a simple constitutional amendment :
"All elected officals must solely use PUBLIC transportaion during the course of their term."
If you want a government of the people, by the people and for the people, you can't be afraid of mingling with them can you?
The article even says it can't stop a suicide bomber. But hey, lets burn any semblance of privacy for feel good measures instead of
looking at the root causes.Why does noone EVER mention in the media that by playing global corporate cop around the world we PISS people off? I can tell you right now that if the chinese or russians were over here, inevitably some americans would be suicide bombers against them.
Cause and effect.
It's sad to think we went from men like this:
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775.
or this :
"They that can give up essential liberty, to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
or this:
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest for freedom, go home and leave us in peace. We seek not your council nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
--Samuel Adams
To the SHEEPLE we have today.
I guess Franklin was right,
The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, "A republic, if you can keep it."
The US has been fucking with other governments for 60+ years, and people like bin Laden and Saddam and places like Vietnam are its legacy
Yeah, and it pisses me off.
"America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy." John Quincy Adams
We've come a loooong way haven't we?
Have you no compassion?
I think the part where I stated I donate to charities I BELIEVE in, answers that question.
People should give to charity of their own accord, but when they don't and someone "helps" them do the right thing that's a good thing,
Really, so if a homeless guy "helps" you do the right thing by taking your stuff I suppose you don't call it theft?
There is NO moral difference between theft by an individual and theft by the state. Now you may say that the majority voted to take your stuff,
but a even a majority cannot make an immoral action moral. (Case in point the holocaust)
I have great admiration for any entity that improves the quality of life of the poor, more so if it does so at the expense of the rich.
Again if I work hard I should be able to choose what I do with the gains from my labor.
Nations and borders are artificial constructs, and in no way should constrain human compassion.
Fine, go to where you percieve the need is greatest and help them. remember the whole
"give a man a fish, vs TEACH a man to fish"?
I pay my taxes which help the poor locally and abroad;
Your taxes for the most part DO NOT help the poor. Most go to the military industrial complex
directly. Those given as "aid" are drawn right back in by that same complex.
BTW it won't matter who gets elected dem or rep in 2008, we'll still be spending more for weapons than the next 6 nations combined.
We'll still be screwing the poor and working classes by means of intentional inflationary policies (making it impossible for them to save
money). We'll still screw the young by spending the Social security "surplus" and them some.
"US has ranks second to last among developed nations for foreign aid as a percentage of the economy"
First, it IS NOT the job of the government to give out our money. It is up to the citizen
to donate on his/her own.
Second, Who cares what the rest of the world does? I did not vote for their leaders, nor they
the united states. They have no say in our government and we should have none in theirs.
There is no legal or moral justification to take tax money from a citizen of this country and give it to a different country. You want it done, donate it on your own.
FWIW I am not a christian and did not vote for bush.(He is IMO the worst president since FDR).
I also donate to local charities I believe are worthwhile.
From the article: 'radically we have moved away from regulation based on professional analysis of scientific data ...to regulation controlled by the White House and driven by political considerations.'"
So the "professionals" are irked that they are no longer in charge and the relgious right is?
Both sides cry when the other kid has the ball. Solution, remove the ball from the playground.
E.G. less regulation, federal funding etc....
this
Article IV
Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.
or this :
Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
although one could argue the 14th was not properly ratified. Many "unreconstructed" southerners still hold the view that you are a citizen of your state first, and these united states second.
but I can not imagine it would be anything as good as we have today
again, I recommed the book
""When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession""
The author points out that the transition from slavery to freedom took place peacefully in 19
or 20 different countries. He argues that the use of force to bring an end to slavery made the situation worse. He also provides some insight on northern race laws which in many ways were as bad or worse than what the south had.
The positive thing is that the US holds itself to the same standards, trampling over cultural and historical precidence with violence to end slavery in the south
Reread your history man.
We supported Saddam, Rumsfeld was in Iraq when Saddam had the kurds gassed. The Reagan administration supplied the biological starter stock to iraq for its bioweapons program, and provided intel to iraq during the iran-iraq war.
I'd say that is not holding itself up to high moral standards.
BTW, your view of Lincoln and the civil war is just whitewashed BS. For the first two years of the war Lincoln repeatedly stated the war WAS NOT about slavery, he supported a constitutional amendment guaranteeing slavery, the emancipation proclamation dealt with freeing slaves ONLY in states not in "rebellion" thus maryland, (a slaveholding state still in the union) was not affected.
The war was about taxation. If you read the european reports from the time you will see that to be the case. Example the federal government collected roughly 107 million in excise taxes between 1830-1840. Of that 90 million was paid by the south, 17 million by the north. Most of the federal spending was in the north, so the agrarian south was getting screwed.
The election of the republican party was the final straw. They were a REGIONAL (e.g. northern party) which as part of their party platform included greatly increased tarrifs. Thus screwing the south even more.
I highly recomend this book.
"When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession"
If we can drop this all over the place, whats the big deal with some extra radiation for explorers?
Yeah thats a good one. I once tried to get my department changed to:
Telecommunications Information Technology Services and Administrative Support Systems
Unfortunately we lost our support from above. Morale drooped and our Adminstrative Support Systems group was left out in the cold.