And yet it does. We are asked to give up more and more privacy in the aptly named "Patriot Act" so we can insure our security. Even naming it the Patriot Act sends the message that if you disagree with any of it you are obviously not a Patriot, right?
So, ever since Sept. 11, we're scared to death that evil terrorists are going to attack us all in the middle of the night. In this kind of political environment you could have passed any law imaginable in the name of Security and anyone questioning any part of it is an unpatriotic traiter.
When anyone asked about some of the more draconian provisions of the Patriot Act the argument was made "well, we have to give up some thing to be safer. You don't want to be attacked by terrorists, do you?"
This is what I'm talking about and it's no more rhetorical than saying "Support Our Troops". In the end it's very convenient for those of us who live in a relatively priviliged country to sit around and talk about rhetoric while simultaneously having no input into the workings of our own government but plenty of time to complain about it.
I still think it's relevant regardless of who said it and what the original context was. I used this phrase because it resonated with me and he said it better than I could.
Do you disagree? Do you believe that Security and Liberty are mutually exclusive? I'm curious because your reply sounds so angry I figured you'd have more to say than what you did. If you have valid opinions and concerns express them. Otherwise shut the hell up.
It seems there's a chicken and egg senario concerning most government's and the rights given to citizens. Here in the United States the govenment is made up of elected citizens who are supposed to, ideally, work for us and pass the laws WE ask for. However, the relationship between the government and the people tends to get distorted through campaign contributions, the media, large corporations and wealthy individuals, etc... I'm not sure we've reached the level of security we want but I'm not sure it's worth our privacy. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin: "Those who substitute Liberty for Security deserve neither."
Slashdot Mirror
And yet it does. We are asked to give up more and more privacy in the aptly named "Patriot Act" so we can insure our security. Even naming it the Patriot Act sends the message that if you disagree with any of it you are obviously not a Patriot, right?
So, ever since Sept. 11, we're scared to death that evil terrorists are going to attack us all in the middle of the night. In this kind of political environment you could have passed any law imaginable in the name of Security and anyone questioning any part of it is an unpatriotic traiter.
When anyone asked about some of the more draconian provisions of the Patriot Act the argument was made "well, we have to give up some thing to be safer. You don't want to be attacked by terrorists, do you?"
This is what I'm talking about and it's no more rhetorical than saying "Support Our Troops". In the end it's very convenient for those of us who live in a relatively priviliged country to sit around and talk about rhetoric while simultaneously having no input into the workings of our own government but plenty of time to complain about it.
I still think it's relevant regardless of who said it and what the original context was. I used this phrase because it resonated with me and he said it better than I could.
Do you disagree? Do you believe that Security and Liberty are mutually exclusive? I'm curious because your reply sounds so angry I figured you'd have more to say than what you did. If you have valid opinions and concerns express them. Otherwise shut the hell up.
It seems there's a chicken and egg senario concerning most government's and the rights given to citizens. Here in the United States the govenment is made up of elected citizens who are supposed to, ideally, work for us and pass the laws WE ask for. However, the relationship between the government and the people tends to get distorted through campaign contributions, the media, large corporations and wealthy individuals, etc... I'm not sure we've reached the level of security we want but I'm not sure it's worth our privacy. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin: "Those who substitute Liberty for Security deserve neither."
And to think I only paid $148.94 for Caldera last week!
C =4 94073
http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/default.asp?ED
Can the fund I'll have to set up to pay for all of the 2.4 licenses out there be claimed as a tax shelter?
p.s. if someone does this, make sure they're not sitting on the board of some company, sco, if you know what i mean!