"The worst thing that could happen now is someone attacks him because then people would vote for him (beware the sympathy vote)."
Well, now, wouldn't THAT be an interesting symmetry: John Ashcroft (a man who lost an election to a dead man), working for a President who can't be re-elected except as a dead man.
"the counties run the election... once you have such irregularities mapped, then you can see which party (Dems. or Reps.) is more prone to these problems."
Prima facie, it would prove nothing. One can argue that the controlling party is responsible, if the disenfranchised voters are mostly of the other party. OTOH, one can argue that one (or a few) individual(s) of the NON-controlling party is responsible, if THEIR foes are the disenfranchised. OTOOH, one can argue that EITHER side was responsible for doing a botched job and non-selectively suppressing their own voters.
"For every knowledgeable enthusiast, there are many more misinformed or incorrect speculators whose opinions usually spring from personal preference or a need to hear themselves talk."
And the difference between this and slashdot is exactly what?;-)
You miss my point. The Bush administrattion has been *so* bad on these issues that virtually no one who's capable of securing the Dems' nomination could be equally bad, *regardless* of the historical record.
Virtually every President -- with the exception of the near-pathologically saintly, like Jimmy Carter -- secretly deems his first priority to be winning a second term. Kerry knows that moving too far to the right, even if he were so inclined, would threaten his re-nomination.
If you're the kind of person who's horrified by the Gang Of Bush's encroachments on civil liberties, then you're likely to be someone who's also concerned about an entire constellation of related issues.
In that case, you're also likely to be someone for whom there's no doubt that Kerry will be at least a marginal improvement.
"He attributes some of the success to faster browsing."
A lot of people claim this, and I don't understand it (at least on Win).
I tried FF months ago and found it unusably slow. Switched to Moz, somewhat better. Recently went back to FF, about the same as Moz.
BOTH are significantly and consistently slower than IE6. At times it takes 5+ seconds even to show the first visible sign of responding to a click (e.g. in the mouse icon or status bar). And redrawing a window (after being uncovered or un-minimized) is excruciating.
This is running w2kPro on a 1+Ghz Asus/AMD system with 256MB, a late-model WD IDE drive, and a 21-inch Hitachi monitor driven at 1152x864 32-bit colors by an STB Velocity 128 AGP card.
Even with the old video card and small amount of RAM, why should Moz/FF be so much slower than IE?
... is doing any/everything which has even the slightest chance of slowing, stopping, or reversing the trend of what's happening to civil liberties in the USA.
ALL other issues are fundamentally dependent, in the final analysis, on the the preservation of civil liberties.
"What we need is to abolish the popular election of the Senate and let the state legislatures remove their senators whenever they feel they aren't doing a good job."
[btw, there are good reasons the Constitution was changed to popular election of Senators.]
I trust the popular vote more than I trust the kind of dorks who get elected to state office. Also, your proposal creates a conflict of interest for ambitious state legislators.
If we're going to remove Senators, let it be by popular vote. I've long been in favor of allowing recall petitions in ALL states, for ALL state offices.
ACT *NOW*, easy web cut/paste letter to Congress
on
New Security Bill Proposed
·
· Score: 1, Informative
One poster said, "SMTP AUTH over SSL. Works like a charm. You need an ISP or service competent enough to configure it though."
Easy for YOU to say. There are a lot of people (like myself) who have ONLY ONE CHOICE for a broadband provider (which blocks outgoing port-25), yet who need to use -- SIMULTANEOUSLY -- THAT SINGLE PROVIDER's SMTP, while using a different "From:" domain.
This happens for various LEGITIMATE reasons -- for example, if you have long-standing historical relationships which are dependent upon a large and impersonal *mail* provider -- NOT your ISP -- who won't provide a mechanism for circumventing the ISP's block on port-25.
You need to recognize a useful distinction between "waning faith in AmericaNS" and "waning faith in AmericA".
As counterintuitive as it may seem, the two are not synonymous. Even if the Gang Of Bush was or will be (re)elected by a 50%+1 majority of the popular vote, it doesn't necessarily reflect the basic character of the USA. It's not (yet) analogous to 1930s Germany.
I too have waning faith in AmericA, and probably because of the same phenomena you had in mind. But the decision of an individual ***VOTER*** is the end result of a complex constellation of issues, and I don't (yet) believe that a decisive or characteristic majority of US ***CITIZENS*** are sanguine about the damage done to civil liberties and international relations in the last three years.
"Wow, did you miss out when brains were being distributed."
So many responders missed my point, that I obviously was sloppy and too brief in making it.
I was responding to "gone.fishing(213219)" who said: "I do value my rights and my privacy... I fear a repressive regime in my own country... changes made since 9/11 have made the way we live, the way we travel, and the way we do business much more restrictive... We aren't anonymous travelers anymore... We are electronically monitored, our travels documented... A regime that turns it's military against it's own people isn't very far from being the enemy... It is just wrong... I'm afraid that we already have our own version of secret police."
For responders who complained of my post being USA-centric, I think it's pretty clear that "gone.fishing(213219)" (to whom I was responding) was posting from that perspective.
I agree with the observations made by "gone.fishing(213219)", and I see all of these observations as example of ways in which terrorists have changed us after 9/11.
These examples are EXACTLY what people meant when they said that terrorists win only if they make us change who we are. When people said that terrorists win only if they make us change how we live, they WEREN'T referring to the idea of terrorists forcing us to adopt Islamic fundamentalist religious beliefs, or to agree with the rightness of their related political practices.
Events which weren't the norm before 9/11: -- Abu Ghraib -- Guantanamo, where people are held with no limits on how long they can he held without access to outside assistance or even disclosure of their identities. -- secret warrantless searches of our homes, library records, and all the other excesses of the Patriot Act. -- CAPPS, violation of EU privacy principles, secret seizure of US airlines records. etc., etc., etc....
For responders who thought I was saying that terrorists' actions derive from a hatred of the MERE IDEA of "western" democracy/liberty -- that's not what I meant. Those terrorists MAY in fact feel that way, but I happen to agree with the responder who said that those feelings are NOT the terrorists' PRIMARY motivation. And I happen to believe that none of this would be happening if we never had troops in Islamic countries. BUT even though I DO happen to believe these things, those beliefs AREN'T the subject I was discussing.
I deplore the anti-democratic developments described by "gone.fishing(213219)" -- but EVEN IF YOU DON'T, I think you must agree that they demonstrate that 9/11 has succeeded in reducing the liberties, privacy, and tolerance which we formerly expected and experienced.
"bin laden doesnt have any goals besides DESTROYING america. he wants us dead, not changed."
So many responders missed my point, that I obviously was sloppy and too brief in making it.
I was responding to "gone.fishing(213219)" who said: "I do value my rights and my privacy... I fear a repressive regime in my own country... changes made since 9/11 have made the way we live, the way we travel, and the way we do business much more restrictive... We aren't anonymous travelers anymore... We are electronically monitored, our travels documented... A regime that turns it's military against it's own people isn't very far from being the enemy... It is just wrong... I'm afraid that we already have our own version of secret police."
For responders who complained of my post being USA-centric, I think it's pretty clear that "gone.fishing(213219)" (to whom I was responding) was posting from that perspective.
I agree with the observations made by "gone.fishing(213219)", and I see all of these observations as example of ways in which terrorists have changed us after 9/11.
These examples are EXACTLY what people meant when they said that terrorists win only if they make us change who we are. When people said that terrorists win only if they make us change how we live, they WEREN'T referring to the idea of terrorists forcing us to adopt Islamic fundamentalist religious beliefs, or to agree with the rightness of their related political practices.
Events which weren't the norm before 9/11: -- Abu Ghraib -- Guantanamo, where people are held with no limits on how long they can he held without access to outside assistance or even disclosure of their identities. -- secret warrantless searches of our homes, library records, and all the other excesses of the Patriot Act. -- CAPPS, violation of EU privacy principles, secret seizure of US airlines records. etc., etc., etc....
For responders who thought I was saying that terrorists' actions derive from a hatred of the MERE IDEA of "western" democracy/liberty -- that's not what I meant. Those terrorists MAY in fact feel that way, but I happen to agree with the responder who said that those feelings are NOT the terrorists' PRIMARY motivation. And I happen to believe that none of this would be happening if we never had troops in Islamic countries. BUT even though I DO happen to believe these things, those beliefs AREN'T the subject I was discussing.
I deplore the anti-democratic developments described by "gone.fishing(213219)" -- but EVEN IF YOU DON'T, I think you must agree that they demonstrate that 9/11 has succeeded in reducing the liberties, privacy, and tolerance which we formerly expected and experienced.
"Sigh. Another one who thinks America is the whole world"
So many responders missed my point, that I obviously was sloppy and too brief in making it.
I was responding to "gone.fishing(213219)" who said: "I do value my rights and my privacy... I fear a repressive regime in my own country... changes made since 9/11 have made the way we live, the way we travel, and the way we do business much more restrictive... We aren't anonymous travelers anymore... We are electronically monitored, our travels documented... A regime that turns it's military against it's own people isn't very far from being the enemy... It is just wrong... I'm afraid that we already have our own version of secret police."
For responders who complained of my post being USA-centric, I think it's pretty clear that "gone.fishing(213219)" (to whom I was responding) was posting from that perspective.
I agree with the observations made by "gone.fishing(213219)", and I see all of these observations as example of ways in which terrorists have changed us after 9/11.
These examples are EXACTLY what people meant when they said that terrorists win only if they make us change who we are. When people said that terrorists win only if they make us change how we live, they WEREN'T referring to the idea of terrorists forcing us to adopt Islamic fundamentalist religious beliefs, or to agree with the rightness of their related political practices.
Events which weren't the norm before 9/11: -- Abu Ghraib -- Guantanamo, where people are held with no limits on how long they can he held without access to outside assistance or even disclosure of their identities. -- secret warrantless searches of our homes, library records, and all the other excesses of the Patriot Act. -- CAPPS, violation of EU privacy principles, secret seizure of US airlines records. etc., etc., etc....
For responders who thought I was saying that terrorists' actions derive from a hatred of the MERE IDEA of "western" democracy/liberty -- that's not what I meant. Those terrorists MAY in fact feel that way, but I happen to agree with the responder who said that those feelings are NOT the terrorists' PRIMARY motivation. And I happen to believe that none of this would be happening if we never had troops in Islamic countries. BUT even though I DO happen to believe these things, those beliefs AREN'T the subject I was discussing.
I deplore the anti-democratic developments described by "gone.fishing(213219)" -- but EVEN IF YOU DON'T, I think you must agree that they demonstrate that 9/11 has succeeded in reducing the liberties, privacy, and tolerance which we formerly expected and experienced.
"Is that really what you think the issue is? That the terrorists want to convert all of America to Islam?"
So many responders missed my point, that I obviously was sloppy and too brief in making it.
I was responding to "gone.fishing(213219)" who said: "I do value my rights and my privacy... I fear a repressive regime in my own country... changes made since 9/11 have made the way we live, the way we travel, and the way we do business much more restrictive... We aren't anonymous travelers anymore... We are electronically monitored, our travels documented... A regime that turns it's military against it's own people isn't very far from being the enemy... It is just wrong... I'm afraid that we already have our own version of secret police."
For responders who complained of my post being USA-centric, I think it's pretty clear that "gone.fishing(213219)" (to whom I was responding) was posting from that perspective.
I agree with the observations made by "gone.fishing(213219)", and I see all of these observations as example of ways in which terrorists have changed us after 9/11.
These examples are EXACTLY what people meant when they said that terrorists win only if they make us change who we are. When people said that terrorists win only if they make us change how we live, they WEREN'T referring to the idea of terrorists forcing us to adopt Islamic fundamentalist religious beliefs, or to agree with the rightness of their related political practices.
Events which weren't the norm before 9/11: -- Abu Ghraib -- Guantanamo, where people are held with no limits on how long they can he held without access to outside assistance or even disclosure of their identities. -- secret warrantless searches of our homes, library records, and all the other excesses of the Patriot Act. -- CAPPS, violation of EU privacy principles, secret seizure of US airlines records. etc., etc., etc....
For responders who thought I was saying that terrorists' actions derive from a hatred of the MERE IDEA of "western" democracy/liberty -- that's not what I meant. Those terrorists MAY in fact feel that way, but I happen to agree with the responder who said that those feelings are NOT the terrorists' PRIMARY motivation. And I happen to believe that none of this would be happening if we never had troops in Islamic countries. BUT even though I DO happen to believe these things, those beliefs AREN'T the subject I was discussing.
I deplore the anti-democratic developments described by "gone.fishing(213219)" -- but EVEN IF YOU DON'T, I think you must agree that they demonstrate that 9/11 has succeeded in reducing the liberties, privacy, and tolerance which we formerly expected and experienced.
"Nobody's stopped me drinking beer and eating bacon"
So many responders missed my point, that I obviously was sloppy and too brief in making it.
I was responding to "gone.fishing(213219)" who said: "I do value my rights and my privacy... I fear a repressive regime in my own country... changes made since 9/11 have made the way we live, the way we travel, and the way we do business much more restrictive... We aren't anonymous travelers anymore... We are electronically monitored, our travels documented... A regime that turns it's military against it's own people isn't very far from being the enemy... It is just wrong... I'm afraid that we already have our own version of secret police."
For responders who complained of my post being USA-centric, I think it's pretty clear that "gone.fishing(213219)" (to whom I was responding) was posting from that perspective.
I agree with the observations made by "gone.fishing(213219)", and I see all of these observations as example of ways in which terrorists have changed us after 9/11.
These examples are EXACTLY what people meant when they said that terrorists win only if they make us change who we are. When people said that terrorists win only if they make us change how we live, they WEREN'T referring to the idea of terrorists forcing us to adopt Islamic fundamentalist religious beliefs, or to agree with the rightness of their related political practices.
Events which weren't the norm before 9/11: -- Abu Ghraib -- Guantanamo, where people are held with no limits on how long they can he held without access to outside assistance or even disclosure of their identities. -- secret warrantless searches of our homes, library records, and all the other excesses of the Patriot Act. -- CAPPS, violation of EU privacy principles, secret seizure of US airlines records. etc., etc., etc....
For responders who thought I was saying that terrorists' actions derive from a hatred of the MERE IDEA of "western" democracy/liberty -- that's not what I meant. Those terrorists MAY in fact feel that way, but I happen to agree with the responder who said that those feelings are NOT the terrorists' PRIMARY motivation. And I happen to believe that none of this would be happening if we never had troops in Islamic countries. BUT even though I DO happen to believe these things, those beliefs AREN'T the subject I was discussing.
I deplore the anti-democratic developments described by "gone.fishing(213219)" -- but EVEN IF YOU DON'T, I think you must agree that they demonstrate that 9/11 has succeeded in reducing the liberties, privacy, and tolerance which we formerly expected and experienced.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm looking for places to emigrate.
Where are you?
excellent idea.
btw, are you in Canada?
1. your site's unreachable.
2. "Swedish, but resident in the UK since 1996".
Why did you leave? I'm curious, because I'm evaluating places to emigrate.
Email me.
"The worst thing that could happen now is someone attacks him because then people would vote for him (beware the sympathy vote)."
Well, now, wouldn't THAT be an interesting symmetry:
John Ashcroft (a man who lost an election to a dead man), working for a President who can't be re-elected except as a dead man.
"Twenty percent of all searching was sex-related back in 1997"...
and a little later:
"They're not getting excited about using the internet anymore"
"Hell, I want the guy dead"
Pardon me, but will you be at home tomorrow evening, and prepared to receive guests wearing black shoes, white socks, and crew-cuts?
"the counties run the election... once you have such irregularities mapped, then you can see which party (Dems. or Reps.) is more prone to these problems."
Prima facie, it would prove nothing.
One can argue that the controlling party is responsible, if the disenfranchised voters are mostly of the other party.
OTOH, one can argue that one (or a few) individual(s) of the NON-controlling party is responsible, if THEIR foes are the disenfranchised.
OTOOH, one can argue that EITHER side was responsible for doing a botched job and non-selectively suppressing their own voters.
"For every knowledgeable enthusiast, there are many more misinformed or incorrect speculators whose opinions usually spring from personal preference or a need to hear themselves talk."
;-)
And the difference between this and slashdot is exactly what?
You miss my point.
The Bush administrattion has been *so* bad on these issues that virtually no one who's capable of securing the Dems' nomination could be equally bad, *regardless* of the historical record.
Virtually every President -- with the exception of the near-pathologically saintly, like Jimmy Carter -- secretly deems his first priority to be winning a second term. Kerry knows that moving too far to the right, even if he were so inclined, would threaten his re-nomination.
If you're the kind of person who's horrified by the Gang Of Bush's encroachments on civil liberties, then you're likely to be someone who's also concerned about an entire constellation of related issues.
In that case, you're also likely to be someone for whom there's no doubt that Kerry will be at least a marginal improvement.
"He attributes some of the success to faster browsing."
A lot of people claim this, and I don't understand it (at least on Win).
I tried FF months ago and found it unusably slow.
Switched to Moz, somewhat better.
Recently went back to FF, about the same as Moz.
BOTH are significantly and consistently slower than IE6.
At times it takes 5+ seconds even to show the first visible sign of responding to a click (e.g. in the mouse icon or status bar).
And redrawing a window (after being uncovered or un-minimized) is excruciating.
This is running w2kPro on a 1+Ghz Asus/AMD system with 256MB, a late-model WD IDE drive, and a 21-inch Hitachi monitor driven at 1152x864 32-bit colors by an STB Velocity 128 AGP card.
Even with the old video card and small amount of RAM, why should Moz/FF be so much slower than IE?
"The result must be electrically safe for the home."
...
picky, picky, picky
"the need to keep myself safe from injustice by documenting/recording everything, and massive invasion of privacy by documenting/recording everything"
that's why you have on/off/erase buttons, silly rabbit
... is doing any/everything which has even the slightest chance of slowing, stopping, or reversing the trend of what's happening to civil liberties in the USA.
ALL other issues are fundamentally dependent, in the final analysis, on the the preservation of civil liberties.
how is this a troll?
It's merely expanding on other posts about writing to Congress.
"What we need is to abolish the popular election of the Senate and let the state legislatures remove their senators whenever they feel they aren't doing a good job."
[btw, there are good reasons the Constitution was changed to popular election of Senators.]
I trust the popular vote more than I trust the kind of dorks who get elected to state office.
Also, your proposal creates a conflict of interest for ambitious state legislators.
If we're going to remove Senators, let it be by popular vote.
I've long been in favor of allowing recall petitions in ALL states, for ALL state offices.
just enter your ZIP code
"the force arising from changing the sea level by a couple of meters of water"
can you say "global warming"?
One poster said, "SMTP AUTH over SSL. Works like a charm. You need an ISP or service competent enough to configure it though."
Easy for YOU to say.
There are a lot of people (like myself) who have ONLY ONE CHOICE for a broadband provider (which blocks outgoing port-25), yet who need to use -- SIMULTANEOUSLY -- THAT SINGLE PROVIDER's SMTP, while using a different "From:" domain.
This happens for various LEGITIMATE reasons -- for example, if you have long-standing historical relationships which are dependent upon a large and impersonal *mail* provider -- NOT your ISP -- who won't provide a mechanism for circumventing the ISP's block on port-25.
What are we supposed to do?
You need to recognize a useful distinction between "waning faith in AmericaNS" and "waning faith in AmericA".
As counterintuitive as it may seem, the two are not synonymous.
Even if the Gang Of Bush was or will be (re)elected by a 50%+1 majority of the popular vote, it doesn't necessarily reflect the basic character of the USA.
It's not (yet) analogous to 1930s Germany.
I too have waning faith in AmericA, and probably because of the same phenomena you had in mind.
But the decision of an individual ***VOTER*** is the end result of a complex constellation of issues, and I don't (yet) believe that a decisive or characteristic majority of US ***CITIZENS*** are sanguine about the damage done to civil liberties and international relations in the last three years.
"Wow, did you miss out when brains were being distributed."
...
So many responders missed my point, that I obviously was sloppy and too brief in making it.
I was responding to "gone.fishing(213219)" who said:
"I do value my rights and my privacy... I fear a repressive regime in my own country...
changes made since 9/11 have made the way we live, the way we travel, and the way we do business much more restrictive... We aren't anonymous travelers anymore... We are electronically monitored, our travels documented... A regime that turns it's military against it's own people isn't very far from being the enemy... It is just wrong... I'm afraid that we already have our own version of secret police."
For responders who complained of my post being USA-centric, I think it's pretty clear that "gone.fishing(213219)" (to whom I was responding) was posting from that perspective.
I agree with the observations made by "gone.fishing(213219)", and I see all of these observations as example of ways in which terrorists have changed us after 9/11.
These examples are EXACTLY what people meant when they said that terrorists win only if they make us change who we are.
When people said that terrorists win only if they make us change how we live, they WEREN'T referring to the idea of terrorists forcing us to adopt Islamic fundamentalist religious beliefs, or to agree with the rightness of their related political practices.
Events which weren't the norm before 9/11:
-- Abu Ghraib
-- Guantanamo, where people are held with no limits on how long they can he held without access to outside assistance or even disclosure of their identities.
-- secret warrantless searches of our homes, library records, and all the other excesses of the Patriot Act.
-- CAPPS, violation of EU privacy principles, secret seizure of US airlines records.
etc., etc., etc.
For responders who thought I was saying that terrorists' actions derive from a hatred of the MERE IDEA of "western" democracy/liberty -- that's not what I meant.
Those terrorists MAY in fact feel that way, but I happen to agree with the responder who said that those feelings are NOT the terrorists' PRIMARY motivation.
And I happen to believe that none of this would be happening if we never had troops in Islamic countries.
BUT even though I DO happen to believe these things, those beliefs AREN'T the subject I was discussing.
I deplore the anti-democratic developments described by "gone.fishing(213219)" -- but EVEN IF YOU DON'T, I think you must agree that they demonstrate that 9/11 has succeeded in reducing the liberties, privacy, and tolerance which we formerly expected and experienced.
"bin laden doesnt have any goals besides DESTROYING america. he wants us dead, not changed."
...
So many responders missed my point, that I obviously was sloppy and too brief in making it.
I was responding to "gone.fishing(213219)" who said:
"I do value my rights and my privacy... I fear a repressive regime in my own country...
changes made since 9/11 have made the way we live, the way we travel, and the way we do business much more restrictive... We aren't anonymous travelers anymore... We are electronically monitored, our travels documented... A regime that turns it's military against it's own people isn't very far from being the enemy... It is just wrong... I'm afraid that we already have our own version of secret police."
For responders who complained of my post being USA-centric, I think it's pretty clear that "gone.fishing(213219)" (to whom I was responding) was posting from that perspective.
I agree with the observations made by "gone.fishing(213219)", and I see all of these observations as example of ways in which terrorists have changed us after 9/11.
These examples are EXACTLY what people meant when they said that terrorists win only if they make us change who we are.
When people said that terrorists win only if they make us change how we live, they WEREN'T referring to the idea of terrorists forcing us to adopt Islamic fundamentalist religious beliefs, or to agree with the rightness of their related political practices.
Events which weren't the norm before 9/11:
-- Abu Ghraib
-- Guantanamo, where people are held with no limits on how long they can he held without access to outside assistance or even disclosure of their identities.
-- secret warrantless searches of our homes, library records, and all the other excesses of the Patriot Act.
-- CAPPS, violation of EU privacy principles, secret seizure of US airlines records.
etc., etc., etc.
For responders who thought I was saying that terrorists' actions derive from a hatred of the MERE IDEA of "western" democracy/liberty -- that's not what I meant.
Those terrorists MAY in fact feel that way, but I happen to agree with the responder who said that those feelings are NOT the terrorists' PRIMARY motivation.
And I happen to believe that none of this would be happening if we never had troops in Islamic countries.
BUT even though I DO happen to believe these things, those beliefs AREN'T the subject I was discussing.
I deplore the anti-democratic developments described by "gone.fishing(213219)" -- but EVEN IF YOU DON'T, I think you must agree that they demonstrate that 9/11 has succeeded in reducing the liberties, privacy, and tolerance which we formerly expected and experienced.
"Sigh. Another one who thinks America is the whole world"
...
So many responders missed my point, that I obviously was sloppy and too brief in making it.
I was responding to "gone.fishing(213219)" who said:
"I do value my rights and my privacy... I fear a repressive regime in my own country...
changes made since 9/11 have made the way we live, the way we travel, and the way we do business much more restrictive... We aren't anonymous travelers anymore... We are electronically monitored, our travels documented... A regime that turns it's military against it's own people isn't very far from being the enemy... It is just wrong... I'm afraid that we already have our own version of secret police."
For responders who complained of my post being USA-centric, I think it's pretty clear that "gone.fishing(213219)" (to whom I was responding) was posting from that perspective.
I agree with the observations made by "gone.fishing(213219)", and I see all of these observations as example of ways in which terrorists have changed us after 9/11.
These examples are EXACTLY what people meant when they said that terrorists win only if they make us change who we are.
When people said that terrorists win only if they make us change how we live, they WEREN'T referring to the idea of terrorists forcing us to adopt Islamic fundamentalist religious beliefs, or to agree with the rightness of their related political practices.
Events which weren't the norm before 9/11:
-- Abu Ghraib
-- Guantanamo, where people are held with no limits on how long they can he held without access to outside assistance or even disclosure of their identities.
-- secret warrantless searches of our homes, library records, and all the other excesses of the Patriot Act.
-- CAPPS, violation of EU privacy principles, secret seizure of US airlines records.
etc., etc., etc.
For responders who thought I was saying that terrorists' actions derive from a hatred of the MERE IDEA of "western" democracy/liberty -- that's not what I meant.
Those terrorists MAY in fact feel that way, but I happen to agree with the responder who said that those feelings are NOT the terrorists' PRIMARY motivation.
And I happen to believe that none of this would be happening if we never had troops in Islamic countries.
BUT even though I DO happen to believe these things, those beliefs AREN'T the subject I was discussing.
I deplore the anti-democratic developments described by "gone.fishing(213219)" -- but EVEN IF YOU DON'T, I think you must agree that they demonstrate that 9/11 has succeeded in reducing the liberties, privacy, and tolerance which we formerly expected and experienced.
"Is that really what you think the issue is? That the terrorists want to convert all of America to Islam?"
...
So many responders missed my point, that I obviously was sloppy and too brief in making it.
I was responding to "gone.fishing(213219)" who said:
"I do value my rights and my privacy... I fear a repressive regime in my own country...
changes made since 9/11 have made the way we live, the way we travel, and the way we do business much more restrictive... We aren't anonymous travelers anymore... We are electronically monitored, our travels documented... A regime that turns it's military against it's own people isn't very far from being the enemy... It is just wrong... I'm afraid that we already have our own version of secret police."
For responders who complained of my post being USA-centric, I think it's pretty clear that "gone.fishing(213219)" (to whom I was responding) was posting from that perspective.
I agree with the observations made by "gone.fishing(213219)", and I see all of these observations as example of ways in which terrorists have changed us after 9/11.
These examples are EXACTLY what people meant when they said that terrorists win only if they make us change who we are.
When people said that terrorists win only if they make us change how we live, they WEREN'T referring to the idea of terrorists forcing us to adopt Islamic fundamentalist religious beliefs, or to agree with the rightness of their related political practices.
Events which weren't the norm before 9/11:
-- Abu Ghraib
-- Guantanamo, where people are held with no limits on how long they can he held without access to outside assistance or even disclosure of their identities.
-- secret warrantless searches of our homes, library records, and all the other excesses of the Patriot Act.
-- CAPPS, violation of EU privacy principles, secret seizure of US airlines records.
etc., etc., etc.
For responders who thought I was saying that terrorists' actions derive from a hatred of the MERE IDEA of "western" democracy/liberty -- that's not what I meant.
Those terrorists MAY in fact feel that way, but I happen to agree with the responder who said that those feelings are NOT the terrorists' PRIMARY motivation.
And I happen to believe that none of this would be happening if we never had troops in Islamic countries.
BUT even though I DO happen to believe these things, those beliefs AREN'T the subject I was discussing.
I deplore the anti-democratic developments described by "gone.fishing(213219)" -- but EVEN IF YOU DON'T, I think you must agree that they demonstrate that 9/11 has succeeded in reducing the liberties, privacy, and tolerance which we formerly expected and experienced.
"Nobody's stopped me drinking beer and eating bacon"
...
So many responders missed my point, that I obviously was sloppy and too brief in making it.
I was responding to "gone.fishing(213219)" who said:
"I do value my rights and my privacy... I fear a repressive regime in my own country...
changes made since 9/11 have made the way we live, the way we travel, and the way we do business much more restrictive... We aren't anonymous travelers anymore... We are electronically monitored, our travels documented... A regime that turns it's military against it's own people isn't very far from being the enemy... It is just wrong... I'm afraid that we already have our own version of secret police."
For responders who complained of my post being USA-centric, I think it's pretty clear that "gone.fishing(213219)" (to whom I was responding) was posting from that perspective.
I agree with the observations made by "gone.fishing(213219)", and I see all of these observations as example of ways in which terrorists have changed us after 9/11.
These examples are EXACTLY what people meant when they said that terrorists win only if they make us change who we are.
When people said that terrorists win only if they make us change how we live, they WEREN'T referring to the idea of terrorists forcing us to adopt Islamic fundamentalist religious beliefs, or to agree with the rightness of their related political practices.
Events which weren't the norm before 9/11:
-- Abu Ghraib
-- Guantanamo, where people are held with no limits on how long they can he held without access to outside assistance or even disclosure of their identities.
-- secret warrantless searches of our homes, library records, and all the other excesses of the Patriot Act.
-- CAPPS, violation of EU privacy principles, secret seizure of US airlines records.
etc., etc., etc.
For responders who thought I was saying that terrorists' actions derive from a hatred of the MERE IDEA of "western" democracy/liberty -- that's not what I meant.
Those terrorists MAY in fact feel that way, but I happen to agree with the responder who said that those feelings are NOT the terrorists' PRIMARY motivation.
And I happen to believe that none of this would be happening if we never had troops in Islamic countries.
BUT even though I DO happen to believe these things, those beliefs AREN'T the subject I was discussing.
I deplore the anti-democratic developments described by "gone.fishing(213219)" -- but EVEN IF YOU DON'T, I think you must agree that they demonstrate that 9/11 has succeeded in reducing the liberties, privacy, and tolerance which we formerly expected and experienced.