's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

Liberty vs. Security(49 posts)

Liberty vs. SecurityJon Billheimer
Jan 30, 2003 9:01 AM
I thought one of the most overlooked lines in Bush's State of the Union address, but one with perhaps far-reaching consequences, was his announcement of the creation of a superdatabase tracking movement of people, their methods of payment for travel, dietary preferences, etc., etc. I realize that there's always a trade-off between safety and freedom, but this seems to me to be the ultimate intrusion of big government into the privacy of citizens and everyone else. I'm completely surprised that conservatives, libertarians, and others haven't called this into question. Are we all so in love with Big Brother, or contrarily so terrified, that such apocalyptic measures are accepted without even the blink of an eye? And doesn't this behaviour from a so-called conservative administration kind of give the lie to our left wing/right wing mythologies? What do you all think?
Why does the phraseOldEdScott
Jan 30, 2003 9:53 AM
"We had to destroy the village in order to save it" come to mind?
re: Liberty vs. SecurityFunston
Jan 30, 2003 10:04 AM
Yes, it sounds intrusive and has the potential to be misused. I have an aversion to being another name on a list, and when given an opportunity, I try to throw off the scent. A good one happened a few years ago when the local Safeway supermarket was signing people up for their Club discount card. I signed up, and the first time I used it, the checker said, "thank you, Mr. Funston" when I was leaving. As I didn't know the checker, it appeared for an instant that Big Brother's shadow had cast itself upon me. It took me a minute to figure out that, thanks to my use of the new Club Card, my name was printed out on the receipt, giving the checkers a way to call you by your name.

You never know if the person behind you in line is Charles Manson's cousin. So, I tossed my card, and reregistered as Charles President. Now when I leave Safeway, the checkers call out, "Thank you Mr. President" and we all have a laugh.

REgarding Bush's speech, what I found overlooked were his bellicose words on Iran. Was he mistaking Iran for Iraq just as he mistakes nucular for nuclear, or is Iran next on his wish list?
Iran's about to take care of itself.OldEdScott
Jan 30, 2003 10:25 AM
The people are right on the verge of casting off the mullah's control. It should be something to behold.
Radio Shack no longer asking for phone #Alpedhuez55
Jan 30, 2003 10:43 AM
Well Funston, at least Radio Shack has stopped asking for your phone number when you go there to buy batteries. THey have had a big radio ad campaign advertising that.

I think that is largely marketing. Supposedly it helps them track down who is buying what so they can send you special coupons and offers. THough it is nice when you get a discount coupon like I did at CVS the other day. I would rather not have my name on the receipt though. I don't want someone knowing what brand of Condoms I buy though. I give them a fake name too.

I think we just need to trust our government to not abuse the information. Tracking bank transactions is a way to find terrorist sources. If they see $50,000 going into a terrorists account a week before he flies a plane into the WTC you know that is a source of terrorist funding you need to cut off. It is also used to track bank fraud which I have done in one of my jobs.

I know someone who was on the run after murdering his wife. He ran from Boston to Florida. He was caught by trying to use an ATM card. I think we leave a lot of traces whether it pe banking, phone or internet. I do not think we should be paranoid about it yet. Who knows what will happen in the next 20 years though.

I do not think Iran is on the terrorist hit list. They have been pretty quiet. I think they were happy even if not publicly, with action in Afghanistan and would not mind to get rid or Saddam on the other side either. Plus their latest reform allows women to go to soccer matches. That came a month after they stopped stoning women for audultry. THe went from the 15th to 16th century in just wone month!!! Unfortunately, women are not allowed to attend wrestling matches yet. But who knows what February will bring ;-)

Mike Y.
Trust the government? Hah! The thing I trust them to do. . .czardonic
Jan 30, 2003 11:20 AM
. . .is bungle this program so profoundly that nobody will be able to say with any certainty that the information is correct, thus rendering the whole effort worthless for the purposes of spying on me.
Trust the government? Hah! The thing I trust them to do. . .Alpedhuez55
Jan 30, 2003 11:36 AM
Good Point CZ, Maybe we should approve the funding for it since they will surely screw it up ;)
Learn from history or repeat it.critmass
Jan 30, 2003 12:00 PM
The 1976 Church Committee and other congressional investigations into governmental abuse, surveillance and infiltration of religious and political organizations found substantial reasons to not trust the government. The "Attorney General Guidelines" that came out of those investigations were for a valid reason. Ashcroft has done away with those guidelines and wants the most relaxed restrictions possible against domestic political spying. He's following closely in the footsteps of John Mitchell and J. Edgar Hoover.
I think we just need to trust our government to not abuse the information.js5280
Jan 30, 2003 12:02 PM
You are really scaring me Mike with the level of trust you put into government to do the right thing. If you are uneasily about CVS and Radio Shack having personal information, shouldn't you be more concerned if the government, who has the power to put you in jail and take away your possesions, if you happen to come up under their microscope? That's a bit more serious than spam or junk mail. Would you like to volunteer for IRS audits every year, because, hey you have nothing to hide?

The government does have the power to do all these things already. However they have to go to court with evidence that laws are being broken before they can put individuals under this type of surveilance. There is way for government to go after suspected criminals and terrorists already while protecting individual privacy. It works, as in the example you provided. Giving the government carte blanche to peer into your life is about the scariest thing I can think of and fortunately in complete violation of the 4th Admendment.

To paraphrase Ben Franklin; They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety will receive neither liberty nor safety.
What is wrong with having a little trust in your government?Alpedhuez55
Jan 30, 2003 12:46 PM
Am I supposed to do, look over my shoulder everyday for CIA, FBI or IRS agents. If you are that paranoid, and live in fear of your government, I suggest you move. Ultimately I have put a great deal of trust in my leaders whether it be my mayor, governor or president. Sure I am sceptical about some things, but the vast majority of the time, they do the right thing, whether a Democrat or a Republican.

Sure there are things that I think are intrusive such as Traffic Cameras and some property seizures. I am a law abiding citizen with little to hide. I used to work for the IRS and do not fear and audit. At time they do not have carte blance to peer into my private life. If they start doing things that are overly intrusive I will complain about it. Right now they are not.

THat is right, they have to go to court to wiretaps. Sure there have been abusers such as J. Edgar Hoover, the Clintons with the FBI Files or Nixon and his enemies list in the past. I would not have supported a broad based survelance like the one in the below post that was appropriately defeated.

1984, Minority Report and Enemy of the State are all movies. Maybe in a few years that survelance technology will be to the point where parts of that can be a reality. But right now there are bigger problems facing the world. If they will use bank, survelance camera or hospital records to track a killer, tax cheat or terrorist, I am all for it.

Mike Y.
The problem is that when you get around to protesting. . .czardonic
Jan 30, 2003 1:08 PM
. . .you may no longer have the right to do so
Jan 30, 2003 1:18 PM
And doubt that right will be taken away as long as it done lawfully.
Are you pulling my leg?czardonic
Jan 30, 2003 1:22 PM
Or did you miss the irony in the clause: ". . .as long as it [is] done lawfully."
Are you pulling my leg?Alpedhuez55
Jan 30, 2003 4:46 PM
No Czar, I was just scarred for life by the sight of a Streaker I saw back at a congressman's speech back in the 70's ;) I have nightmares whenever I see the new Nike commercial. I guess I need therapy.
Yep. They're rarely the type you <i>want</i> to see nude. (nm)czardonic
Jan 30, 2003 4:56 PM
I think you backed off your original statementjs5280
Jan 30, 2003 1:34 PM
or at least clarified it. We're probably not far off in our viewpoints either. I agree that government should be able to go after suspected criminals. However, they have to prove to a judge that there are grounds for doing so. I put my trust in Constitution first and foremost, not politicans. I'm a firm Jeffersonian. . .

"In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution"

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."

"My God! how little do my countrymen know what precious blessings they are in possession of, and which no other people on earth enjoy!"

Finally (not Jefferson but I'm sure he would agree). . ."Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."

Knew that political science degree would come in handy one of these days. . .
I think you backed off your original statementAlpedhuez55
Jan 30, 2003 4:29 PM
Probably clarified it more than anything else. I do trust the goverment but obviously not 100%. We are afforded a great deal of freedom, more than in most countries. I do not feel the intrusions the government makes is too intrusive on my life. Others will disagree. If they do get to intrusive, I will and have protested. I guess I am more of an optimist than most people on this board.

If anything today I am worried about the Homeland Security wielding too much power. That is an agency I will watch. I think it is too large and in the wrong hands could do damage to some civil liberties. I think they are too busy at the moment to do too much harm on personal freedoms. As long as they focus on the bad guys they will be OK.

I find my Political Science degree is usually good for a puzzled look at job interviews. And if you minored in Philosophy, I think that Political Science Degree can get you an assistant Manager Job at Starbucks ;) We will have to start an Alexis deTocqueville discussion thread some day. Your quotes on Jefferson inspired me to look for my well read copy of the Federalist Papers but I think it is tucked away in a box in the attic.
What is wrong with having a little trust in your government?critmass
Jan 30, 2003 2:17 PM
Just two of the bill of rights killers in the USA Patriot Act signed into law by Dubya.
It allows the FBI to evade the probable cause warrant requirements in criminal investigations whenever the FBI decides the information "might" have a "significant purpose" in an intelligent investigation. No court can intervene. The "sneak and peek" warrants in the Act enables the government to go into your house when you are not home, look around, take pictures and even seize your property, all without telling you and , again, evading probable cause requirements with " a significant purpose"
Exactly--when has government NOT abused its power?cory
Jan 30, 2003 4:56 PM
I'm not anywhere near an anarchist--I believe in a strong (but thoroughly regulated) central government handling everything that's too big for the cities or states. But I'm also old enough to remember J. Edgar Hoover, Richard Nixon and their contemporaries, and the terrible abuses they perpetrated for decades. One of the things I dislike about the Patriot Act, and specifically about Bush, is that he's weakening the checks and balances and taking way too much power for the executive branch. That ain't the way it's spoze to run.
To paraphrase Pogomoneyman
Jan 30, 2003 2:24 PM
We have met the enemy, and they is us.

Actually, I think that's a direct quote.

To paraphrase Pogomoneyman
Jan 30, 2003 2:48 PM
We have met the enemy, and they is us.

Actually, I think that's a direct quote.

Oh my God! LOL....I'm going down to my localeyebob
Jan 30, 2003 12:37 PM
supermarket to register as "Mr. President" tonight. That's friggin funny.

Reminds me of the few golf tournaments that I played in at local clubs as a teen. My first name is Bob and I'd register my last as Dylan just so they'd have to announce Bob Dylan as "next up"

Think the funding's been yanked (thankfully)js5280
Jan 30, 2003 10:41 AM
Here's some excerpts. . .

A vote by the Senate on Thursday to block funding for the Pentagon's Total Information Awareness program is a victory for ordinary Americans and a setback for the surveillance state, Libertarians say. . .

A proposal by Sen. Ron Wyden, D-OR, to halt funding for the Total Information Awareness (TIA) project passed the Senate by voice vote on Thursday. The massive public surveillance system spearheaded by former Navy Rear Adm. John Poindexter has come under scathing attack by civil liberties groups and editorial pages around the country since it was unveiled last year.

TIA would create a centralized database of every American's electronic transactions, such as credit card purchases, bank transactions, travel data, drivers license information, educational and health records, e-mails and phone calls. Eventually that information would be linked with biometric data such as face recognition technology and digital fingerprints, and provided instantly to law enforcement to detect patterns of terrorist activity, the government says. . .

Full article can be found here:
The real problem53T
Jan 30, 2003 11:17 AM
Q. Why didn't Jon know that the anti-privacy act was gutted in Congress?

A. Because he gets his news from radio and TV.

The people who make money in those media outlets saw no benefit to reporting this victory for liberty. I guess we should be thankful for this forum and the internet in general to help spread a little truth.
Good point. Thanks. (nm)Jon Billheimer
Jan 30, 2003 1:33 PM
re: Lemme seeSteveS
Jan 30, 2003 10:56 AM
"Big Brother" is a term used in that failed prognostication of the future "1984." I don't know the author's (Huxley?)philosophical bent, but I doubt that it was conservative. Whatever, his view of the totalitarion future of the west was wrong, didn't happen.

Conservatives don't really have a permissive view of crime and terrorism, rather it is a liberal philosophy that almost always makes rationalizations and excuses for any crime...'why did he do it?', 'why don't they like us?'

Now if someone were of a liberal inclination and liked 'soma' or any other drug, they would want no government restraint of its legalization. They would likely demand Big Government to step in and provide heroin cafes (like ultra liberal Holland) for the addicted, government funded rehab for those tired of addiction, and government funded cures for the AIDS spread as a result of the above.

The news today says that possibly thousands of Iraqi agents have filtered through Canada into the U.S. to spread mayhem and discord. In the past two weeks, Britain has arrested several Muslims for producing ricin poison and a Muslim cleric for inciting violence against Europeans and Americans. A pro-British Algerian Muslim immigrant spokesman asked why in the world Britain could allow hundreds of Algerian immigrants with terrorist connections and sympathies into the country in the past year. The reason of course is a very liberal immigration policy in the U.K. No 'Big Brother' in Britain!

My guess is that conservatives would be more likely to be safe than sorry. Recently I did a search to see who exactly the Kurds are and read where a Kurdish spokeswoman was dumbfounded that America would allow terrorists to take advantage of western freedoms and move around unhindered in the U.S.

Now, if one took the liberal laissez-faire attitude to potentially dangerous groups and let's say another 3000 people were to be murdered, you could be certain that liberals would daschle into the street to protest why the Adminstration didn't stop this from happening. Pre-emptively.

Just how would someone pre-emptively stop a terrorist attack? In terms of my daughters, I would rather be safe than sorry. So, here a hint, Huxley was wrong, there was no "Big Brother" in 1984 and there won't be in 2004. But if intelligence agencies don't have all the information that they can get to stop Muslim terrorist actions in the West, then most certainly thousands to millions will be killed by the terrorists. Now that might make a "Brave New World."
Orwell, sonny boy. (nm)53T
Jan 30, 2003 11:14 AM
Thank you, big daddy-boy. (nm)SteveS
Jan 31, 2003 3:40 PM
Little wonder you couldn't remeber the author. . .czardonic
Jan 30, 2003 12:09 PM
. . .since you don't seem to have read the book..

1984 is not a "failed prognostication". Don't take the specific year so literally. It is simply a date in the not too distant future, and a warning of what could come to pass if we are not mindful of the tendencies of authority. I submit that the wariness that many of us have towards such programs as TIA and TIPS has a lot to do with the way that they echo the policies of 1984's Oceania.

Orwell's vision was that of a governement that uses technology to pry into its citizen's lives, encourages them to report each other's unorthdoxy or dissent, siezes "criminals" without a trace, controls every aspect of the media, re-writes history to suit current needs and maintains the need for such repression by engaging in perpetual war with an unseen enemy. Sound familiar? In the last two years, just about every one of these things has come to pass to some degree or another: TIA, TIPS, secret trials, mysteriously "corrected" web documents, and the War on Terrorism.

And once again, little wonder. Here you are blaming the proliferation of terrorism on the lack of Big Brother!

True, liberals do want to know the motivation for people behavior. Seems like common sense to me. I guess if you were deluded enough to believe that you can control or subdue anyone who acts in a way that you don't approve of, you don't need to understand anyone. But who would be that foolish? Who would be that blind to human history and nature?

Okay, that was a rhetorical question. The obvious answer is Conservatives who would "rather be safe then sorry". I hate to break it to you: there is no such thing as "safe". Risk is part of life. It can only be minimized, not eliminated. Apparently you are ready to trade in your freedom for that smaller degree of security. Ben Franklin sure saw you coming! Personally, I'd rather keep my freedoms, and use them to better understand where risk comes from and thus equip myself to avoid it.

Brave New World and Soma have nothing to do with 1984. I guess you could say that "Brave New World" was the "liberal" dystopia, as opposed to 1984's "conservative" dystopia.
Excellent application of Orwell's 1984 to modern times!js5280
Jan 30, 2003 12:34 PM
You hit it right on the head Czardonic. Bravo!
Sly reference to the Chaplin film, or just a coincidence?czardonic
Jan 30, 2003 12:59 PM
Pure coincidence.js5280
Jan 30, 2003 1:44 PM
but I'll take the credit anyways ;-)

Don't think I've seen a Chaplin film in it's entirety or books/films about his life. Was that a line from one of his silent movies?
I haven't seen the film in at least 15 years.czardonic
Jan 30, 2003 1:55 PM
But I guess it made an impression on my young mind, because when I read the phrase "modern times" I immediately thought of the movie of the same name. It's more a tale of the de-humanization of man in the industrial age. But, there is apparently a part in the movie where Chaplin's character is admonished by his boss via an all seeing two-way TV contraption!

I wonder if it had any influence on Orwell. The movie predates 1984 by 12 years.
Brilliant (nm)eyebob
Jan 30, 2003 2:01 PM
Czardonic, sometimes...Jon Billheimer
Jan 30, 2003 1:39 PM
...your views absolutely dumbfound me. But on this one you're spot on. Well said.
Little wonder you couldn't remeber the author. . .Captain Morgan
Jan 30, 2003 2:32 PM
After a break from the board (work has been crazy), I had to respond to a Czardonic post first...

As a liberal, it is obvious than you exaggerate your points in order to make your point. All right, I grant to you that conservatives do as well. However, you mention a "corrected web document" (to tell the truth, I don't know what this point refers to, but that's not the issue) and somehow take it a further step and come to the conclusion that our personal freedoms are being taken away. I see no significant changes to me personally, except that I have to take off my shoes sometimes when going through the gates at the airport.

Also, you mention a trade-off between freedom and risk. Assuming that idea is true, you automatically imply that the freedoms given up are material, yet the risks are not materially lowered. The U.K. confiscation of ricin recently shows to me that the risks are SUBSTANTIALLY lowered, not nominally as you would imply.

Lastly, I would like to ask you a theoretical question. Obviously, the murder of 3,000 people on 9/11 and the destruction of about $100 billion to you is not material enough for you. Would you agree to limiting your freedoms somewhat (not defined) if another 3,000 die? What about 30,000? Or 300,000? Certainly even a liberal must draw a line in the sand somewhere. Unfortunately, by the time that line is crossed, it might be too late.
Jan 30, 2003 3:29 PM
You accuse me of exaggerating to make my points, then admit that you are really in no position to judge whether a particular point is exaggerated. Well, to each his own.

Nonetheless, an account of a revised document can be found here: Obviously, documents must be updated from time to time. However, it is customary to make a note of when something is changed, lest 20/20 hindsight be confused for presience. That is, unless you are trying to create that confusion. Even if the mistake was "honest", it was bad form to correct it on the sly. Or was it? What are the chances that among what must be millions of online postings, some rabble-rouser will note a few innocent alterations? Then, there is this mysterious occurence:

When you say "no significant changes to me personally", I can't help but think of that peice that begins with "When they came for the Jews, I did not speak up because I was not a Jew", continues through a short list of other insignificant groups, and ends with "When they came for me, there was nobody left to speak up." Maybe you haven't been significantly inconvenienced, but what about the thousands of Arabs and Arab-Americans who have been surveiled, arrested or otherwise compelled to submit themselves to government custody, interrogated, jailed, lost their businesses, etc? Small price for them to pay so that you can feel a little bit better, I suppose?

I don't draw the line anywhere. I'd rather be dead than live under the soft tyranny of cowards and paranoids. Terrorists can kill me, but they can't kill America. Only Americans can kill America by barganing its principles away for the mirage of safety.

3000 lives are a terrible loss, but I don't think that surrendering our freedoms in the face of further threats by the people that killed them is any way to honor them (much less using them make some smug rhetorical point).
You liberals can be hypocriticalCaptain Morgan
Jan 30, 2003 5:07 PM
I find it interesting that you want to protect individuals' personal liberties and freedoms, yet when America tries to provide the same freedom to individuals of other countries (such as Iraq), you criticize America. I find this quite ironic.
You conservatives can be just plain liars.czardonic
Jan 30, 2003 5:25 PM
I never once criticized America for trying to "provide the same freedom to individuals of other countries". I criticize America for promising to do so but doing precisely the opposite.

Since you think that freedom is such a burden, I guess it is little wonder you are so eager to export it.

Live free or die; Death Is Not The Worst of Evils - General John Stark
P.S.Captain Morgan
Jan 30, 2003 5:47 PM
I'm no conservative, I am the TRUE freethinker... Moderate. Okay, maybe right of Moderate.

Do I not recall you specifically criticizing the U.S. last year, stating that we focus on some dictators but not others? If you were a TRUE lover of freedom, you would focus on the "few" instances where we are able to liberate some individuals and not focus on all of the times when we do not.

Also, you say that conservatives are paranoid fanatics, yet in this discussion you compare the loss of some civil liberties in America to the holocaust of Jews. You use the same paranoia that you condemn. I am not trying to bash you intentionally (okay, maybe a little, but I know you can take it), but can't you step back from your own words and see the ironic similarity??
Same difference, apparently.czardonic
Jan 30, 2003 6:06 PM
I did point out the hypocracy of decrying some dictators and supporting others. But, a true believer in freedom wouldn't settle for this situation anyway. A true believer in freedom knows that "A threat to freedom anywhere is a threat to freedom anywhere" (MLK, Jr.). It is impossible to promote freedom by half measures, because the freedom you promote in one place is undermined by the oppression you sponsor in others.

You still don't get the Holocaust point: First you decide that a few civil liberties may seem comparatively inconsequential to you. And then a few more might not seem so bad, and so on.

I realize that suspicion towards authority is a kind of paranoia. But it is hardly similar in its result. Your's compels you to abandon the principles on which this country was founded. Mine compels me to stand up for them and accept the attendant responsibilities, i.e. eternal vigilance.
Jan 30, 2003 9:31 PM
This oratorical flourish,basically ripping off Patrick Henry, had me burst out laughing it was so funny. You must be taking yourself very seriously:

"I don't draw the line anywhere. I'd rather be dead than live under the soft tyranny of cowards and paranoids. Terrorists can kill me, but they can't kill America. Only Americans can kill America by barganing its principles away for the mirage of safety."

Actually, it might possibly happen that terrorists kill you or someone you know. Hey, maybe you could use that phrase above as your epitaph, 'course then it wouldn't be quite so funny. Ricin last week and now Al Qaeda may have a dirty bomb. Maybe your oratory will save the world for democracry.

I was with two Arabs just last night and you know what, neither they or their families had been in "government custody,interrogated, jailed,or lost their businesses." Of course I know why they weren't, immigrants from Jordan and Egypt,but that is a different story. The good news is that America hasn't died due to the 'soft tyranny of cowards and paranoids.' Gad, thats a funny line, that czarPatrick.

But if the Al Qaeda boys use a dirty bomb and kill thousands,your words will have been worthless in their defense. Typical. Hope we never have to discuss that as a reality.
I liberty as seriously as you take self-preservation.czardonic
Jan 31, 2003 10:32 AM
Yep, that seriously. You think that the greatest example of a free society in the history of mankind should be dilluted because of a marginally increased chance that you will die unpleasantly. That is taking your self pretty damn seriously! Is there any compromise or surrender that you won't agree to in exchange for Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness? Maybe your oratory will save the world for pathetic cowards who send others to die for freedoms they are surrendering at home.

It seems you think that anyone echoing the sentiments of the people who created this country should be laughed at. You're a true patriot!
Make that: "I <i>take</i> liberty. . ." (nm)czardonic
Jan 31, 2003 10:48 AM
oh, mySteveS
Jan 31, 2003 3:38 PM
"I don't draw the line anywhere. I'd rather be dead than live under the soft tyranny of cowards and paranoids. Terrorists can kill me, but they can't kill America. Only Americans can kill America by barganing its principles away for the mirage of safety."

Oh, my "The Patriot" has spoken. Actually, what I laughed out loud about your above statement, other than it's sooo self-righteous tone, is that is just comes across as fake, false, pompous, drivel. Sorry, patrick-want-to-be.

We agree on one point only, that America will survive and my guess is, it won't be the 'Amerika' espoused by similar thinkers as you in the '60s. Nor will it be anything like "1984" or "Brave New World."

I have already served my term of duty, Patriot, my concern is for my daughters. You are just mouthing nicespeak for whom, America? Nah, I don't think so, maybe Greenpeace or something. Hey, I hear they are accepting enlistments for human shields to go protect Bagdad. You would really like the group-Communists from Romania still wishing for the good old Republik days before democracy, Muslim sympathizers for Al-Qaeda, and the run of the mill Peacenik crowd, aging but alive and protesting. Just think, they might have never heard the ideas you are 'borrowing' and you bring safety to Saddam plus the ever-elusive World Peace. Go ahead, give it a shot, that would be truly impressive, sardonically speaking.
Tsk, tsk. You just can't keep your foot out of your mouth.czardonic
Jan 31, 2003 4:44 PM
"it won't be the 'Amerika' espoused by similar thinkers as you in the '60s".

"Espoused"? Elaborate on that for me.

Fake and false, huh? I guess you are such a coward you can't even concieve of the idea that someone might rather be dead than abandon their principles. Sad.

I guess it's the "new patriotism" to kow-tow to authority and trade your freedom for security (and please, someone think of the children!). Sounds like the "new patriotism" is borrowing from yesterday's collaborators.
Patrick HenrySteve98501
Jan 30, 2003 5:09 PM
"Give me liberty, or give me death." What's the dollar value of the destruction or the number of lives taken got to do with it?

Funny, most people would think of me as a liberal, and here I have a strong conservative bent on this issue. I'm completely opposed to the Patriot Act of 2001.
That last graf (1984 vs. BNW) isOldEdScott
Jan 31, 2003 6:36 AM
utterly brilliant. Everyone lumps those two books together, but you nailed the difference perfectly. Two very different totalitarianisms.

Most people don't understand that both the left and the right do have totalitarian end-points, if taken to logical extremes. Ironically, since I'm a leftist, I find left totalitarianism scarier, i.e. BNW.
War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. . .js5280
Jan 30, 2003 12:30 PM
is closer to a reality nowadays than you might think. The title 1984 was not a prognostication. Orwell wrote the book in 1948 and merely switched the last two digits to come up with 1984. Orwell is one of my favorite writers, his insight into language and unbridled power in politics are brillant. We also share a birthday :-)