Edited by author 07-15-2008 05:37 PM
moto kurye
kurye
motorlu kurye
kurye
kurye
kurye
motorlu kurye
motorlu kurye
gavurlar.com
adult forum
kurye
motorlu kurye
web tasarımı
web tasarım
e-ticaret
alışveriş
fazlageldi.com
google reklam
sanalhersey.com
alışveriş

Interesting point, chico. Now we just have to make sure they don't pass special laws making only spying on _them_ a crime.

As I said, you're preaching to the converted about privacy. The Patriot Act didn't suddenly usher in a new era of snooping. As you posted and re-posted, a-holes in government have always compromised citizens' privacy, legally or not. But, and I believe my own twisted logic, members of Congress fear unchecked intelligence-gathering because it eventually threatens their own precious, trough-centric careers. None of them wants a J Edgar envelope from Poindexter with photos, web histories, financial records and voice mail transcripts. Our privacy, by and large, is protected by elected officials protecting themselves. Those little weasels are our warriors!

"Liberty is a dangerous business; if you want an entirely safe country, you can't have liberty."

And, sadly, you don't even get an entirely safe country.

Edited by author 03-17-2003 08:09 PM
That's the argument that you have nothing to fear from government intrusion, constant surveillance, etc. as long as you are innocent. This classic argument also suggests that only the guilty would oppose such measures. So having your reading habits, your web browsing habits when you use the internet terminals at your local library, having your mail confiscated and read, and having people watch where you go and what you do are not really a problem, unless you are guilty. I disagree.

These are chilling effects (also the name of a very good web site) in that they tend to make people circumscribe their own habits. You don't need any active censorship because you censor yourself ("and he loved big brother"). This means less objection -- at least visible objection -- to government (and corporate) policy and frankly that means a nation that is less and less like the USA is supposed to be.

So it's (now) supposed just people just suspected of terrorist activity? How do we know, since it's secret. The government says it's ok, don't worry, and above all don't question it, but we're not going to tell you any information so you can tell whether or not we're even following our new lax rules -- and that's ok? Look at past people suspected by the government of being dangerous radicals who needed to be spied upon. People like Martin Luther King, Jr. People like John Lennon (*others below). The government is now talking about making it possible to revoke the citizenship of any naturalized citizen using secret tribunals as the "court". No lawyer, no due process, no public accountability whatsoever. That's incredibly dangerous, even if it is just "them". How long do you think it's gonna be "them" and not "you"?

I'm sure you've heard the quotes "first they came for.. etc." and I don't need to repeat it here. These are real dangers in this erosion of rights. It ALWAYS starts with "them" and with the "guilty". During the Vietnam War librarians were approached to try to get them to find out who'd been reading "dangerous" books. The librarians told them to take a hike. They are not legally able to do that now. It always starts with something that sounds good -- in the Vietnam war it started with books on explosives. Who could argue with that? The librarians saw that the bigger problem is that there's no reason it can't go to the next level: who's reading "subversive books" -- what are "subversive" books -- Marx? Paul Robeson? Ken Kesey? Orwell? What if you're reading up on explosives so you can safely take out those rocks and stumps in the back 40 -- should you be investigated? When does it stop being "them" and become "you"? Liberty is a dangerous business; if you want an entirely safe country, you can't have liberty.

(*Some other people past US governments have considered dangerous radicals who needed to be spied on: Jimi Hendrix, Billie Holliday, John Lennon, Ernest Hemingway, Wilt Chamberlin, Tony Randall, Carol Channing, Gregory Peck, Bill Cosby, Steve McQueen, Barbra Streisand (her career may be over, but she probably is happy to know she's still got it :), Joe Namath. Above are people spied on by the FBI and/or people on Nixon's enemies list (people who our executive branch officials were instructed to "do a job on").)

Thanks to all. Privacy is the critical concern. The rejection of TIA was a hopeful sign but probably that battle's in the early rounds. And asking citizens to do police work has always been a bad idea, even though things like the Amber Alert and America's Most Wanted have produced results.

Frankly, most of the others - without diminishing them - have impacted not the average American, but those suspected of terrorist acts or aid. Are any of those people even American citizens? (I don't recall.) Lindh, who I know was American, was afforded due process, such as it was, and plea bargained 20 years.

You'll get no argument from me about privacy, but the question was about Haggard's remark. And so far, the average American, the gal you see at Wal-Mart or Peet's, has been impaired only when flying and, if Rich is right, when doing research in particular areas.

One of the most frightening things to me is that when they have done things like requiring librarians to spy and inform on their patrons, they have also made it illegal for them to even tell us it has been done. This also holds for other info-gathering activities. If I have info on you, they are now allowed to get it from me, under threat of legal penalty, and I am required NOT to tell you about it. That sort of super-secret governing is what we fought a revolution to get away from.

Hi Chico,

The Bush assault on the fourth amendment frightens me. The president claims the right to indefinitely detain American citizens without due process or access to counsel.

The secret INS detentions are on the same line.

And what terrifies me is that a year and a half after 9/11 the Administration still claims the need, the authority, and the right to basically 'disapear' people indefinitely.

I could accept the mass detentions as an emergency response to a terrifying event. BUT, as these people checked out to be okay they should have been released or deported with a reasonably full accounting of the process.

This relates to the next frightening assault on liberty where the whole freedom of information act is being gutted.

We know that our government and security agencies abuse their powers. I would even argue that this is somewhat appropriate. The interests of those who are fighting crime and terrorism are almost intrinsically at odds with the needs of an open society.

So the counter balance to secrecy and abuse must include access to government information. Hence the FOIA. I can accept that this information will be incomplete, but this administration has crossed the line.

The removal of restrictions on the FBI is another example of the removal of rights. Again, we know that the FBI abuses the law and violates the rights of Americans. This isn't a liberal conspiracy of defamation. And so we imposed some restrictions on _some_ of the worst abuses of civil liberties.

Hell...we _know_ that the FBI has engaged in dirty tricks to punish people for their Constitutionally Protected actions. That is one of the things that they do best. Now the limits have been repealed.

Mark talked of privacy...and I'll second that. I'll go so far as to submit that the purpose of the Patriot Act clause that specifically allows the feds to search our library records, and prohibits disclosure of such a search, was intended by the president to make us nervous about our own reading.

A major purpose of the Patriot Act was to make us all fearful. To make us look at our local librarian as a potential Judas.

As Ari said 'This isn't the time for that kind of comment. It is never the time.'

Maybe I am paranoid. BUT the FBI/et al didn't need the Patriot Act to do their jobs. Judges seldom deny search warrants to the police/FBI/etc. And to argue that requiring the FBI to first get a warrant will make it easier for terrorists is to argue against our Constitution.

George Bush and John Ashcroft have commited high treason against the Constitution of the United States. They should be arrested by the proper authorities, tried, and put in jail.

My opposition to the Death Penalty extends to traitors, but I'll offer that what Bush, Cheney, and Ashcroft have done to our country and way of life is far worse than what Tim McVeigh and Bin Laden have done.

McVeigh and Bin Laden are whacko criminal nut jobs who killed American Citizens, and who should be punished.

Bush, et al, are engaged in an ongoing assault on the core principles of America.

When we are physically attacked we can seek justice or vengeance, cry, and move forward. When our Constitution, the basis for our unique sense of American identity, is attacked, twisted, and subverted by criminal traitors then we are well and truly fucked as a nation and a people.


-the fourth amendment.

What most bothers me about the post 9/11 actions of the administration are the things that just are not needed.

For example, the effective overturning of the 4th amendment.

Edited by author 03-17-2003 02:53 PM
Searching your mail for instance, is now entirely at the discretion of the government (no warrant required). You can be held without a lawyer and tried in secret, also the time-honored practice of attorney-client privilege no longer is valid. These are just a few off the top of my head. As ol' Merle said, anyone who hasn't seen it going downhill "hasn't got eyes in their head".

If you consider the right to privacy a freedom (which I do) that has been affected since 9-11.

Mr. Haggard makes an impactful statement. What freedoms does the average American not have now that were available before 9-11, other than restrictions regarding what you can do or carry in airports? What do you suppose he means?

Does this mean Elie Wiesel isn't going to show "her" tits for peace?

I notice Merle Haggard hasn't been gathering criticism for his comments in concerts lately, where he has spoken against the war, suggested we "give Ashcroft a big hand... right in the mouth", and said that he had more freedom as a parole just out of prison than the average American citizen has now.

You might want to google Weisel for other surprising info.

Edited by author 03-17-2003 06:42 AM
It's a shame Elie Wiesel didn't come up with anything more than some of the weaker pro-war rhetoric.

She claims the war is to 'eradicate international terrorism', describes Iraq as a 'rogue state', Hussein as a 'madman', who 'threw out' UN inspectors... Come on, it's like a press release.

She accepts that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction simply because Powell says so.

And the punchline? "We have a moral obligation to intervene where evil is in control." *There's* an extendable principle.

The nice thing about being a washed-up has-been country muzak artist like Charlie Daniels is at least you're home on nights and weekends.

When I read Weisel's piece in the SF Chronicle, it made me wonder: is this going to help make the case that Israel is the engine behind a war in Iraq?

You have to admit Miss Bulgaria makes a pretty good case for peace.

http://fr.news.yahoo.com/030310/202/334fj.html

I just can't see Charlie Daniels' name anywhere without hearing "Chicken in the breadpan pickin' out dough!" , sorry.

I thought Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Weisel did a much better job of making the case for war than Charlie Daniels did.

hmm. My bad - there seems to be much more to the story and the woman who worked for the cable channel is looking less innocent. For one thing, she regularly used her personal account for business. For another, the first response she sent had her business contact information at the bottom. Worst of all, she forwaded the email and her response to a couple friends in the country music business calling for a boycott of Charlie Daniels cds and concert tickets, and then forwarded this email to Charlie Daniels' publicist along with a note threatening to send the same email to 2,000 people in the business. Her employer says they fired her not for her views but for not making it clear that she wasn't representing her employer's views. Charlie Daniels had no direct involvement with all this and didn't even know about it until after the fact.

It still smells bad, and definitely doesn't reflect well on Charlie Daniels. But it isn't the clear-cut First Amendment case it initially appeared to be. If she wanted to go bear-baiting like that, she definitely should have made sure she'd covered her ass first.

Patriotism is the first resort of the faded celebrity neverwas.

Damn. I followed that link to Twangzine (looks like a pretty cool rag, btw), and found that there's even more Charlie Daniels nastiness there. Apparently, a woman received the Charlie Daniels email at home in her personal mailbox, so she responded (negatively) while apparently making it clear these were her own opinions. Unfortunately, she works for a Country Music cable channel. Charlie Daniels' publicist (who sent out the email and who received the woman's response) complained to her employer and she was fired for having doubleplusungood political views.

Reminds me of The Clash song "Know Your Rights" - "You have the right to free speech...as long as you're not dumb enough to actually try it."

On the hopeful side, I read the online paper from the small northern Arkansas town where my mom lives, and the letters to the editor regularly have writers suspcious of Bush and his war. I was really surprised to see that.

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/news/31403_local_rodeofight.html

Oh look - The poor maligned redneck in action:

With some 15,000 to 20,000 folks at the rodeo drinking beer and having fun, things can get a little out of hand at times. It happened when a tape of Lee Greenwood's song Proud To Be An American was playing. Some rodeo fans were standing and others were sitting down. Felix Fanaselle and his buddies chose to remain seated.

"This guy behind us starts yelling at us (because) we're not standing up," said Fanaselle. "He starts cussing at us, telling us to go back to Iraq."

Edited by author 03-16-2003 01:24 PM
Drop inbred, but fuck the redneck hick. I'm from the south and I grew up in a sea of willful ignorance.
The clue train pulled out a long time ago, and if bubba thought he was too clever and proud to get aboard, fuck'em.
Don't waste your time with pity for the poor, maligned hillbilly bigot, who hides behind words like "tradition" and "heritage".
Fuck them and Taliban, who are the other side of the same grimy coin.

Inbred hicks, the last sanctioned racial slur. May it never die. It gives me hope that one day we can again say chinks, beaners, towelheads and the rest. It's heart healthy!

Here's another example of hillbilly patriotism...

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/news/31403_local_rodeofight.html

Boy, there are more of these inbred hicks lyin' around than I thought!

Jeff Wall's response is a top-drawer rant:

---------

Open letter to Charlie Daniels,

What happened to the loveable fat man I used to worship in my youth? The one that took Nashville's Channel 5 anchorman Chris Clark to task for his exposé of *alleged* marijuana use at Nashville concerts? The one who campaigned for Jimmy Carter for President? The same guy who shows had just as many people soliciting donations for NORML (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws) as he did security guards for his Volunteer Jam concerts at the Municipal Auditorium?

Charlie, you remember that album cover you did for the Way Down Yonder record? Where y'all had a picture of a picnic table at a roadside park and the table was covered with beer cans, liquor bottles, and even a roach or two could be found? What about songs like "Land of opportunity?" with the line "In This Land of Opportunity, If You're rich then you can buy immunity, if you're poor you better write your eulogy, if you want one, cause it's all you'll ever have" Or "Searching for my Mary Jane". Remember, at the time Mary Jane was also a euphemism for marijuana. Then there was "Uneasy Rider", and "Long Haired Country Boy" where you taught us it was okay for us to be longhaired, reefer stanking, peace-loving kids. I ain't reefer stanking anymore, and I haven't had a drink in over 18 years. But when I was young, you were one of my heroes. You were a rebel who sang protest songs about the right wing excesses of the Federal Government. After reading your Soapbox article, I'm starting to feel that my teenage years were all a lie.

I don't know if it's because you appeared one time too many on the Pat Robertson show, and he was finally able to convert you to the dark side. Or maybe you just got old and your juices done all dried up. I'm against a war in Iraq. There ain't no proof that Saddam was behind the 9/11 stuff. My recommendation would be to leave him alone, and just write him a note that tells him that we're watching his ass and that if he fucks up, even just a little bit, then we're gonna start dropping Wal-Marts and Blockbuster Videos on him and that Lee Greenwood will be at every Grand Opening & Ribbon Cutting Ceremony singing that damned song of his. I'm a lot more scared of North Korea than I am of Iraq. And I'm even more scared of President Bush and John Ashcroft than I am of North Korea and Iraq combined.

You used to be for the little man. How about, Instead of spending a couple million on a Tomahawk, lets spend that money to help fight rural poverty. Maybe create some manufacturing jobs in the rural south that NAFTA took away. Or we could use some of that money to figure out a way to beat AIDS, or fight crack addiction, curb teenage pregnancy, or get all the crazy homeless folks off the street and get them some mental health assistance and some job training. Shouldn't take but a couple three Tomahawks to put a major dent in all of that.

Before you brand me a coward, I guess I should tell you that I been to war. I helped to blow up little brown people in Beirut. I helped to blow up little brown people in Kosovo. I helped to blow up little brown people in the Red Sea. I spent 20 years of my life floating around in circles, listening to your music and blowing up little brown people. Hell, I'm surprised that there's even any little brown people left to blow up. I did all that just so some knucklehead that used to screw Madonna and ain't had a decent acting gig in years can get his name in the press by flying to Iraq and having a private screening of Blue's Clues with Saddam. Let all them Hollywood folks fly over there and meet with Saddam. What are they hurting? Does anyone really think that Sean Penn is held in such a high regard that his opinion alone would cause all of America to reconsider?

Let them protest. Let them visit Iraq. They haven't put anyone's lives in danger by doing so. Their visiting Iraq is not hurting the morale of our troops. Let them do their thing. That's why we live here in America. That why a bunch of my friends died while trying to blow up little brown people. People who died in uniform, and left behind orphans and widows. Just so that we would all have the freedom to say how we feel. Whether that be you ranting about Iraq, or me saying that I wouldn't feel comfortable letting George Bush lead a newspaper recycling drive, much less a war.

I'm not a panty waist liberal. But I'm not a right wing whacko either. I'm just a middle of the road, old half crippled, fat guy doing his best to feed his family, love his kids and keep the lights turned on. As for your statement of "You're either with us, or you're against us", well all I can say to that is fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck yoooooooooooooooooou Charlie. Here in America, I got just as much a right to say I think war with Iraq is wrong. Hell, it ain't even a right, It's a responsibility. And you dishonor my dead shipmates by saying otherwise. Feel free to disagree with me.

I served 20 years to give you that right. My shipmates died for it.

Jeff Wall - Twangzine

Jesus also flew to heaven on a pink cloud after he had died.

I *AM* AWAKE!!!

Come back, L. Ron... all is forgiven...

QUOTE:
"Why has this happened? Why has a nation which has enjoyed the blessings of God for over two hundred years suddenly experienced such a catastrophe? We’ve shaken our fists in God’s face for far too long. We have ignored His laws, belittled His son, taken His name in vain until it’s almost a national slang word. We have allowed radical groups like the A.C.L.U. to all but remove the name and reverence for God from American society. We have murdered untold millions of unborn children and tolerated an immoral president in the name of a good economy. We have proclaimed that homosexuality is just another lifestyle when the Bible clearly states that it is an abomination to God. We have encouraged illegitimate birth, and condoned living together out of wedlock, practiced racial prejudice and child molestation, followed new age religions and harebrained spiritual leaders."
UNQUOTE.

Like it or not this is all true.
WAKE UP!!!!!!

"Jesus cult" is right on the money. All these quasi-fundamentalists, including many in the executive branch, seem to have some specific vision of America. Sadly, that vision seems to only be about towing the fundamentalist and ultra-conservative lines or going hell (literally). Afterall, these guys know what a "Real 'Merican" looks like. All they have to do is look for the pro-life bumper sticker on your car and the color of your skin.

Are we rid of this insipid "Jesus" cult yet?
No?

sigh.

Ah guess we showed him a thinger or two, in the parking lot of the Dew Drop Inn.
See, he`s one of the "good ol` boys" now!

Well, at least he left out titty bars and GTA. I agree with Dogzilla. Why should we give a shit what Charlie Daniels says, or Sarandon or Heston or Penn? But there you are. Celebrities have been legitimizing our choices in products and politics for as long as I can remember. We're a nation of starfuckers and this is what we get for it.

Edited by author 03-16-2003 12:33 AM
Nougat, I agree...

But he's still a "backwards-ass inbred country fuck".

Here's what he had to say about 9/11 (from elsewhere on his site).

"Why has this happened? Why has a nation which has enjoyed the blessings of God for over two hundred years suddenly experienced such a catastrophe? We’ve shaken our fists in God’s face for far too long. We have ignored His laws, belittled His son, taken His name in vain until it’s almost a national slang word. We have allowed radical groups like the A.C.L.U. to all but remove the name and reverence for God from American society. We have murdered untold millions of unborn children and tolerated an immoral president in the name of a good economy. We have proclaimed that homosexuality is just another lifestyle when the Bible clearly states that it is an abomination to God. We have encouraged illegitimate birth, and condoned living together out of wedlock, practiced racial prejudice and child molestation, followed new age religions and harebrained spiritual leaders."

What a hick...guess I'm with him on the 'racial prejudice' thing, though.

Dogz,
calling him a "backwards-ass inbred country fuck" just makes you look as bad as him. I'm sorry, but it's true. Like it or not, there are people who share his opinion. I'm not saying they're correct. What I am saying is that denigrating him like that doesn't earn me any respect for you, and if that's the best you can do than you're no more likely to convert anyone to your opinion that Daniels is.

Usually it's impossible to convince an extremist to convert. But if you argue rationally and don't degenerate into name-calling you just may convince a moderate.

Wait - can someone remind me why we give a shit what some backwards-ass inbred country fuck thinks?

While I respect Mr. Daniels' right to have his own opinion, I think it's entirely unfair to portray everybody who is against war as pampered, pansy-ass movie stars. Certainly Hollywood stars and people like Penn and Streissand are among the anti war crowd, and those people are certainly unlikeable enough. It's perfectly acceptable for him to find such people repugnant.

But you know what? I find our own President repugnant for not coming through with promises to aid NYC firefighters after 9/11. I find it repugnant that our administration does not see fit to give any more aid to Afghanistan lately (that country is not signifigantly better off now than before the Taliban ouster). I am disgusted that our current President talked about not passing on duties to successors, and then hit us with a trillion-dollar deficit expected to last years and years. With this track record, I simply can't expect the President to follow through on his pie-in-the-sky promises of a democratic dominoe effect in the Middle East.

I might add that I know quite a few anti war folk who are not movie stars. Who are ordinary people. Some in debt from college education and unemployed. Are these people also just rich pansy idealists?

The kicker: when one of the people to whom Daniels sent this replied with a dissenting opinion, his publicist got her fired.

It seems to me that Americans have been becoming more and more polarized since the 60's. Perhaps longer, but my historic view doesn't extend further.

The radical neo-con reaction to the 60's has strengthened the divide. And now social conflict is a way of life.

And I have been sucked in. It is a drag, but the asshole fuckwad right wingers have won. Their agenda is what we talk about. They frame the debate. And their divisions of good and evil control it all.

I'm looking forward to the new season of Point/Counterpoint featuring the Dixie Chicks vs. Charlie Daniels.

--sean