This video basically says it all in clear and cogent terms that intellectually honest people of any political persuasion should be able to agree with. Ask you self how far are you willing to let this country go into the abyss before we say no more? What does it take before we reach the point where something must be done? Ask your self if this is the country you grew up in, if this is the country that our brave soldiers have fought and died for? If you are honest with yourself then I don't think you can answer yes to those questions..
(video was removed from youtube due to copyright infringement.) The publisher I am sure will be quite happy to sell you a copy 39.95 or more.
Props to Crooks and liars for having copies up!
Crooks and liars story (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/03/15.html#a7532) about this video clip
Wow.
Please god let popular culture be the medium through which the message is heard. One of the reasons anti-terrorism legislation is not objected to is that people really don't think it will happen to them, that complete stripping of your rights. As trans people, I can guarantee you, it will. As a white, straight, gender-conforming able-bodied person, I cannot guarantee you that it won't.
The predominant factor behind anti-terrorism legislation is guilty until proven innocent. Do you really want the police to make the decisions about who is guilty and who is innocent? Right now, they pick on brown people. That's how the Third Reich started...then it expanded to other groups. In the immortal words of the Reverend Martin Niemoller:
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—
and there was no one left to speak out.
Speak out, dammit. Before they come for you. And convince others to as well.
Dennis
And I really wish I could get away with that much courtroom dramatic effect when I was arguing - plus I wish I could afford suits like that. I don't look nearly as spiffy in a suit and I can't say the things that were said there, plus it would cost you, the ordinary person, $20,000.00 to get me there. So don't depend on your "legal" rights. Use your political voice.
Anyone wanna answer my question on this post? Come on I know someone is out there just itching. What is your personal threshhold before your patriotism is triggered and you finally speak out and say no more!
Quote from: Susan on March 17, 2006, 12:33:01 AM
This video basically says it all in clear and cogent terms that intellectually honest people of any political persuasion should be able to agree with. Ask you self how far are you willing to let this country go into the abyss before we say no more? What does it take before we reach the point where something must be done? Ask your self if this is the country you grew up in, if this is the country that our brave soldiers have fought and died for? If you are honest with yourself then I don't think you can answer yes to those questions..
(video was removed from youtube due to copyright infringement.) The publisher I am sure will be quite happy to sell you a copy 39.95 or more.
Props to Crooks and liars for having copies up!
Video-WMP (http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Boston-Legal-Stick-It-1.wmv) and Video-QT (http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Boston-Legal-Sti.mov) longer version 5 min (video appears to be a little choppy)
Audio-MP3 (http://movies.crooksandliars.com/boston-legal.mp3)
Crooks and liars story (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/03/15.html#a7532) about this video clip
No, this is not the same country that I became a citizen of. It has become greedier, overly self-righteous, a busy-body in the affairs of other nations and has taken the first step in removing our cilil liberties in the supposed name of security.
The last general election, I did not vote for a single incumbant. I plan to keep up this policy until we stop going down this slipery slope.
Chaunte
OK you did ask!
I am more terrified of our present admin than any threat of external terrorism, our elected terrorists are scarey enough.
At the bottom of our main page you can see who is online. Members, guests and those lil things called crawlers, bots, spys, harvesters. Do you suppose that our elected officials have invested in or control a company that uses these "to protect us from ourselves"
Yahoo, MSN and now Google have capitulated and are allowing the government access. Only for statistics you know. Our personal info would never be given out--oh sure I believe that.
Wanna fly to Grandmas house instead of going through the woods? Better be prepared for the inquisition. Homeland security, more like insecurity. They want to ck my baggage go for it. I put all my very personal toys right on top, covered with a liberal coating of Surgi Lube.
Gonna buy a new or almost new car. Ya might want to ck and see if the computer can be accessed and by who. Is your location trackable and again, by who, when and how. Car theft, get a Lo Jack. Can the location be read without your knowledge?
Folks George Orwell has come home to roost.
Once more I will say: If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem
Quote from: Leigh on March 18, 2006, 01:14:56 AM
I am more terrified of our present admin than any threat of external terrorism, our elected terrorists are scarey enough.
Exactly! If terrorists want to invade the country, let them! We're a country of gun-toting Americans, they're not gonna get far -- we've a decent chance to survive with our freedoms intact. But for us willfully letting our leaders terrorize us, I'm embarassed.
Alexandra, you said, "But for us willfully letting our leaders terrorize us, I'm embarassed."
Michael Moore has said that is exactly the M.O. of this administration. Scare us and we'll agree to anything. Just make us safe!" It kind of backfired on Mr. Bush, of course, in regards to the ports deal. He'd taught us to be scared and now doesn't understand why we are being soooo paranoid.
A decade ago, I was a libertarian who prized independence and freedoms. I wanted government OUT of my life. Then, as I transitioned, I came to realize that government was helpful in discrimination issues and keeping cigarette smoke out of my face. The Bush administration is pushing the envelope, making war within independent countries while, at the same time, urging that Christian beliefs be part of our government laws. I get wanded and frisked by airport security screeners while, at the same time, the huge cargo areas of the planes get filled with uninspected boxes. I thought there was a rule that if a ticketed passenger isn't on the flight, his luggage gets removed. What about the shipped boxes? A bomb is a bomb.
Every explanation I've heard about our system of safeguarding our ports seems unbelievably prone to danger. This is what they tell us: The port security and coast guard inspect MANIFESTS before the ship arrives. If the ship is coming from a questionable country or company, the containers get inspected. Are they kidding? Is a terrorist going to put "bomb" on the manifest? Is a terrorist going to ship his bomb from a country that he knows will draw suspicion? No and no.
From the same group who helped bring us the GREAT FLOOD of New Orleans, we have more homeland insecurity.
Next: The wars. I've always been anti-war but, if there's to be one, is this really the right way? Has it occured to anyone that this guerilla war in Iraq and the world is not a war that can be won by standing armies? It's the same thing as what happened to the British during our Revolutionary War. The redcoats marched in nice straight lines and the Americans shot at them from behind trees and big boulders. If we must have armies to fight in a country that ACTUALLY asks for our help, we should convert part of our armies to covert plain clothes operatives (yeah, I know -- that can be troublesome, too. Remember Chile? And, of course our skins don't blend in too well in some parts of the world). Driving an unprotected huge Humvee up a street is like waving a bright red flag in front of a bull. Only, in this case, the bull is smart enough to lay bombs in the road rather than risk his neck. If we HAVE to fight (which is up to debate, of course), why do we do it in such a fashion that poor kids come back missing arms and legs. It's so sad. My best answer to the war thing is to take the high road -- The U.S. shouldn't kill people. If I was a villager in Iraq, I'd be angry, too, if my wife and kids were killed by an American bomb. It's not like the old days where we could blame a certain country. I know many will disagree but I think we should use war only as a defensive posture. Imagine what $200 billion could have done in terms of protecting our ports and national security. Instead of rebuilding war-torn countries, we could strengthen and beautify our own. Instead of the world looking at us as an ogre, maybe they would fight with themselves. It'd be nice if they stopped but people have tried for centuries without success.
Is it the same country that brave soldiers died for? In certain respects, yes, but those tenets are fleeting. The chief thing we have, thanks to genius thinkers like Jefferson and Franklin, is a wonderful contract with citizens, the Constitution.
While Mr. Bush and his administration try to renegotiate that contract, his approval ratings go down and down. See -- there is some good news. People are coming to realize that a country that gives up its freedoms for safety has neither.
Teri Anne
Terrorists have no desire to invade, - they just want to terrorise - for all sorts of reasons - as the only way to reply to an invunerable enemy, to distabilise and cause fear to the extent that their perceived enemies back off, to spread an unpalatable ideology. Innocents will die and the cure is more or less what the US is doing now, we just have to wonder if the cure may be worse than the disease.
It always used to bug me as a child to read about the American revolutionary war (yes I am Australian, but as Australians we always considered ourselves evolved children of the British Empire Commonwealth (watching the Commonwealth Games now, they are excellent :) ). Always thought it unfair/cowardly how the American revolutionaries would run away from the British and then when out of reach of bayonets and musket fire, would snipe away with their long rifles. If it was not for stupidity of the British high command, you would still be part of the Empire I mean Commonwealth :) - geez imagine what sort of a world it would be instead.
As for the middle east, Iraq, Afghanistan - its a pity Mr Bush and the US joint Chiefs of Staff did not read and ponder on Rudyard Kipling's poem "Frontier Arithmetic" the British were over in those places a generation or so earlier & could have told anyone that there is no quick fix :(
Teri, what you are suggesting about converting part of the army - sounds awfully like creating a Secret Police. - they would be very effective but not necessarily a good idea at all.
George Orwell was a genius his books Animal Farm & 1984, are extraordinarily powerful - but always make me very depressed & sick to the pit of my stomach.
Now this post did not set out to prove anything , I hope I am not ranting here :(
rana
Quote from: Susan on March 17, 2006, 05:01:27 PM
Anyone wanna answer my question on this post? Come on I know someone is out there just itching. What is your personal threshhold before your patriotism is triggered and you finally speak out and say no more!
All right.
When I am ready to take up arms and fight and die for what I believe in.
From the same people who brought us warrantless electronic surveillance US News and World Report has evidence that the Bush administration argued that the same justification for warrantless electrionic searches could be used to allow warrantless physical searches. One lawyer who is defending a terrorism suspect has reported that both their home and office were broken into and searched without a warrant. attorney client privilege anyone? This is an innocent American; a defense lawyer who these warrantless searches were used against, not a terrorist or suspected terrorist. Basically that's the last remaining blow against what used to be the 4th amendement to the US Constitution.
We will hopefully find out more in the next day or two. Once again I ask you all, exactly how much is enough to get you all to say no more.
More info can be found at the links below. I will try to add a link to the US News report when it's published.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/3/17/23535/7214
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/03/17.html#a7564
I would not be an advocate of the secret covert armies but, as you point out Rana, I agree they'd be effective. MY VOTE, as I mentioned, would be to STOP WARS -- take the high ground. Stop killing. If we are a truly moral nation, we shouldn't be satisfied with "collateral damage" to the our own allies or innocent villagers. In the 60's, I was one of the marchers against the Vietnam war. I was one of the people that, using Thoreau's civil disobedience and nonviolence, took over the Army building on our college campus (luckily, I wasn't arrested). So, Susan, I have had experience saying "no."
The stock market, from what I've heard for years, loves a U.S. government to be half Republican and half Democrat because, in that ratio, less seems to be accomplished. That proverbial stalemate can prevent radical elements of either persuasion from gaining an upper hand. I share your fears and anger regarding the government spying on US. They tell us that there is not disclosure about who they spy on because of national security concerns. While I can understand that, I've pondered that the revelation of famous names (perhaps Barbra Streisand and Susan Sarandon?) being investigated could discredit the process. Herbert Hoover carried on such investigations during Democratic and Republican administrations in the sixties. I thought that the embarrassment that came about from those revelations would prevent future secretive spying wiretaps and searches. But, as I started and ended my previous post, FEAR can bring about things that aren't true to our traditional national nature.
Susan, at the beginning of your post, you posed the question, "Ask you self how far are you willing to let this country go into the abyss before we say no more? What does it take before we reach the point where something must be done?"
Congress, fearing its own re-election success chances, broke from the president and demanded the port deal be stopped. They, in essence (for not totally altruistic reasons), said, "no." And the president and leaders in Dubai backed down. What will it take to get the government to stop its internal U.S. spying? It's a bit tougher situation due to the 9-11 consequences of NOT spying. After we lost the twin towers, there was a nation of people demanding how our government could NOT know. What were they being paid to do? People demanded (as in the recent FEMA disaster in New Orleans, "Were the CIA and FBI asleep or so bogged down with bureaucracy that they were ineffectual against the plane-flying terrorists?" People stated on news channels that the CIA and FBI were "caught with "their pants down." Due to that perceived notion, the government probably flipped to the extreme of being "big brotherish" with secret wiretaps and investigations. But now, the public sentiment seems to be shifting, as Wall Street prefers, back to the middle. The presidential approval ratings are dropping and the Republicans don't want to be brought down with Mr. Bush. There are some that say that it's proof our system of government works better than many because the extremes always have a way of annoying the majority and, over time, the system self-corrects itself.
The dialogue going on here and in our country, to my mind, proves the validity of Jefferson's and Franklin's great "American experiment." Saying "no," I believe, is what's happening NOW, as we speak. If you're in doubt, tune into any non-Fox channel news station. People are, as screenwriter Padyevski wrote, "mad as hell and they're not going to take it anymore."
Teri Anne
Our system of government does tend to self-correct. However...
THe monitoring systems being put in place by the Bush Administration to watch the activities of the American people are a clear violation the Consititution. Once these systems are in place, do you really think that they will just go away? Of course not!
Our activities are already being monitored. The rental car places are already doing tha! Cross state lines with a rental car that is supposed to stay WITHIN a state and watch what happens to your bill!
The ghost of Richard Nixon has returned with a new political enemies list. Unwarranted survalience for the "good of the country" is the the banshee wail of J. Edgar Hoover. If you listen carefully, you will hear a rustling of chains caused by the ghost of Joseph McCarthy coming back from the dead. How long will it be before the Committee on UnAmerican Activities reconvenes?!
"Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither liberty or security." - Ben Franklin.
Chaunte
The patriot act and warrant less searches are not without precedence in the annals of American history. Andrew Johnson's Alien and Seditions Act had similar repercussions. McCarthy's excesses and false accusations were ultimately exposed by the media and the backlash took him out of office. Vigilance and public outrage have in the past and can now turn the tide.
"The tree of liberty must of necessity be replenished with the blood of patriots." Thomas Jefferson
Cassie
Quote from: Susan on March 18, 2006, 06:24:54 AMOnce again I ask you all, exactly how much is enough to get you all to say no more.
What can we really do?
People voted for this. Or more specifically, they voted for the concept of enforcing one's will on everyone else for their own good. We see it in the growing christian theocracy, intrusions into personal privacy, and establishment of democracies through force of arms.
We're going to bring freedom to the rest of the world... whether they want it or not ;)
The majority of people consider the Vote to be their chance to elect someone who will impose their personal agendas upon everyone else. The majority now use democracy as a tool to impose their value system upon the minority, rather than seeking a fair resolution for everyone involved. Very few people simply elect the most qualified, fair, and balanced candidates anymore. True democracy is dying, being replaced by the mob and bully mentality that sadly seems inevitable after a time. Individuals no longer matter; now it's group vs. group, agenda vs. agenda. Biggest group wins.
Quote from: rana on March 18, 2006, 04:52:58 AM
Terrorists have no desire to invade, - they just want to terrorise - for all sorts of reasons -
Exactly!
Sometimes I think I'm the only one on the planet that knows what the solution to the terrorist problem -- IGNORE THEM! Forget about 9-11. Never bring up anything connected to 9-11 ever again -- this will chap their hide. Once they get off the front pages and onto pg 39, they lose their effectiveness.
My $0.02
As a veteran retired from active duty, I've never had any respect for anybody who talked of kicking ass and stomping guts but did all they could to avoid the risk of having to go face combat -- either by subterfuge or by just not serving.
I would like to see a society constituted as the one in Heinlein's "Starship Trooper", where there were two classes of people, residents and citizens.
Residents paid taxes and were subject to the laws of the government, but did not have the privilege of voting, running for elected office or holding any sort of civil service job -- especially law enforcement or public safety (firefighting) jobs.
Those privileges were reserved for Citizens. What did it take to become a citizen? One had to unselfishly volunteer for a minimum two years of federal service. And for the duration of their service that was the last free choice they had. If the government needed bodies to terraform Mars and you were unsuited for anything better, that's what you did. But upon release from service, you became a citizen.
Now, I did my active duty in the National Guard. Granted it was in the '90s, but I processed for discharge a double-dozen soldiers who failed to report for duty, or who peed 'hot'. The behavior of one famous Air Guard pilot would have been over a lot sooner, and with much less favorable results if it were the '90s and he were less politically connected. It's no wonder that Guardsmen in the early '70s were called 'Draft Dodgers' -- it was a VERY effective way to keep your heiney out of harms way while maintaining the illusion that you were a 'patriot' (whatever that is.)
Karen
Whenever someone tells me, "I'm patriotic," I say, "That's too bad. How long have you had this patri-osis?"
Quote from: Hazumu on March 19, 2006, 07:56:36 PM
My $0.02
As a veteran retired from active duty, I've never had any respect for anybody who talked of kicking ass and stomping guts but did all they could to avoid the risk of having to go face combat -- either by subterfuge or by just not serving.
I would like to see a society constituted as the one in Heinlein's "Starship Trooper", where there were two classes of people, residents and citizens.
Residents paid taxes and were subject to the laws of the government, but did not have the privilege of voting, running for elected office or holding any sort of civil service job -- especially law enforcement or public safety (firefighting) jobs.
Those privileges were reserved for Citizens. What did it take to become a citizen? One had to unselfishly volunteer for a minimum two years of federal service. And for the duration of their service that was the last free choice they had. If the government needed bodies to terraform Mars and you were unsuited for anything better, that's what you did. But upon release from service, you became a citizen.
Karen,
I have had the same thought for quite a while now, even though it would mean that I would become a Resident.
Chaunte
Quote from: Chaunte on March 19, 2006, 09:11:46 PM
Karen,
I have had the same thought for quite a while now, even though it would mean that I would become a Resident.
Chaunte
The idea was that those who would really lay their lives on the line for society, whether it be defending society with a gun or supporting society with hard labor in dangerous environments could more likely be trusted with making decisions for society, rather than those who only benefit from society and aren't willing to risk their lives to support it.
Basically, if we had that system in place now, there would not be a single chicken-hawk in power anywhere.
I so wanted to cast my vote for Gen Clark. He's been responsible for the lives of every serviceman in NATO, and would not put soldiers in harms way on a whim.
(Calm down, Karen -- let go of your anger...)
Karen
Corporations are by far the biggest business' in the US. They are not only a merger of business and government, but legal artificial paper fictions created by the state. Where risks and rewards are reallocated so as to make it easier for business to function. Not only are corporations simply creations of the state, but most of them would not exist at all except with the support of the state. PERIOD.
That said corporations do serve a useful purpose, they lower the price of goods and make life better for the poor and the middle class. Can you get a 12 pack of Coke cheaper at Wal-Mart, or at the Mom and Pop store in smalltown USA?
ahem, unfortunately WalMart is an example of how this merger of govt and businesses is not perfect . . . but this is a bit off topic . . .
General Clark would be a good choice. My vote would go for Colin Powell. In my opinion, he was fed a load of ... malarkey and was directed to preset it to the United Nations.
I listened to part of his presentation, and I am convinced that HE was convinced of its authenticity.
Just as an aside, this latest war began with an outright assination attempt on Sadam Hussain's life. Does giving this order make George W a war criminal? (I am asking because I don't know.)
Chaunte
Quote from: Chaunte on March 20, 2006, 08:09:04 PM
Just as an aside, this latest war began with an outright assination attempt on Sadam Hussain's life. Does giving this order make George W a war criminal?
I would say if Bush was captured by Iraqis loyal to Saddam, they could theoretically kill him since Bush was deceptive about why he went to Iraq in the first place and placed a death order on saddam based on a lie.
Now had Bush invaded Iraq and ordered a death warrant on saddam because of his gassing of the kurds, he'd be on safe legal ground. But Bush would have never have got permission from Americans to go after Saddam on that or any other reason. This is why Bush had to lie -- it was the only way to get Americans to agree with the invasion thing. Geez, Mr. Bush better take steps to never get caught by angry Iraqis.
Oh, IMO Powell is finished. He was done when he uttered "Massive Amounts" (of WMDs). He should have resigned on the spot instead of making a statement not based on facts. He's done. >:(
I agree that Powell is done. Its a shame and a waste to see a career such as his end this way.
I am still not convinced that Powell knew it was a lie.
On the other hand, I have met some vets who came back and would swear that any WMD were secreted into Syria. Not my words, but those of some grunts on the ground.
Chaunte
Quote from: Chaunte on March 21, 2006, 04:24:07 PM
I am still not convinced that Powell knew it was a lie.
Interesting point, but Powell did have access to the same information Bush did and if Powell believed it was good enough to go after Saddam with, maybe he isn't the kind of person we want as our President. I'll say the whole thing was probably the most difficult decision he ever made in his life.
In response to Susan's '... a personal threshold' being trangressed when will I say no more: I do not pay taxes. I have not for years. I said 'no more' some time ago. It is worse than you might think: the administration in power is a wing of a theocracy, it extends beyond the personalities that represent it. These people have stolen two elections, they will steal the next one it is the most virulent and potent form of Fascism yet; Hitler was quite potent, but Deutchland was not quite a religion, close, but not quite. If I thought that the lower middle-class in this country for starters was ripe (a pot to piss in, bread and circuses), "Evidently not. They are not offended" I would wholeheartedly support a Revolution. The time is not right, not yet.
Right wingers in the United States are addicted to paranoya (can't spell). When the Berlin Wall fell and communism became a thing of the past. I hoped that the time of being parinoid was over. I guess Bush and the right has found a new focus for their fears the faceless terrorist who can be any one anywhere until the last angry man dies. Will this fear never end?
right wingers are not addicted to anything. they just can't think for themselves. fear is just the byproduct.
Right wing, Left wing - I don't care!
Just serve 'em fried and hot with a good sauce. Honey mustard or mild Buffalo wing sauce works for me (Food should not hurt)
yumyumyumyumyum
h
Quote from: HelenW on April 19, 2006, 06:08:41 PM
Right wing, Left wing - I don't care!
I know you might have said this as a joke, but seriously, people ought to care. People bitch about the way things are in their countries yet at the same time don't take serious matters given to the people to vote on. If you're trangendered, there is a "wing" that is more favorable to all things TG. Find it and vote accordingly.
Try reading it as a metaphor for the sameness of the two parties.
Food should not hurt.
helen
Quote from: HelenW on April 21, 2006, 04:01:18 PM
Food should not hurt.
helen
you would hate my cooking then. HOT sauce rules OK!
(that said, I voted precisely once in a presidential election, a Nook-you-ler physicist, one James Carter, ran against a B-movie actor, one Ronnie Raygun. {Zap!} I did not see as much diff between EG: Tipper's hubby and Georgie Porgie 2, and next stolen election time, Kerry wanted so much to prove he was macho and behind the 'war on terror' - besides which, in CA, the electoral college going 'D' is a foregone conclusion - I could not make the leap even symbolically... and I think Nelson Rockefeller would have made a better president than any one of these candidates)
Posted at: April 25, 2006, 12:04:06 AM[/size]
Quote from: HelenW on April 21, 2006, 04:01:18 PM
Try reading it as a metaphor for the sameness of the two parties.
surely you're jesting here. Can you list five major national issues where the views held are the "same" in both parties?
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Posted at: April 25, 2006, 12:06:55 AM
Quote from: jan c on April 22, 2006, 11:25:48 AM
I voted precisely once in a presidential election . . .
I'm not quite sure of the point you are trying to make by making this comment. The race for president of the United States starts at the state level with primaries and ground work at the local level. Did you vote in any primary election? Did you partipicate in any local campaign to get a canidate's run for office off the ground? Every primary and national election is determined by the free will of the voters. Are you suggesting this be changed and people refrain from voting?