Now that I think about it, who came up with the name "Homeland Security" anyway? It has a very 1930's, German-esque ring to it.
Now that I think about it, who came up with the name "Homeland Security" anyway? It has a very 1930's, German-esque ring to it.
I just went to my profile page and saw that my visitor count was 1984. It seemed appropriate to provide a quote somewhere.Originally Posted by Gregg
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
Did you guys all just move to China? Sounds eerily like what we deal with here...
lhamo
"Seek out habits that help you overcome fear or inertia. Destroy those that do the opposite." Seth Godin
Perhaps that is the model we are following. But China has it's problems especially with pollution and so on.Did you guys all just move to China? Sounds eerily like what we deal with here...
But even here how easy is the environment really going to be to protect in a police state? The U.S. is still nominally democratic so that's a step up but ....
The good world even Obama apologists want, um, I HOPE I AM WRONG, but I think it's not going to be very easy to achieve in a police state. If everyone in the U.S. grasped all the implications I see they would not just fear (and I get where the fear is coming from - are we all going to be commiting thoughtcrimes now?) but also grieve over what has happened to their country.
Trees don't grow on money
That's part of the problem, we're not supposed to be nominally, or by any other measure, democratic. We're supposed to be a constitutional republic, a nation of laws which are constrained by the limited powers granted by the constitution.
Many people, including our President, have expressed the view that the constitution is an out-dated document and not relevant in this day and age. Those people are the problem!
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
Indeed Alan.
And now for our Orwell-of-the-day:
Meaningless words. In certain kinds of writing, particularly in art criticism and literary criticism, it is normal to come across long passages which are almost completely lacking in meaning. Words like romantic, plastic, values, human, dead, sentimental, natural, vitality, as used in art criticism, are strictly meaningless, in the sense that they not only do not point to any discoverable object, but are hardly ever expected to do so by the reader. When one critic writes, "The outstanding feature of Mr. X's work is its living quality," while another writes, "The immediately striking thing about Mr. X's work is its peculiar deadness," the reader accepts this as a simple difference opinion. If words like black and white were involved, instead of the jargon words dead and living, he would see at once that language was being used in an improper way. Many political words are similarly abused. The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable." The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different. Statements like Marshal Pétain was a true patriot, The Soviet press is the freest in the world, The Catholic Church is opposed to persecution, are almost always made with intent to deceive. Other words used in variable meanings, in most cases more or less dishonestly, are: class, totalitarian, science, progressive, reactionary, bourgeois, equality ...
George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language," 1946
I seriously doubt that our President, who is in fact a constitutional scholar, thinks out constitution is irrelevant. The only ones irrelevant are those who insist on adhering strictly to a 200+ year old document in everything. In case no one noticed, this isn't 1776, as it turns out, and the constitution must evolve as society has evolved. That doesn't make it irrelevant, it just makes it more relevant.
It's my understanding that Jefferson himself thought that the Constitution should be re-written or reviewed every 20 years or so, "wary of the power of the dead over the living." Several notable politicians and scholars since have expressed some desire to re-write the document or do major overhaul.
Unfortunately in this day and age, I'm not sure that any of our politicians have the integrity for the task.
I rest my case. Thanks!
On second thought, I can see that you may have the wrong impression of our constitution. It wasn't designed to give us rights, as you might believe, but rather to limit the specific authority of the state, forbid its agents from violating basic rights, and divide the government into distinct branches that would check and balance one another, preventing any single branch from amassing too much power and abusing its authority.
Typically, statists have found it to be confining, which is all the more reason to leave it alone.
Last edited by Alan; 1-11-12 at 9:39pm.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
He just votes that way.I seriously doubt that our President, who is in fact a constitutional scholar, thinks out constitution is irrelevant.
What just went on (and has been a long time building - this country really needs to repudiate the whole direction it has taken since W if there is to be any hope) violates not just the oh so super special U.S. constitution but would actually violate the constitution of many other countries (all that were originally British and many others). For instance the provisions in the NDAA not only clearly violate the U.S. constitution (5th amendment due process and 6th amendment trial by jury), but also violate the Canadian constitution.
http://www.zeropaid.com/bbs/threads/...onal-In-Canada
Now that may be kinda irrelevant if you're not Canadian, but it is interesting to note. These protections date back further than the Constitution (to the Magna Carta at least) and are way more widely adopted than by just the U.S..
Trees don't grow on money
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote