Is it 1984 yet? [Archive] - Simple Living Forums

ApatheticNoMore

6-7-13, 12:08pm

My best working theory at this point in time: is that the two parties are basically different INTEREST groups. They both represent the plutocrats. They just represent different groups of the plutocrats. So Dems may buddy up with tech and Reps with say big oil. So gee, then tech sounds better. Uh, I wouldn't be quite so sure of that if I were you, not if you realize tech is also now in bed with big fossil fuel (google is defending coal, FB wants to build the Keystone XL).

But anyway by the behavior of the parties we can know they are not "all the same party". It they were really "all the same party" they wouldn't fight tooth and nail for control of the government and they do. Why? Because they are fighting for thier own personal power and aggrandizement and gravy train (the gravy train being far more than just their government salaries) yes, but also for THEIR particular sets of plutocratic interest groups!!! For the particular sector of the plutes whose interest they serve (remember if the Reps have big oil and stuff and they do - and it's reason enough to stay far away) the Dems have not just tech but are even more in bed with the banksters. Might there be cases when one interest group is preferable to another? Sure. And vote that way if you think so :)

Regardless of whether you buy the different sets of elite interests being represented theory: what we do know is that both parties have been trashing civil liberties (that's the point of this thread right?). We know both parties share basic philosophies on things that are never discussed 1) loss of civil liberties 2) permanent war for empire.

bUU

6-7-13, 12:32pm

I think we fool ourselves by decorating our box of beliefs in either red or blue ribbons and failing to acknowledge that the package contains the same thing. The differences in our two parties are more theatrical than substantive.I disagree. There are theatrical differences and substantive differences. The substantive differences are substantial enough that it causes substantial inefficiency thereby making the situation substantially different than Oceania.

Furthermore, I think a lot of people make far too much of the similarities between the two parties as an excuse for abrogating social responsibility. I think that's a far bigger risk to America than any commonalities between the two parties poses.

Alan

6-7-13, 1:01pm

The substantive differences are substantial enough that it causes substantial inefficiency thereby making the situation substantially different than Oceania.

I'm finding the substance of that statement to be substantially confusing.

What's the difference between "We're the most transparent administration in history" and "Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia"?

bUU

6-7-13, 1:16pm

There's a big difference, but I respect your right to doggedly refuse to acknowledge it or any of the most basic facts that are the crux of our disagreement.

Alan

6-7-13, 1:31pm

There's a big difference, but I respect your right to doggedly refuse to acknowledge it or any of the most basic facts that are the crux of our disagreement.
OK bicker I'll play along. There is no difference between those two statements because they are both lies. One repeated in the real world and one in fiction. Lies that we charitably call propaganda and spend all of our time discussing and directing others attentions to, in order to ignore the real issue of the states erosion of our civil liberties.

Perhaps the 'crux of our disagreement' is that one of us fails to see the parallel.

bUU

6-7-13, 1:37pm

Or perhaps the crux of our disagreement is that the other insists on seeing a parallel that isn't there. But chatting about it seems pretty pointless. As I said above, we disagree. That's the bottom line.

creaker

6-7-13, 1:41pm

ApatheticNoMore

6-7-13, 2:01pm

Lies that we charitably call propaganda and spend all of our time discussing and directing others attentions to, in order to ignore the real issue of the states erosion of our civil liberties.

There are plenty of "real issues" but that is surely one (the one this thread is about). So then the basic question becomes: how do people address issues that aren't partisan because both parties agree on them? Whether *every* issue is that type of issue, is not even the focus *IF* the focus is indeed issues oriented.

Whether the parties agree on *everything* is an answer to: "which hanging chad should I punch this time, the R or the D?" (by the way they need not agree on absolutely everything for one to be disgusted enough to abstain) But it's not an answer to: "what do we do about issue x (in this case civil liberties which I completely agree is important) that both parties have horrendous records on?" So given that partisan voting alone, and throwing out one party and in another, won't change the civil liberties situation (although the house Dems are somewhat better - little bit of credit where it's due), what do we do to change it?

gimmethesimplelife

6-7-13, 3:34pm

Remember when it used to be considered paranoid to believe such a thing? Now, not so much.Gotta say I agree with Alan here.....it's very creepy to think that allegedly we have all these rights such as freedom of speech and freedom to post (mostly) whatever I want here, but then to find out that this information is being collected....for what honest purpose is my question? Last night on the news I heard that Verizon is handing over to the government calling history for millions of its accounts - what's up with that and why is that neccesary? What bothers me is that it seems the government can step in and collect this information WITH NO EXPLANATION OF WHY IT IS DOING SO. Gotta say I don't like that.....Rob

Alan

6-7-13, 3:54pm

Gotta say I agree with Alan here.....it's very creepy to think that allegedly we have all these rights such as freedom of speech and freedom to post (mostly) whatever I want here, but then to find out that this information is being collected....for what honest purpose is my question? Last night on the news I heard that Verizon is handing over to the government calling history for millions of its accounts - what's up with that and why is that neccesary? What bothers me is that it seems the government can step in and collect this information WITH NO EXPLANATION OF WHY IT IS DOING SO. Gotta say I don't like that.....Rob
Verizon is just the one we know about. It's not unreasonable to suspect that all domestic and foreign phone traffic is being logged by the NSA, additional reports today suggest that other major carriers were also involved. Then we find out that all electronic correspondance through Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, and Apple are being collected. The Washington Post yesterday reported that it was all being done with assistance from the service providers, although today they've changed that to indicate it may have been done without the service providers knowledge or assistance.

It all makes this long time critic of big government want to say "I told ya so!!"

Oh, and while I'm saying that, and attempting to stay on topic, does anyone yet see the beginnings of the Ministry of Truth in the ongoing Attack Watch (http://www.barackobama.com/truth-team/attack-watch/)website maintained at BarackObama.Com?

ApatheticNoMore

6-7-13, 4:24pm

I've been peeved about Obama's civil liberties abuses since NDAA, and hated 8 years of civil liberties abuses via Bush, so I guess I told you so too? But the question on what to do wasn't purely rhetorical ... was thinking maybe some independent civil liberties caucus, or trying in either or maybe best both parties to field civil liberties candidates on the primary level or ...???? Although this would depend on civil liberties actually by itself being enough of an issue with most people to matter.

Oh, and while I'm saying that, and attempting to stay on topic, does anyone yet see the beginnings of the Ministry of Truth in the ongoing Attack Watch website maintained at BarackObama.Com?

My personal take is that's kool aid for the believers. Basically I don't even think the aim of that weapon really is critics (crackdown on whistleblowers is aimed at real dissent and it's SERIOUS, it's the real line in the sand, not even having access to real information - the Attack Watch stuff just isn't). I think the aim of the Truth Team stuff is to reinforce support for Obama among those who already support him. It reinforces support through cognitive dissonance, people will be even more inclined to support what they have already defended (yes generally, yes even me now, and yes one is free to defend anything anywhere on the 'net land - but here we are talking about people recruited to provide very specific support for a politician who otherwise has violated a lot of principles liberals claimed to stand for). Basically it's to splinter any possibility of principled resistence to Obama's policies from the left.

Rogar

6-7-13, 8:39pm

It is all a unsettling, but slightly odd that it is breaking headlines just now. Google, Facebook, Verizon, and who ever have had free reign to collect information and use it for who knows what for years. My Google tablet seems to have some features that track it's location, which in some paranoid state could be used to locate tablet users for a drone strike. Not to mention all those cameras at intersections and in busy areas. Our privacy went down the river some time ago.

The question that comes to my mind is whether this lose of privacy is worth it if it prevents a terrorist attack or catches some sort of threat to national security, such as a cyber attack or cyber spying? This isn't exactly Kansas any more.

Valley

6-7-13, 9:01pm

ApatheticNoMore

6-7-13, 9:19pm

I get pretty indifferent too, like duh, the evil corrupt govenrment and it's evil corrupt people are doing evil corrupt things, and we have no civil liberties, this just weights on me like a heavy weight in a bog I've been stuck in forever and I'm tired of thinking about, tell me something I don't know (but never knew with so much proof).

But if it's breaking headlines now that's good, maybe they'll be some pushback. We are the change we've been waiting for :) The thing is any sort of movement for pushback on these types of things doesn't really exist. If you want to protest the horrible state of the environment well at least you can hold signs about Keystone XL. But there is no civil liberties movement. So the only actually previously carved channel is just for a lot of outraged people to write their congresspeople? Hmm...

The question that comes to my mind is whether this lose of privacy is worth it if it prevents a terrorist attack or catches some sort of threat to national security, such as a cyber attack or cyber spying?

Worth all the protestors that will inevitably be spyed on? Because that's what our government actually seems to do with such power, use it more against protest than actual terrorism. It's not like 1) we give up our civil liberties 2) as a result government is incredibly nosy but uses it to find some terrorists. That's the conflict the government propaganda sells, as if civil liberties were *only* about principle compared to practical concerns. I think that's false. It's more or at least also like 1) we give up our civil liberties 2) as a result government is incredibly nosy and uses it to crush protest. I don't think it's worth it as both the loss of civil liberties and protest are great losses and I think both those things are what should be weighed against: maybe the incompetent government will actually catch a terrorist with the information if it wants to, even though it's record on this is a joke (Russian govt reporting they should look into a terrorist - no biggie ...)

Of course there's all kind of other fallout, what does everyone being spied on do to free communication even among the most non-threatening people? It shuts it up. What eventually will it do to U.S. techs place in the world (I can only hope that any innovative new tech moves to Iceland or somewhere - well a person can hope .. for change :))

flowerseverywhere

6-7-13, 9:41pm

IN 2001 When the Patriot act gave government agencies more power for wiretaps, financial transaction scrutiny and detention of illegal immigrants we were silent
In 2002 when Guantanamo bay started to be filled with detainees without a trial and not according to the Geneva conventions, we were silent
When we realized there were no weapons of mass destructions in Iraq knowing that our invasion caused the death of innocent civilians like any war does, we were silent

Why are you upset now?

This is a scarey world we live in. I still have faith in the government for those of us who are honest and lawful to continue living as we have been.

ApatheticNoMore

6-7-13, 10:41pm

I've been upset. Though not able to sustain a constant a state of uniterupted rage and kill myself with stress quite yet. But what can I say, I'm working on it .... :) (mostly I check out with apathy of even following politics for awhile because I get *too* disgusted). And I've not been able to single handedly create a movement that doesn't seem to exist out of thin air nor tried (the anti Iraq war (and somewhat anti-wars in general) movement was a real movement though - if it hadn't gotten diverted by electorial politics, it had potential for protesting empire and the police state).

bae

6-7-13, 10:52pm

There was a large anti-war movement here in my community. Protests every week, lots of visibility.

It pretty much vanished the day Obama was elected, and hasn't returned.

What's up with that, do you suppose?

The only folks I've seen consistently opposing this nonsense in my neck of the woods have been our very very minority Libertarian community. Folks who seem evenly loathed by both our local "progressives" and "conservatives".

bUU

6-8-13, 5:19am

What's up with that, do you suppose?I suspect that people realize that Obama really would rather not embroil us in foreign wars, as readily as his predecessor desired it, preferring instead a diplomatic solution, and that accounts for the difference in attitude toward his administration in that respect.

Gregg

6-8-13, 9:33am

I suspect that people realize that Obama really would rather not embroil us in foreign wars, as readily as his predecessor desired it, preferring instead a diplomatic solution, and that accounts for the difference in attitude toward his administration in that respect.

Lowered chances of US involvement could certainly help explain the proliferation of government violence targeting citizens in many countries.

The question that comes to my mind is whether this lose of privacy is worth it if it prevents a terrorist attack or catches some sort of threat to national security, such as a cyber attack or cyber spying?

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

I'm finding the substance of that statement to be substantially confusing.

Doublespeak?

bUU

6-8-13, 10:38am

Doublespeak?Rather something some folks simply don't want to hear.

Spartana

6-8-13, 12:14pm

Hoover. McCarthy. Others before them. Others after them. It's always been 1984 - they just don't send us to the Ministry of Love to re-educate us with "special hugs" :-)

peggy

6-8-13, 12:26pm

So, which civil liberties? Which civil liberties have any of you lost? You all pretty much seem to agree that we have 'lost' civil liberties, and this (democratic) government has all but ground us under their heel of oppression/communism/socialism/1984ish style of total control of every tiny little aspect of our miserable little lives....have I got it?
(adjusting my tin foil hat )

It has been my observation that our civil liberties have, in fact, expanded. Certainly since the oh-so-perfect founding fathers first set pen to paper. And THIS administration, this democratic administration with a democratic President, has done more to try to EXPAND our civil liberties than any other in recent memory.
The LIBERTY to marry the consenting adult of your choice (which the right doesn't exactly want you to have that civil liberty)
The LIBERTY to vote which, again, the far right is actively trying to limit, or exclude many from this liberty (even though there actually really really isn't a problem with voter fraud)*
The LIBERTY to control your own body (again, the far right would take this liberty away from women and put it into the hands of....wait for it, controlling government types who would actually have the right to preform invasive internal probes...talk about 1984!)

* The far right, who actually DO WANT to take away your civil rights, want to fingerprint, and photograph, and demand several forms of ID simply to vote. However, if you want to buy a gun..no problem! Don't you just love those priorities! :0!

Now, as to the 'cascade of corruption' from these last few weeks.
1) Benghazi is a no-show. I mean, give it up already! Obama is no more responsible for this attack than Bush was responsible for 9/11. In fact, under Bush our embassies/outposts were attacked 11 times overseas, and something like 30 people killed all told. And let's not even talk about the attack on our own soil that killed thousands. I'm still waiting for those investigations and charges of criminality/cover-up.

2) That Fox person is a journalist like The National Enquirer is a hard hitting investigative newspaper. IN fact, they are actually the same, aren't they.

3)The IRS thing. Those of you who know your history, but maybe pretend ignorance of it, know that after Nixon's abuses of his position, the IRS and the White House have been set up with many degrees of separation. No, Obama didn't direct this low level mischief. There is no 'enemies list' and liberal PACs were investigated as well as conservative. The whole thing was badly done, and heads will roll (already have actually) but Issa's desperate attempts to connect Obama to it are only making him and the far right look more and more ridiculous every day.*
* IMO all PACs should be investigated. (thank you SCOTUS and Citizens United) Now, to be perfectly honest, you all DO know that these PACs were, in fact, engaging in political activities and probably should have been investigated. Just a little more elegantly. Funny how Obama's 'enemies list' didn't include Carl Rove and his political...oops, community outreach...PAC. For a clever evil genius, Obama isn't very smart, is he!;)

4) As to collecting data. First of all, this program isn't new. In fact, it was instigated by...again wait..a REPUBLICAN administration (that champion of civil liberties) No one seemed to be upset then, as it was all 'to fight terrorism'. Now to the facts. (disclaimer, I don't necessarily condone this, just want to stop the 1984-fear mongering) The government isn't listening in on your conversations. They can't without a court ordered wire tap, which is different than what this is. All this is is connections. The data tells that this phone number called this phone number, and it lasted this long on this date. Just numbers. No conversations. And trust me there aren't armies of people sitting in a room trying to connect your phone number to your aunts number unless your aunt is a terrorist. And even then they need a reason to suspect her of being a terrorist and to connect her calls. Then, and only then, if they have reasonable reason, they can get a phone tapping court order to listen in on your aunts calls.

I think I've covered all the faux-conspiracies/outrages the right seems to be interested in keeping us spun up about. If I've missed any, well, there is always a fresh crop of Obama evil-doing to hash over.:~)

ApatheticNoMore

6-8-13, 1:13pm

So, which civil liberties? Which civil liberties have any of you lost? You all pretty much seem to agree that we have 'lost' civil liberties

they are mostly in the bill of rights. 4th, 5th, 6th amendments (more commonly known by search and seizure, habius corpus etc.)

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

One could say there is no direct threat to freedom of speech, but I certainly think the AP stuff could be interpreted as a threat to freedom of the press, it accomplishes much the same thing as threats to freedom of speech anyway just not by direct control but by intimidation. Of course the AP thing is not unique.

and this (democratic) government has all but ground us under their heel of oppression/communism/socialism/1984ish style of total control of every tiny little aspect of our miserable little lives....have I got it?

yea pretty much although confusing corporatism with communism and socialism is playing it pretty fast and loose. But totalitarian measures have existed in several different forms of economic systems.

The far right, who actually DO WANT to take away your civil rights, want to fingerprint, and photograph, and demand several forms of ID simply to vote.

How quaint. Why not just use facial recognition software with pictures from drivers liscenses and facebook posts? That right is so old fashioned and fuddy duddy, not even up with modern technology. Really though those are the technologies that could be brought to bear, in comparison to that photo IDs are quaint.

More seriously: there is an attempt to control exactly which party gets in office and there is plenty of dishonesty there (vote machine hacking even - Anonymous reported an attempt to hack the 2012 presidential election). The fight for party among the party insiders - I mean those with actual *power* and *money* in the political system - is to the death. But why such a pitched battle when they seem to mostly sell out to the highest bidder in the end anyway? Competiting plutocratic interest groups .. personal agrandizement mostly, I guess?

peggy

6-8-13, 4:48pm

You haven't lost your 4th amendment rights. Illegal search and seizure is still illegal. The phone records aren't really 'search and seizure' in the truest sense of the word as, again, they are just numbers on a page, and nothing really specific, and they still can't actually 'seize' your specific records/phone calls without a warrant. If a known terrorist calls you several times, then, yeah, they will probably seek a warrant and listen in on your calls. I'm OK with that, as are, I think, most people. I mean, if we had been able to thwart 9/11 or the Boston bombing by actually connecting the dots, wouldn't you want that?
Now, there have always been over eager law enforcement types, but that has absolutely nothing to do with Obama, or even the times we live in, and is usually more on the local level. Individual local departments with aggressive policies, but usually the feds try to reign in such departments. Of course, that brings in a barage of 'government overreach' complaints. I'm not your google monkey so you will have to look for yourself, but we have all seen such examples, and maybe even been subject to them. A really small snapshot of this type thing is the speed traps in certain towns/counties. Government strong-arming at it's best, but people often forget local government is ALSO still government.(side note: this is why I find the claims of pure states rights folks kind of silly as they seem to be laboring under the assumption that THEIR state/local government could do it better/more efficiently/more honestly):~)

Not sure where you think your 5th amendment rights are gone. Especially since one of the big criticisms of this administration is that they want to bring detainees here to face our criminal courts, and critics say these folks don't deserve our justice system, that they will 'get off' because of the plethora of rights we afford criminals. If you commit a crime you will get your day in court, and likely get off due to clever lawyers using every loophole in our rights. If you are talking about the drone program, and you usually are, then I have to say I'm still not decided about that. If it were Bush in office, he would simply send 100,000 of our closest friends and loved ones to go over there, spending trillions of dollars, and blast the country to rubble to get the few really bad guys who are there and really are bad guys. Although the thought of it is messy, and uncomfortable truth, war and death is never pretty, and as Patton said, to paraphrase, 'The thing isn't to go die for your country, but to make the other poor bastard die for his country" or something to that effect.
But, to put your mind at ease, no, Obama isn't going to send drones to kill you while you sip coffee in your favorite cafe. He isn't deploying drones in the US to murder US citizens, and if he ever did, it would be front page news on EVERY paper, web site, news program, etc...In fact, this is a pretty good guide for most of the 'earth shattering' things we read about in chain e-mails, or hear on Fox. If they REALLY DID cure cancer, find the fountain of youth, or develop a pill that lets you eat everything you wanted but still lose weight, it would be WORLD NEWS. Real news! That includes Obama sending drones to LA.:0!

And the 6th amendment is kind of related to the 5th as far as that is concerned. Again, this isn't to say there hasn't been some isolated abuses, but it isn't widespread, or regular, or something particular to this administration.

Now this phone records thing, and to a certain degree, the 5th/6th amendment stuff you talk about, you have to realize this stuff was put in place by the Bush administration. A president isn't a king, or a dictator. He cannot simply wave his hand and do away with what he doesn't like. And thank goodness for that! Congress enacted the Patriot act (even the very name smacks of right wing, doesn't it?) and only congress can gut/reverse/change it.

Throughout our history there has been over reach, and attempted over reach, and we usually right it. But I still believe we enjoy more actual rights now than at any point in our history. But we need to be vigilant, that's for sure. These attempts to control women, or limit voting rights, or even do away with unions (god forbid) needs to be stopped. And corporations AREN'T people, as it turns out. But I digress...;)

bUU

6-9-13, 6:01am

It has been my observation that our civil liberties have, in fact, expanded.Perhaps part of the difference in perspective stems from some folks measuring things only from their own personal perspective - like determining the state of the economy by looking at nothing other than the contents of their own wallet. When something is more widely evident, there could be a lot more of if, but those who are looking only at their own patch claim to see less of it.

ApatheticNoMore

6-9-13, 9:58am

I suspect you don't feel any real brunt of loss of civil liberties unless 1) you're a muslim american especially if from an arab country or 2) you're deep into activism. Still they collect the records on *everyone* apparently.

creaker

6-9-13, 10:04am

I suspect you don't feel any real brunt of loss of civil liberties unless 1) you're a muslim-american especially if from an arab country or 2) you're deep into activism. Still they collect the records on *everyone* apparently.

Civil liberties are one of those things where you won't notice not having them until you actually try to use them. You will always have the freedom to do what they want you to do. It's what happens when you do otherwise that puts them to the test.

The bottom line is that some day, some court may say your freedoms were stepped on - but on any particular day the governent can do whatever they decide to do. The government indulges your freedoms. And at anytime they can decide to otherwise.

Alan

6-9-13, 10:15am

It has been my observation that our civil liberties have, in fact, expanded. Certainly since the oh-so-perfect founding fathers first set pen to paper. And THIS administration, this democratic administration with a democratic President, has done more to try to EXPAND our civil liberties than any other in recent memory.

This belief is reminiscent of the Newspeak word 'blackwhite'.
Like so many Newspeak words, this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. This demands a continuous alteration of the past, made possible by the system of thought which really embraces all the rest, and which is known in Newspeak as doublethink. Doublethink is basically the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.

— Part II, Chapter IX — The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_and_Practice_of_Oligarchical_Collectivi sm)

dmc

6-9-13, 12:13pm

Dear Leader said they were only taking a modest amount of our rights away. At least thats what the NSA was caught at. We also have to trust the folks at Homeland Security and the IRS, CIA, FBI, FAA, TSA, border patrol, ect.

But since Dear Leader is in charge there is nothing to worry about.

Gregg

6-9-13, 12:21pm

1) Benghazi is a no-show. I mean, give it up already! Obama is no more responsible for this attack than Bush was responsible for 9/11.

I don't believe there is much talk about the President being responsible for the attacks, only that the administration was warned in advance of the possibility and did not respond to those warnings.

2) That Fox person is a journalist like The National Enquirer is a hard hitting investigative newspaper. IN fact, they are actually the same, aren't they.

Who?

3)The IRS thing.... There is no 'enemies list' ...

http://www.barackobama.com/truth-team/attack-watch/

4) As to collecting data. First of all, this program isn't new.

The defense of "they all do it" or "I'm just doing what the last guy did" is weak no matter who says it or who the last guy was.

Blackdog Lin

6-10-13, 10:37pm

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-06-10/monday-humor-1-its-funny-coz-its-true

ApatheticNoMore

6-11-13, 4:11am

I'd support impeachment if it can all be traced back to Obama. 'nuff said

Not EVEN with the expectation of anything better after (actually immediately after we'd have the vice president). Not with expectations of getting good policy or anything - because the political situation of this country is lunacy. Not even with the belief that bureaucracies like the NSA are so easily stopped by merely disposing of leaders. But you have to stand for something or you'll fall for anything, or something. Just to draw that line.

ApatheticNoMore

6-11-13, 8:11am

I hope that's radical enough and yea I hope it happens. It's not that the revelations are shocking, actually extremely unshocking, not even shocking enough for jokes to be that funny really. It's not hardly news because of paranoia (yea that's what the voice in my head told me also!), but because one follows previous news, only when I've told people everything is monitored before, some have thought me crazy. And hey even I don't make up stuff like "yes and it's all legal under a secret order by a secret court" though I know such things exists, because that's a bit much. It's not that I get super sucked into the story (resist ... must resist ... though I love me Greenwald generally). It's just that the guy who leaked this (just basic informing of Americans) had to flee the country. Are they after him now? And all of this is now known by *everyone* pretty much, and is now perfectly normal. *That* is why we need impeachment, or something equal.

What is there to say about living in systems that are so evil? You just want out of them. Are you paranoid if you come to see so much as vast interlocking evil? The government and the corporations but perhaps I repeat myself. Why does a whistleblower blow whistles, maybe many ideological reasons but, I guess just basically because one sees no future for the world or at least their country if things continue on the current path anyway, so at a certain point: little choice. I have no insider knowledge of almost anything though so I'm safe from being a whistleblower :) The everyday stuff you encounter day to day, that's annoying, the stuff you read about in the news about all that is really going on: that's evil. Could be worse, yea sure, can always be worse. But dude fled the country :(.

bUU

6-11-13, 9:07am

Are you paranoid if you come to see so much as vast interlocking evil? I think you've hit the nail on the head there. The reality we live in is far far far less organized, far far far less coordinated, far far far less efficient, and far far far less focused on typical individuals than would support such a suspicion as anything other than paranoia.

Alan

6-11-13, 9:57am

I think you've hit the nail on the head there. The reality we live in is far far far less organized, far far far less coordinated, far far far less efficient, and far far far less focused on typical individuals than would support such a suspicion as anything other than paranoia.

It's hard for me to believe that some of the recent revelations are the result of less coordination or efficiency. It is certainly no longer paranoid to believe that our government, through it's controlled agencies, use the power of the bureaucracy to diminish it's political enemies, to coordinate a data collection effort, focused on the citizenry, of a size and scope that most people would never have considered possible and truly stretches the boundaries of the people's consititutional right to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects". Those fictional big brother tactics are no longer fiction.

To continue the 1984 theme, which is amazingly easy these days, it's funny to see that this administration has sort of screwed up the 'unperson' thing by creating them rather than eliminating them. It seems that when EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson was found to be conducting EPA business under a fake name, Richard Windsor, seemingly for the purpose of bypassing FOIA requests and the much vaunted 'transparency' promise of this administration, the ruse went so far as to result in the unperson (Richard Windsor) actually receiving at least six ethics and cyber security certifications.

Seriously, you can't make this stuff up!

bUU

6-11-13, 11:35am

It's hard for me to believe that some of the recent revelations are the result of less coordination or efficiency.The question is whether you can believe that some of the recent revelations have happened in an environment inherently less coordinated and less efficient than Oceania. I'm not going to bother searching your posting history, but I bet you post message all the time highlighting the inherently less coordinated and less efficient nature of democratic governments.

It is certainly no longer paranoid to believe that our government, through it's controlled agencies, use the power of the bureaucracy to diminish it's political enemiesYes it is, even though you don't agree.

Those fictional big brother tactics are no longer fiction.The claim that it is news how our government protects our nation from threats foreign and domestic is, itself, fiction.

ApatheticNoMore

6-11-13, 12:21pm

I think you've hit the nail on the head there. The reality we live in is far far far less organized, far far far less coordinated, far far far less efficient, and far far far less focused on typical individuals than would support such a suspicion as anything other than paranoia.

It was kind of a rhetorical question, or if not exactly rhetorical thinking aloud really. It wasn't a request for an amateur psychiatric diagnosis over the internet (even if one WERE a psychiatrist, even qualified people can't actually diagnose anyone over the internet - that's NOT possible - they have no meet an actual fleshy person not wall of text).

I don't mind the first part of this quoted paragraph actually as it's about knowledge and how we know things which I'm ok with (but I think it's inevitably based on trying to make sense of vast quantities of data - no not by the NSA - I mean by one's brain :)), I don't like the second half insinuating an actual psychiatric diagnosis (though I used the term, I used it rather unseriously though, didn't really want it taken seriously and weaponized). It's simply not true as I'm not psychotic, but you can believe that or not if you like, again not something one can know over the internet.

Alan

6-11-13, 12:26pm

I'm not going to bother searching your posting history, but I bet you post message all the time highlighting the inherently less coordinated and less efficient nature of democratic governments.

If it would make it any easier for you to justify your opinions, I'll create the search for you and simply pass along the link: http://www.simplelivingforum.net/search.php?searchid=1217186 That should save you some time. :devil:

bUU

6-11-13, 12:43pm

I'm not sure I understand: Are you saying that you feel you never post messages highlighting the inherently less coordinated and less efficient nature of democratic governments?

Alan

6-11-13, 12:46pm

I'm not sure I understand:
Of course you don't. Then there'd be nothing to bicker about.

But, for the record, I do sometimes post about inefficiencies, among other things, of democratic governments. Mainly because it's true.
But in this thread, I'm posting about the parallels of this democratic government and the government depicted in Orwell's 1984, using timely references to the police state tactics we've recently learned about, the tactics of intimidation of those deemed to be political undesirables by the IRS, the tactics of intimidation of the press by the DOJ and the propensity of our various government officials to lie, mis-direct and obfuscate up to the point that they can't anymore.

I know that's a broader discussion than the one-party rule in Oceania, but it is what it is.

bUU

6-11-13, 12:49pm

Okay so you aren't going to explain your vague remark. Fair enough.

ApatheticNoMore

6-11-13, 12:51pm

The question is whether you can believe that some of the recent revelations have happened in an environment inherently less coordinated and less efficient than Oceania.

I know it's the title of this thread, but what disturbs me about the incident is not how it compares to an entirely fictional novel. I find it plenty disturbing in many aspects by itself.

It is certainly no longer paranoid to believe that our government, through it's controlled agencies, use the power of the bureaucracy to diminish it's political enemies

Yes it is, even though you don't agree.

bleh shouldn't even introduce such terms into conversation, you get stuck in hopeless pschobabble deadends. Buu MD PSYD has diagnosed over the internet. They said that it couldn't be done, but he with a chuckle replied ...

The claim that it is news how our government protects our nation from threats foreign and domestic is, itself, fiction.

I think many people suspected it. Of course I suspect our threats are in large part a fictional construct as well. Al Queda as The Enemy is a fictional construct, when the U.S. government arms that exact group when it's serves U.S. government ends.

bUU

6-11-13, 12:58pm

I know it's the title of this thread, but what disturbs me about the incident is not how it compares to an entirely fictional novel. I find it plenty disturbing in many aspects by itself.And there's some merit in that, but what I see is the vast majority of the hubbub simply over-reaction, over-suspicion, and specifically anti-living-in-community-with-others sentiment. There is a heck of a lot of people who are clearly being affected by the personal sovereignty nonsense that cropped up in our nation in the last decade or two. It's polluting more mainstream waters, and that's a very bad thing.

bleh shouldn't even introduce such terms into conversation, you get stuck in hopeless pschobabble deadends. Buu MD PSYD has diagnosed over the internet. They said that it couldn't be done, but he with a chuckle replied ... I'm sorry you aren't able to hold up your side of a discussion without digressing into this kind of nonsense.

I think many people suspected it. Of course I suspect our threats are in large part a fictional construct as well. Al Queda as The Enemy is a fictional construct, when the U.S. government arms that exact group when it's serves U.S. government ends.And you'll have to come to terms with the fact that many reasonable people think that's utterly ridiculous.

bae

6-11-13, 2:18pm

"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?... Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?... The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact, there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking-not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness."

ApatheticNoMore

6-11-13, 2:28pm

And there's some merit in that, but what I see is the vast majority of the hubbub simply over-reaction, over-suspicion, and specifically anti-living-in-community-with-others sentiment.

Knowing little about what the government does, and it knowing everything about what you do, is extreme heirarchy. Yes you can build "communities" like that (there's plenty of historical precedence there) but I hardly consider it desirable.

bleh shouldn't even introduce such terms into conversation, you get stuck in hopeless pschobabble deadends. Buu MD PSYD has diagnosed over the internet. They said that it couldn't be done, but he with a chuckle replied ...

I'm sorry you aren't able to hold up your side of a discussion without digressing into this kind of nonsense.

I'm sorry I even re-introduced the term, I consider the term non-meaningful (ie content free) except in a true psychiatric context which clearly this is not. I'm sorry you wanted to pick up the content free term.

And you'll have to come to terms with the fact that many reasonable people think that's utterly ridiculous

and many perfectly reasonable people think it's perfectly reasonable. What is the point? Oh right there never is one. But I have to come to terms, actually no I don't actually have to anything. I don't think I made the argument that holding a different opinion, even one I think is wrong, is de facto evidence of irrationality (that's not what I meant by fictional construct), so I don't know what reasonable people may think has to do with anything.

Gregg

6-11-13, 2:45pm

Of course I suspect our threats are in large part a fictional construct as well.

I'm of the opinion that a vast majority of the threats aimed at this county are fictional, created to serve an underlying purpose. 250 Years ago European powers were too far flung to pose the level of threat assigned to them. Communism would have imploded nicely on its own with no assistance from democracy. 9-11 remains somewhat suspicious for a variety of reasons. Etc.

Money is power and the economy is global. The power brokers work on that stage and so manipulation of the most significant organization on Earth is simply a natural goal. Beyond that I am able to draw no conclusion except to agree with those that have determined the primary threat to Americans is our own 3 headed hydra, the government.

peggy

6-11-13, 3:01pm

Of course you don't. Then there'd be nothing to bicker about.

But, for the record, I do sometimes post about inefficiencies, among other things, of democratic governments. Mainly because it's true.
But in this thread, I'm posting about the parallels of this democratic government and the government depicted in Orwell's 1984, using timely references to the police state tactics we've recently learned about, the tactics of intimidation of those deemed to be political undesirables by the IRS, the tactics of intimidation of the press by the DOJ and the propensity of our various government officials to lie, mis-direct and obfuscate up to the point that they can't anymore.

I know that's a broader discussion than the one-party rule in Oceania, but it is what it is.

Hmm...grievous wrongs indeed! but, just for the sake of argument, let's look at each of these charges by themselves.>8)
First of all, by THIS DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT, I assume you mean this Obama administration democratic government. OK
'Intimidation of those deemed to be political undesirables by the IRS". Well, after much sanctimonious chest beating and spun up faux outrage on the right, it comes out that the one who decided to do these investigations was in fact a far right rightie.
http://americablog.com/2013/06/conservative-republican-ran-cincinnati-irs-office-that-investigated-tea-party.
Dang! Foiled again! :0! And why did he do it? Well, for starters, these groups WERE in fact engaging in political activities. Let us not forget why the IRS investigated them in the first place (along with some liberal groups) These groups wanted TAX EXEMPT STATUS, even as they raked in the undisclosed piles of dough (thank you SCOTUS) So these great Americans, who want to 'take back America', whatever that means, were trying to fool the government they criticized for being, well, easily fooled, and game the system. I'm sure it could have been conducted in a better way, but the REASON they were investigated is still valid. But, the Tea Party Taliban will try to muddy the water by misdirecting the conversation to the fact that they were investigated at all (how dare the IRS do their job!) But go ahead...I'm sure this horse is still gasping for a little breath yet. it's entertaining to see how short Darrell Issa's 'beating stick' gets even as his nose grows!:D

DOJ tactics of intimidation. Do you mean that Fox guy. Hardly qualifies as 'a journalist', but let's not go there. Every government, in the world and throughout the history of our government, has tried to direct news, especially when it isn't kind to them. Not pretty, but there you are. Hardly an invention of THIS government. And I'm not certain there is some great intimidation going on here. (disclaimer...I don't condone this, but will call BS when someone tries to suggest this is some sort of Obama/democratic invention) Adding this to an "Obama is evil dictator" list is disingenuous at best.

"...Our various government officials to lie, mis-direct, and obfuscate..." I could not agree more. I am sick of republicans lying about Obamacare, swarms of swarthy people coming over the border to kill us in our sleep, the 47%, etc....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/06/11/ted-cruz-gives-away-the-game/
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/10/1215032/-Here-s-one-reason-Darrell-Issa-didn-t-want-to-release-the-full-IRS-transcripts#

1984 was published in 1949. Since about 1950 people have been trying to convince everyone else that HERE, NOW, THIS is 1984! Kind of how when folks can't think of anything else to bring to the argument, they will invoke Hitler.;)

Alan

6-11-13, 3:19pm

Hi Peggy, that reminds me....

Winston Smith: How's the Newspeak Committee?

Syme: Working overtime. Plusbig waste is in adjectives. Plusbig waste is timing the language to scientific advance.

Winston Smith: ...yes.

Syme: It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words. You wouldn't have seen the Dictionary 10th edition, would you Smith? It's that thick.
[illustrates thickness with fingers] The 11th Edition will be that [narrows fingers] thick.

Winston Smith: So, The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect?

Syme: The secret is to move from translation, to direct thought, to automatic response. No need for self-discipline. Language coming from here
[the larynx]

Syme: , not from here
[the brain]

Tillotson's Friend: [leans over from another table] Excuse me for intruding. But what you're saying is that we should be rid of the last vestiges of Goldsteinism when the language has been cleaned. I couldn't be more in agreement with you, brother.

bUU

6-11-13, 4:24pm

Yes you can build "communities" like that (there's plenty of historical precedence there) but I hardly consider it desirable. If you choose to look at it in the manner you have chosen to, there's no wonder that you don't see the value of in living in community with others.

I'm sorry you wanted to pick up the content free term.Rationalize it any way that helps you sleep.

But I have to come to terms, actually no I don't actually have to anything.The disclosures this week won't change the nature of what our nation does to protect against enemies foreign and domestic, so you either will have to come to terms with it, or leave, which is, in its own way, coming to terms with it.

LDAHL

6-11-13, 5:01pm

250 Years ago European powers were too far flung to pose the level of threat assigned to them.

One of them torched Washington.

Communism would have imploded nicely on its own with no assistance from democracy.

It took 70 years with democracy churlishly insisting on its own survival. Without that, it probably would have collapsed under the weight of its inherent stupidity, but it might have followed more of an Imperial Roman timeframe.

9-11 remains somewhat suspicious for a variety of reasons. Etc.

Just ask any truther.

Alan

6-12-13, 9:26am

Interest in this thread's topic seems to be growing at a phenominal rate: http://www.today.com/news/sales-orwells-1984-over-6-000-percent-after-nsa-news-6C10282307

Amazon has recorded a spike in sales of the George Orwell novel, “1984” in the wake of revelations about the National Security Agency's data collection programs (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/06/18796204-nsa-snooping-has-foiled-multiple-terror-plots-feinstein?lite).
The centennial edition of the book ranked number 4 on the seller’s “movers and shakers list,” (http://www.amazon.com/gp/movers-and-shakers/books/ref=zg_bsms_nav_0) as of Tuesday afternoon. Book sales increased by more than 6,000 percent within the last 24 hours, jumping to the 123rd spot on book sales overall, from it's spot at 7,636 the previous day.

The book, originally published in 1948, centers on a rebellious effort against totalitarianism and was meant to serve as a futuristic look into a government with overreaching powers.

Gregg

6-12-13, 9:43am

One of them torched Washington.

And the Soviets did manage to invade Afghanistan, but I'm not convinced either would be conqueror found the desired outcome.

It took 70 years with democracy churlishly insisting on its own survival. Without that, it probably would have collapsed under the weight of its inherent stupidity, but it might have followed more of an Imperial Roman timeframe.

Soviet communism collapsed because the practice removes the incentive to achieve from those who are capable, a trait which dooms a society to stagnate at best. I will agree with those who feel the Reagan arms race accelerated the process, but (IMO) the outcome was inevitable either way.

Just ask any truther.

My most enlightening conversation to date (concerning 9-11) was with a structural engineer who works on very large, very tall buildings. As far as I could tell this man had no political axe to grind, but he was quite adamant regarding how the super-structure of tower would fail under the stress of a localized crash/explosion/fire. His projections were quite different from the actual events. It didn't turn me into a "truther", but it did become difficult to deny that parts of the day's events fell outside the expected margin of error.

nswef

6-12-13, 10:53am

I also would suggest re reading Farenheit 451- I read it a couple years ago and was amazed at the parallels to today- especially the noisy news!

ApatheticNoMore

6-12-13, 12:13pm

If you choose to look at it in the manner you have chosen to, there's no wonder that you don't see the value of in living in community with others.

Well I live in an urban area, not a small town, so in many ways urban areas are not small town communities and you don't always know everyone in town. Oh well, I know it has it critics and they may be right, but taking on the whole of urban civilization is a lot more quixotic a fight than just criticizing a government gone wrong. Other than that you have no idea how I live in community and what I value as demonstrated by my actions (you really don't, you are making this accusation at someone who does a LOT more to try to be involved locally than the majority do. I am an example of trying to live differently than most, and be more involved locally - no I'm not some unique saint or anything, but I do make very deliberate choices to do so). But that has nothing to do with the NSA. I don't see them as my community. It has nothing to do with giving certain people more and more information and thus power over us the governed while we have less and less information about the government and what they are doing, thus inevitably producing extreme power imbalances.

I'm sorry you wanted to pick up the content free term.

Rationalize it any way that helps you sleep.

yea I can't sleep because of your superior arguments ... >8) I do admit the NSA stuff is not surprising but disturbing as hell, especially how they are going after Snowden, so that might trouble my sleep plenty.

bUU

6-12-13, 12:28pm

I don't see them as my community.That much is obvious. Yet, this is a democratic republic, like it or leave it.

yea I can't sleep because of your superior arguments ... >8) If it isn't the case then stop posting such silly comments as the one I was replying to.

I do admit the NSA stuff is not surprising but disturbing as hell, especially how they are going after Snowden, so that might trouble my sleep plenty.I'm not personally invested in Snowden either way, but by all accounts Snowden is guilty of crimes. You may appreciate having obtained the information he exposed, but there isn't even anyone on his side who (a) is presenting a legal argument defending his actions against the espionage act, or (b) is presenting a legal argument proving that the government was obligated to reveal any of the information Snowden revealed. The reality is that these were national secrets, they were almost surely legitimate national secrets, and even if a special independent prosecutor looked at the situation, they'd have remained secret.

Call it civil disobedience, if you want to, but remember that both Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. were both honorable enough to protest in place and allow themselves to be arrested and jailed for their crimes. Snowden obviously cares more about his personal comfort than honorably highlighting the injustices he claims. Actually, more likely, he realizes that unlike Gandhi and King, once the politically-induced hubbub dies down, more people will end up concluding that Snowden should be punished for carelessly risking American national security rather than rewarded for doing so.

bae

6-12-13, 12:38pm

"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

ApatheticNoMore

6-12-13, 1:38pm

Call it civil disobedience, if you want to, but remember that both Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. were both honorable enough to protest in place and allow themselves to be arrested and jailed for their crimes.

But if Martin Luther King had fled the country maybe he would have died an old man in his bed of natural causes ... and in a just world that is how he would have died.

Snowden obviously cares more about his personal comfort than honorably highlighting the injustices he claims.

And are you volunteering to serve a prison sentence in the brutal U.S. prison system to right some injustice? (not to mention that as a political prisoner he may face worse than just the ordinary U.S. prison system brutality which is brutal enough. Everyone knows the U.S. tortures when it wants to etc.). No? Then don't criticize Snowden on that ground.

ApatheticNoMore

6-12-13, 1:45pm

Amazon has recorded a spike in sales of the George Orwell novel, “1984” in the wake of revelations about the National Security Agency's data collection programs.
The centennial edition of the book ranked number 4 on the seller’s “movers and shakers list,” as of Tuesday afternoon. Book sales increased by more than 6,000 percent within the last 24 hours, jumping to the 123rd spot on book sales overall, from it's spot at 7,636 the previous day.

Yes good :). And hey Amazon is a guilty pleasure :). However .... when you get right down to it Amazon is not your friend, Amazon has and will cooperate with the security state, they did with Wikileaks. Amazon is now in all liklihood (though we don't have any leaks on that so I don't have proof) also collecting data for the security state, yea Amazon probably works for big brother. Better to walk away from the corporate state and the state favored corporations that serve the corporate state. Just say no. Stop being part.

Gregg

6-12-13, 1:55pm

1984 was published in 1949. Since about 1950 people have been trying to convince everyone else that HERE, NOW, THIS is 1984!

I'm sure there is more than a little truth to that peggy. I don't know if Orwell saw 1984 as purely a work of fiction, a reflection on what was already happening post-WWII or if he meant it as a warning. What I am pretty sure of is that it takes something to make people start thinking we've reached that point. It took a spark in 1950 and it does today as well. The difference is that the old sparks rarely go away, they just get buried under the next great caper and are forgotten. Each act of government over-reach (from my POV) in the past 60 years has been just a little more egregious than the last. The frog's still swimming, but the water is getting hot. And, beyond not putting an end to the program, I'm not really blaming President Obama for this one. He was likely just the next guy in line that had to be told about this when plausible deniability was no longer an option.

bUU

6-12-13, 3:39pm

But if Martin Luther King had fled the country maybe he would have died an old man in his bed of natural causes ... and in a just world that is how he would have died.A remarkably ridiculous attempt to distract attention away from a point you didn't like. The fact of the matter is that running and hiding, as Snowden has, is craven and demonstrates that his intention isn't honorable civil disobedience - there's no covering up that fact.

And are you volunteering to serve a prison sentence in the brutal U.S. prison system to right some injustice? (not to mention that as a political prisoner he may face worse than just the ordinary U.S. prison system brutality which is brutal enough. Everyone knows the U.S. tortures when it wants to etc.). No? Then don't criticize Snowden on that ground.Another ridiculous attempt to distract attention away from a point you didn't like. The fact of the matter is that there is no defense for committing espionage, and Snowden's action doesn't even qualify as civil disobedience, for the reasons I mentioned and you tried to ignore.

ApatheticNoMore

6-12-13, 6:24pm

The fact of the matter is that running and hiding, as Snowden has, is craven

surely no more craven than a life where you never do anything where you have to run and hide (although true few people have that type of access, so they lack that dubious "opportunity" in the first place). So at the very worst he's no more craven than EVERYONE ELSE, any random person you could pick.

Of course he actually did have to give up many aspects of his life to make his choice, something most people will never face. And he does take a risk of prosecution, something he is no doubt aware of.

If civil disobedience requires martrydom, I think you just have a problem with civil disobedience period.

I guess one could set the bar for what they classify as "civil disobedience" anywhere they like. It's not "civil disobedience unless your willing to set yourself on fire like a Buddhist monk". Yea and if such an idea was actually widely believed, you'd have the most obedient society on the planet! So obviously that's a more extreme example, but you're still calling for pretty extreme martyrdom as a condition of disobedience.

bUU

6-13-13, 5:02am

Living a life of honor isn't craven.

Civil disobedience requires honor and that means being accountable for the laws you choose to break. It does not require dying. In the cases I outlined for you, Gandhi and King were jailed. How ridiculous of you to make up that nonsense about martyrdom to try to distract attention away from a point you didn't like but didn't have a reasonable response to.

As I said, civil disobedience does require owning up to the crime and accepting the lawful punishment.

ApatheticNoMore

6-13-13, 6:05am

It does not require dying. In the cases I outlined for you, Gandhi and King were jailed. How ridiculous of you to make up that nonsense about martyrdom to try to distract attention away from a point you didn't like but didn't have a reasonable response to.

blah, blah name calling blah blah belittling

But to actually address the point and not your agumentive techniques, I think we disagree on just exactly how brutal this state, this government, can be when it wants to punish. Now I can't say exactly how brutal they will be as in: "yep, they'll kill him, that's all there is to it". But I know a few things I suspect he certainly won't get: a speedy trial for one thing. Hmm would he get a trail? Most minor offenses never go to trial, but these charges probably wouldn't be minor. So would he get a real trail of his peers and not some kind of secret trial? Would all evidence be heard? Would reporting on the trial be allowed?

See if your definition of civil disobedience EVER makes sense it's when you suspect the rule of law might still apply to you, I figure there are states where such civil disobedience is not necessarily the choice you want to make. Or is the proper response in your mind to the misbehavior of ANY (and I do mean ANY) state no matter how tyranical civil disobedience and "honorably" facing the consequences? Do you really want to stake that position? Because if not then, we're arguing about just exactly where the U.S. government falls on some continium between "rule of law" and "straight out arbitrary tyranny". And the U.S. hasn't exactly been to great on that rule of law thing in the past decade or so (but it was foreigners? mostly yes ... ).

bUU

6-13-13, 7:18am

Thanks for editing your earlier message so it was no longer as offensive.

ApatheticNoMore

6-13-13, 9:40am

I honestly had no idea what you were talking about but I sometimes edit posts so whatever. I almost put in something about how you were more fun to argue with than a barrel of monkeys so hey I thought maybe my initial post was that and you got offended. Fine whatever I try to be sensitive (you of course do not - we know that VERY well) .... though really just a silly expression with no larger meaning at all (no it's not racial, it's a dumb expression).

But now I realize I probably never posted that at all (duh didn't think I did) and I realize my post never contained ANYTHING ANYONE considered offensive. But merely pointed out how you use name calling (you don't just disagree with people's arguments you say stuff like "how ridiculous of you") and belittle people in your arguments ("a point you didn't like"). And you were pretending that my blah blahs were me editing a rude post. When in fact I never posted a rude post at all, the original post contained blah blahs. You might consider that humor but it mostly makes you look like a lying slanderer (yes, yes, I know, a lying slanderer who gives unwanted unasked for lectures on morality - heaven help us, it's always the worst people who fancy themselves moralists isn't it?). And no there are people who take the same political opinions here I dont' say that about, their political opinons on some things may be horrible, but they still are oddly likable. Basically they are good natured, even when very very wrong.

Spartana

6-13-13, 1:13pm

surely no more craven than a life where you never do anything where you have to run and hide . I agree. Through out history we have had people who have made what some consider couragous acts of rebellion and defiance to right a preceived wrong, that other's would consider acts of treason and terror. Many of those people have choosen to run and hide in order to "live to fight another day". Something many consider both useful as well as heroic.

So while my personal opinion of Snowden actions (and the wikileaks guy and those who outted people like Valerie Flambe) is that they are treasonous harmful acts and they should be arrested and subjected to the criminal justice system, I don't fault them as craven and dishonorable for not sticking around for that as I don't see doing that as some form of noble cause of civil disobedience. Living to fight on another day has more value to a cause IMHO. I also see and agree that Snowden, and the others, acted in what may be viewed by many in heroic, self-sacrificing way. That getting that info out to the public was much more important then their own personal creature comforts. One man's terrorist and traitor is another man's rebel freedom fighter - just depends on which side of the fence you are on.

bUU

6-14-13, 9:43am

I honestly had no idea what you were talking about but I sometimes edit posts so whatever. Ignoring all that nonsense you insisted on posting to stroke your own ego, I'll remind you of the points I made earlier, that you keep trying to dodge with your self-serving silliness:

Snowden is guilty of crimes. You may appreciate having obtained the information he exposed, but there isn't even anyone on his side who (a) is presenting a legal argument defending his actions against the espionage act, or (b) is presenting a legal argument proving that the government was obligated to reveal any of the information Snowden revealed. The reality is that these were national secrets, they were almost surely legitimate national secrets, and even if a special independent prosecutor looked at the situation, they'd have remained secret.

Call it civil disobedience, if you want to, but remember that both Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. were both honorable enough to protest in place and allow themselves to be arrested and jailed for their crimes. Snowden obviously cares more about his personal comfort than honorably highlighting the injustices he claims. Actually, more likely, he realizes that unlike Gandhi and King, once the politically-induced hubbub dies down, more people will end up concluding that Snowden should be punished for carelessly risking American national security rather than rewarded for doing so.

If you find that you can response to that in a manner other than dodging and weaving or otherwise engaging in nonsense, please do.

ApatheticNoMore

6-14-13, 12:10pm

If you find you have any argument for people that disagree with you other than calling them selfish hey and maybe throw in egotistical or of accusing them of dodging the argument even when they aren't please do. It's like your a bot. You probably are. I suspect this whole engagement is a very annoying Turing test.

By the way everyone is both selfish and altruistic. Selfish comes first (as if your not taken care of you aren't much use for anything anyway not even yourself) but it doesn't mean everyone is doing harm to others to get by in the world. A few people do outright harm to others and they may be disproportionately those who end up in positions of power, running large institutions like banks and Washington DC, Bernie Madoff and Barack Obama :~) but that is another matter. Is your new prime example of selfish a person who sacrificed personal comfort to do what he thought was right? That's a weird definition. Backed up by weird MLK analogies that are not very similar - MLK wasn't facing a lifetime federal prison sentence.

If you believe that the positive ability of people to have any influence on their government comes from the bottom up you go to the mat for civil liberties consistently (because *that* depends on civil liberties). If you believe if comes from managing to magically see who the non-selfish leaders are (despite extreme lack of transparency in government). Uh oh ...

"If I am not for myself, who will be for me? But if I am only for myself, who am I? If not now, when?"

bUU

6-14-13, 1:57pm

If you find you have any argument for people that disagree with you other than calling them selfish hey and maybe throw in egotistical or of accusing them of dodging the argument even when they aren't please do.Good thing I don't do that. I just outlined the dichotomy in another thread: On the one side is an assertion of human decency, social conscience and/or civil progress, and on the other side is an assertion of self-interest, personal entitlement, or reactionary preference. You clearly don't like your perspectives characterized as serving self-interest, personal entitlement, or reactionary preference, and so you wildly lash out with vitriol when I contribute my perspective, full of advocacy for human decency, social conscience, and civil progress. You see nefarious attributes ("egotistical") which simply aren't there, probably because you don't have a counter-argument to my arguments (which are indeed grounded in human decency, social conscience, and civil progress), which doesn't itself make clear how much your perspective advocates self-interest, personal entitlement, or reactionary preference. The problem is not with what I post - it is with your perspectives, because you don't want their nature expressed in the terms I've used. That's tough. If you don't like your blue car called blue then you're going to have to change the color of your car.

What's interesting is that you don't even try to characterize my comments in the same manner. You simply make up nonsensically nefarious characterization which bear no resemblance to the truth, in a desperate attempt to try to cast my comments in a negative light. Folks who are more attuned to the reality of what I'm saying are much more adept at characterizing my comments in a negative light, focusing on what they think are rational defenses for self-interest, rather than trying to engage in the kind of denial you prefer.

It's like your a bot.To believe that you would need to have worked very hard to insulate yourself from principled, compassionate partisans in society. It is possible to surround yourself with so much reinforcement for self-interest, personal entitlement, and reactionary preference that other perspectives look like bots, when in reality they're simply straightforward reflections of moral repudiation of those things. In a way, your ridiculous accusation is praise: You've noted that I'm very consistent in my perspectives, supporting human decency, social conscience and civil progress. I sure am. You may want to take pride in the fact that you're just as much of a "bot" as I am, since you too are very consistent in promoting those priorities of self-interest, personal entitlement, and reactionary preference that you favor.

By the way everyone is both selfish and altruistic.What I think is really funny is you spend so much of your message trying to evade being labeled as an advocate of self-interest, personal entitlement, and reactionary preference and then you post this rationalization, effectively ratifying my characterizations of your perspectives. You probably don't even realize you did it.

"If I am not for myself, who will be for me? But if I am only for myself, who am I? If not now, when?""For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land."
[Deuteronomy. Chapter 15. Verse 11.]

ApatheticNoMore

6-14-13, 3:26pm

Good thing I don't do that. I just outlined the dichotomy in another thread: On the one side is an assertion of human decency, social conscience and/or civil progress, and on the other side is an assertion of self-interest, personal entitlement, or reactionary preference.

It must be nice to see the whole world so black and white. Now I realize everyone has a tendency to see their perspective as the one right one, we may describe that as human nature etc. and I am no exception. However I don't think clinging to that is particularly a virtue. I don't think whole ideologies that enforce ridigity of thought are good things. Basically I'm ANTI-FUNDEMENTALIST. Having principles is fine, living them and fighting for them is fine in fact admirable (like Snowden did), but questioning is ALSO a virtue.

You clearly don't like your perspectives characterized as serving self-interest, personal entitlement, or reactionary preference, and so you wildly lash out with vitriol when I contribute my perspective, full of advocacy for human decency, social conscience, and civil progress.

I don't appreciate being called names no. You also don't appreciate it when I say the only reason you take the positions you do is because you are a fat lazy tv watching coach potato with an extremely low IQ who never got laid in high school and whose mom hated them.

You see nefarious attributes ("egotistical") which simply aren't there, probably because you don't have a counter-argument to my arguments (which are indeed grounded in human decency, social conscience, and civil progress)

I have made counter arguments. You have ignored them. I thinks my arguments are granted in civil progress. All progress depends on bottom up movements, more repressive countries crush bottom up movements. That is the social case for civil liberties. The personal case? Your sexting should not be the governments business, period. The business case? Well you can have business and profit making just fine in a totalitarian state, but there is forms of human creativity it tends to crush IMO.

The problem is not with what I post - it is with your perspectives, because you don't want their nature expressed in the terms I've used. That's tough. If you don't like your blue car called blue then you're going to have to change the color of your car.

Either you believe exactly what I say or I persist in name calling. Yes, and I'm sorry your mom hated you and that high school was so rough. You reduce the complexity of human beings and how they perceive the world to whether a car is blue. How simplistic is that. Do you even grok that people perceive the world based on complex chains of reasoning, ideological arguments, and depending on what particular historical knowledge they may or may not posess to bolster those ideological arguments? That ideology grows out of more than just whether or not one is moral.

Folks who are more attuned to the reality of what I'm saying are much more adept at characterizing my comments in a negative light, focusing on what they think are rational defenses for self-interest, rather than trying to engage in the kind of denial you prefer.

Ok the 10 million dollar question: even though I have no problem with self-interest as such, for the sake of argument, on what basis do you believe I am more self-interested than you are? Do I earn more than you, is that it? I have no idea if I do. Have I tried harder over the years to seek increasing salary while you have prioritized other values? I sincerely doubt that is the case, but we do not know. Do I give less to charity? Maybe, who knows. Do I care more about pursuing income earning opportunities? We don't know. How I done deliberate harm to others to profit? I have not (except in the fact that existing in industrial civilization destroys the world) Am I more materialistic? I doubt that as I am not very materialistic but maybe you live in a dirt hut and sleep on the floor. Do I love my family less? Well maybe more than you love your mom, but she hated you so .... I am more selfish because I am defending civil liberties. Do you see how absurd that is. You would say that the most selfish people in this society are who? The banksters? The oil companies? Nah, you'd probably say they are the ACLU!

You may want to take pride in the fact that you're just as much of a "bot" as I am, since you too are very consistent in promoting those priorities of self-interest, personal entitlement, and reactionary preference that you favor.

Dude, you probably think I'm a Republican ...... A lot can be derived just from self interest you know. Like concern for the environment, well we all live on it.

You probably don't even realize you did it.

Fine if civil liberties are Ayn Rand then I'm an Ayn Rand fan. And I hope everyone else would become one as well and donate to the ACLU. I mean you are literally an argument FOR Ayn Rand you realize. If opposition to increasing totalitarianism is selfish then MAYBE RAND WAS RIGHT AFTERALL. For many reasons I thought she was wrong with her ridiculous dichotomies of either people must completely advocate selfishness OR ELSE totalitarianism, but Buu wants to be the living example otherwise. And frankly that just may make me reconsider Ayn Rands thoughts afterall. Like everyone else she came from a backgrand and a historical context (though was probably mad on amphetamines at least in the later years). What if when she lived in Soviet Russia, the apologists for Stalin were everywhere and they were all mouthing Buu, if you oppose the state's violations then you are selfish. Then well ... then I'd become Ayn Rand too.

Of course you still have not pointed out how I live my life is any more selfish than how you live your life. Of course categorizing people entirely by their politics is itself ... I don't know ... totalitarian? You actually seem to think you can determine who is selfish and not (even though again everyone is selfish), not by how they live, but by whether they punch a D or R chad in an election. The eye of your needle to heaven is easy to fit in, even for a rich man: you don't even have to give away your money, just vote for whom you say (and you are an utter and complete fool if you think a rich man voting Obama or any other Dem is giving away their money - the rich keep the majority of their money regardless of tiny percentage differences in tax rates between parties - they don't even tax wealth only income. Neither party represents and existential economic threat to the existing order - the rich will stay rich regardless. I'm quite sure they know it, the class warfare talk is purely for the sheeple).

You know if you purely went around arguing for the poor and government programs to help the poor your argument might actually have some moral force (though you'd still be a self-rightous douchbag for being so douchy when making those arguments), but when combined with authoritarianism and love of heirarchy ("the boss is always right") it's just ugh ...

bUU

6-14-13, 4:19pm

It must be nice to see the whole world so black and white. I don't, but I know it makes you feel better about your position by making such a vacuous claim. The reality is that there are wide range of perspectives within the realm of reasonableness and moral context - what I have pointed out (which you object to) are perspectives that aren't among those many such perspectives, but are rather perspectives that are distinctly self-motivated, those that callously disregard others and broader society, etc. The fact that those particular perspectives happen to be the ones you personally support is your affair.

Now I realize everyone has a tendency to see their perspective as the one right one, we may describe that as human nature etc. and I am no exception. However I don't think clinging to that is particularly a virtue. I don't think whole ideologies that enforce ridigity of thought are good things.I haven't seen you show any movement whatsoever toward a socially-conscious perspective. But perhaps I missed one of your messages.

Basically I'm ANTI-FUNDEMENTALIST. Having principles is fine, living them and fighting for them is fine in fact admirable (like Snowden did), but questioning is ALSO a virtue. One of my church's inside jokes is that we put a sign out front, "All answers questioned here." But you cannot escape the reality of the patently self-driven perspective being a special case, vis a vis the perception of it by all the myriad socially-conscious perspectives. But we're getting off-topic.

I don't appreciate being called names no.I'm meticulous about not calling anyone names. I know it makes you feel better about your rhetoric to claim that I do, because you don't like what I post. I bet you even have convinced yourself that that sentence, itself, was calling you name. Rather, I meticulously address my comment to the perspectives expressed, not the people who express them. 99.5% of the time, that's precisely what I do, and that 0.5% of the time are unequivocally response in kind which I later edit out if practicable, because I don't really need to lower myself to the level of the person I'm responding to. Again, I know you deny this, because otherwise you'd have to back-pedal something you've already said, so I won't insist that you retract it.

You also don't appreciate it when I say the only reason you take the positions you do is because you are a fat lazy tv watching coach potato with an extremely low IQ who never got laid in high school and whose mom hated them. It doesn't bother me much - when you do such things it just gives me a rather easy opportunity to show have scurrilous your rhetoric is. Otherwise, it really doesn't have much impact.

I have made counter arguments. You have ignored them.No you haven't yet showed that perspectives you expressed, which I labeled as self-motivated, antisocial, or otherwise lacking in compassion actually were socially-conscious or specifically altruistic. As a matter of fact, at least once, if not several times, ratified the characterizations I've expressed, defending the self-interest rather than denying it. To be honest, it would be more honorable to express the kinds of perspectives you regularly express with integrity, owning up to their self-driven nature. I'd still find it objectionable, but at least it would be more honorable.

I thinks my arguments are granted in civil progress.Putting aside the fact that you've belied that with your own comments, in the past, all you ever need to say in response to whatever I post is that you disagree. What am I going to say to that? If you present a defense, I'll show why it is faulty if that is evident.

We're getting way off topic for this thread... if you want to carry on such a conversion that doesn't pertain directly to the NSA situation, then find a better thread for such nonsense.

bae

6-14-13, 5:12pm

... I don't fault them as craven and dishonorable for not sticking around for that as I don't see doing that as some form of noble cause of civil disobedience.

Indeed.

A study of the literature would show that here are several quite valid models of "civil disobedience" spanning a range of behaviours, not all of which require you to turn yourself in to The Man and accept The Approved Punishment to communicate your point. Drawing an overly-narrow definition is handy for scoring rhetorical points though, or for limiting the actions of one's political foes.

"It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words." - 1984

ApatheticNoMore

6-14-13, 5:25pm

bae

6-14-13, 5:34pm

+1 And I do think that limiting disobedience as such is the whole point. OBEY! [insert andre the giant image here]

Civil disobedience?

http://www.memegeneokerlund.com/media/created/iiwsuk.jpg

ApatheticNoMore

6-14-13, 5:43pm

Well I was thinking of the famous "OBEY Giant" graphic (of which I have seen plenty):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andre_the_Giant_Has_a_Posse

But I guess that one will do as well.

Spartana

6-15-13, 2:21pm

Indeed.

A study of the literature would show that here are several quite valid models of "civil disobedience" spanning a range of behaviours, not all of which require you to turn yourself in to The Man and accept The Approved Punishment to communicate your point. Drawing an overly-narrow definition is handy for scoring rhetorical points though, or for limiting the actions of one's political foes.

"It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words." - 1984 And personally I don't consider what Snowdon did as a form of civil disobedience. He was a whistle blower or a snitch (depending on one's views of such things) and certainly not in the same league as MLK or Gandi. He would have been much more effective if he had just been "the undisclosed source" and remained at his post spewing more secret government intel to the media. So from a "rebel" standpoint, his actions in coming forward effectively cut off his usefulness to society. He can no longer gain info that may be useful to the public ( and will probably never be able to hold a job again) and will be a man on the run for the rest of his life most likely. Why he came forward is beyond me as he ended his usefulness permanently and ruined his life.

bUU

6-16-13, 5:34am

He may have just wanted attention.

dmc

6-16-13, 9:57am

I'm shocked!!

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-admits-listening-to-u.s-phone-calls-without-warrants/

dmc

6-16-13, 10:02am

Whats next? Eyes in the sky?

Oh wait, that is already there. And will be increasing with more drones everyday.

creaker

6-16-13, 12:04pm

ApatheticNoMore

6-16-13, 1:54pm

My major issue with this type of surveillance is it invariably gets used to investigate and mitigate threats to the government (those running it), as opposed to protecting us. Basically the mindset that would classify legal protest as "low level terrorism".

Yes.

A police state (if you can keep it) but *WHY* a police state?

I started making lists of all the possible reasons from

1) deliberate intent to crackdown on dissent
to
2) incompetence and corruption given all that government cash flow. (No evil intent just the infinite money pit that feeds on itself regardless of real need)

You could even throw in
3) terrism But if all they're trying to prevent by surveilling the whole world is a boston bombing - the jokes on us - in this violent country *that* is the priority? And if terrism why the government secrecy, does anyone think this is actually secret to the terrists, why go so ballistic for a whistleblower revealing what the terrists (at least the organized ones) likely already know? And if terrism that doesn't rule out government money feeding on itself and expanding to fill the available space (so go to #2). And if terrism that doesn't rule out also cracking down on dissent even if it's not the main purpose - a police state by accident (so go to #1). See secret government with no checks and balances can be problematic.

I don't know why a police state. I am not the expert you are looking for. And outside experts are best, not as outside as me, cause I really don't know, but those in institutions have bias. The scariest theories are of intent - see Chris Hedges for intent based on eco-collapse (see his "Rise up or Die" piece if you want passion because wow reading stuff like that smolders and keeps on smoldering). And yes rising up (activism/protest) on a lot of issues makes sense. Though if the intents are that nefarious, heaven help us all. Oh I've a lot of respect for Hedges because he near single handedly took on NDAA and he's definitely got theories but that world view is *dark*. At any rate just surendering to the loss of more and more civil liberties without a peep is a bet I'd rather NOT take.