Just a quick riposte to your relay to my first rant. It is happening now. People are standing up to big coal:
More later.
Cap’t Jack
Snowden didn’t report that at some point the intelligence services will be able to read any electronic communications, he detailed how as a contractor he could already do that. And the NSA now has the ability to store, crack any code and analyze virtually any information…in a socio-economic context that already gives every indication of having left public control for the private sector. So if say for instance you want to oppose mountain top mining in West Virginia there’s a really good chance the resources of the entire state are going to be thrown at you to prevent what should be a basic right. That is that a protection of the basic conditions that allow us to be here in the first need to be protected against purely commercial interests. I suppose by your logic these are just silly individualists who just don’t get how things work.Gotta answer this one though. Arresting Hansen was a result of him BREAKING a law by obstructing traffic and blocking a road. What the hell Fuzzy. This isn't proof that a police state is cracking down on dissent! We did this several times in the sixties. That's the very reason I went to jail, for blocking a road. Even Thoreau advocated this type of dissent but with the proviso that if you do break the law you have to suffer the consequences. And no it sounds like your "logic" comes into play here by citing the futility of protesting unjust practices. This is how we make change my friend; not by whining about shadow agencies who see all and know all. Oh, and mountaintop removal protests have been active since the early 70's and I was involved. I knew Ken Heckler when he was much younger. I backed him on the fiddle a couple of times. Cap't Jack
Just a quick riposte to your relay to my first rant. It is happening now. People are standing up to big coal: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/mountaintop-removal-protest/ More later. Cap't JackI hope people start taking things like this serious. I'll go back through your posts, I may have unfairly included you with a few posters who seem to think this really isn't a serious issue and want to introduce a lot of irrelevant topics...like how wanting to assert basic democratic rights takes you somehow on the road to terrorism. Which isn't what I advocate in the slightest.
Gotta answer this one though. Arresting Hansen was a result of him BREAKING a law by obstructing traffic and blocking a road. What the hell Fuzzy. This isn't proof that a police state is cracking down on dissent! We did this several times in the sixties. That's the very reason I went to jail, for blocking a road. Even Thoreau advocated this type of dissent but with the proviso that if you do break the law you have to suffer the consequences. And no it sounds like your "logic" comes into play here by citing the futility of protesting unjust practices. This is how we make change my friend; not by whining about shadow agencies who see all and know all. Oh, and mountaintop removal protests have been active since the early 70's and I was involved. I knew Ken Heckler when he was much younger. I backed him on the fiddle a couple of times. Cap't JackI'm not whining about shadow agencies, and after Snowden how much uncertainty is there that the state can and does regularly violate the privacy of Americans on a massive scale. One thing he wasn't able to tell us is how many other people were doing what he did but for much more selfish motives. Don't claim that a capability like this exists that isn't being used. It stops being a conspiracy theory when the evidence is printed around the world and the close links between the private and government sector are also well documented. The revolving door between government and the private sector is not a new revelation, most Americans are left out of any real discussion but they're left living with the consequences. I also think that if the inevitable consequences of efforts like this result in there not being much of a habitable America left then the whole debate about freedom becomes moot anyway.
And anyone who’s posting the equivalent of “Nothing to see here, move on” is being disingenuous at the very least and probably deeply dishonest.
Freedom isn’t something the state gives to its citizens, it’s something that citizens assert over the state. And good luck doing that if people who’s sole function is preservation of the current state can see you coming from miles away and are able to negate any attempt at change.
Like with the kind of thing that’s already going on here and has implications for Americans if the Keystone XL ever gets approved.
http://desmog.ca/2013/11/20/day-i-found-out-canadian-government-was-spying-me
My colleagues and I had been wary of being spied on for a long time, but having it confirmed still took the wind out of me. I told my parents about the article over dinner. They’re retired school teachers who lived in northern Alberta for 35 years before moving to Victoria. I asked them: “Did you know the Canadian government is spending your tax dollars to spy on your daughter?" Then I told them how one of the events detailed in e-mails from Richard Garber, the National Energy Board’s “Group Leader of Security," was a workshop in a Kelowna church run by one of my close friends and colleagues, Celine Trojand (who’s about the most warm-hearted person you could ever meet). About 30 people, mostly retirees, attended to learn about storytelling, theory of change and creative sign-making (cue the scary music). In the e-mails, Garber marshals security and intelligence operations between government operations and private interests and notes that his security team has consulted with Canada’s spying agency, CSIS. To add insult to injury, another set of documents show CSIS and the RCMP have been inviting oil executives to secret classified briefings at CSIS headquarters in Ottawa, in what The Guardian describes as “unprecedented surveillance and intelligence sharing with companies."Immediately assuming that opposing government actions makes you some kind of terrorist as some here seem to think and from the evidence more than a few people in government itself, ignores the reality that governments can and often do act in ways very harmful to their citizens. Which is the whole point in having representational systems to control that, and has to a very large degree been undermined in North America by private interests against the public. It stops being a government of the people, by the people, for the people, when only a tiny percent actually have any real input. After which point any claim of acting in the public interest by carrying out a massive surveillance of that public enters into the double-speak world described by Orwell, where freedom means slavery and peace means war. Sound at all familiar?
I assume everyone here knows that the Nazis collected and organized detailed information on Jews before they started putting them in concentration camps and gassing them. When a government starts collecting information on its people, anything can happen. Nobody knows what the next regime will decide to do with the information.
I visited a concentration camp, now a museum, in Germany. On display were reams of files identifying people with names, addresses and occupations and the word Juden after their names. (I assume they did the same with Gypsies and anyone they suspected might be an “enemy.”) Anyone who thinks no one who has “done nothing wrong” is safe from the collection of personal information is out of his mind–and completely ignorant of history.
Lois
I assume everyone here knows that the Nazis collected and organized detailed information on Jews before they started putting them in concentration camps and gassing them. When a government starts collecting information on its people, anything can happen. Nobody knows what the next regime will decide to do with the information. LoisBesides this being more hyperbolic comedy, what do you do at the DMV(motor vehicles) do you refuse to give your name and address. With all of the hysterical blather you're spouting certainly you must have some ideas on what they might do with any information they have collected. Any ideas? Besides gassing the jews? Do you even know what info they have collected, if any? Probably not.
My guess is the people who are so willing and ready to give away freedom and liberty in America are also those who don't have clue what it actually cost.I'm still waiting for you to tell me the cost of freedom Fuzzy.... I also asked you what liberties you thought you were losing awhile back...I haven't gotten an answer on that one yet either. Then I realized, you aren't losing any liberties, because you are Canadian. This is about America.
Hey Lois, … and Fuzzy, and you other dudes…
… nice to hear from you (Lois). I feel a little lost among the guys 
Information collection can be scary. Last month me and my “husband” were simply hanging out at a gas station. Cop drives up, tells him to put his hands up and tells me, “Germany”, to sit down and shut up. I had never been there before that day. He was known, I wasn’t (or so I thought). It’s not that we’re legally married or anything. - Just as introduction.
My project in High School, the last year before I didn’t graduate, was Jewish places in our vicinity. Quite a few, just no Jews. I never met a Jewish person before coming to the U.S. - Where did you go to see the KZ, Dachau? Disgusting place.
My family’s from East and West Germany, both parental sides, as the war distributed them all over. “Don’t talk so loud, somebody could hear.” - “Don’t watch that channel, it’s West TV.” (As they lived near the border and were able to get it.) - But I only saw that as a kid. I’m from Stuttgart, so we only visited, when allowed. Seemed like a prison to get in there. The night was light as day, watch towers, dogs, soldiers everywhere, never mind the mine field between the two Germanies. Very sick.
In ‘89, when the Stasi files became public, my friend (of today), who grew up in the East, he never wanted to see his file. He is an artist, was prevented from taking art school as it would have created enormous economical problems if he had done so, as art was frowned upon. He never wanted to see his file. Why? “What if my best friend spied on me for them? I really don’t want to know that.”
You’re right, that information collection is pretty scary. - I personally still don’t mind. I have nothing to hide. If you wanna take me away it doesn’t really matter what you know, you will do it anyway. Nobody can take my soul.
The larger implications mentioned in this thread here I really have no quarrels with at all… but it’s still misdirected. Muslim terrorists are as little a threat to humanity as is America as a “police state”. Terrorists are not a functioning force in any way you wanna put it, and America has ways to go to be considered a police state. - But mentioning terrorists, as I noticed, Fuzzy, you took very personal, and for which I apologized but maybe not should have since it was utterly disregarded, and as my framing was a lot more precise than my drunk mind later recalled (always that fuckin’ booze, you know)… I made it very clear that I was talking about “going overboard”, not disputing anything.
Take action anytime. Go against the government anytime. Just don’t buy into, and I’m careful now, “conspiracy theory seeming” ideas. - Sure, it’s all out there, hence no conspiracy. My point was the “police state”, never the points presented. Call it “near-police state” or “on-the-way-to police state”, just not police state. The U.S. has way more freedoms than any European country even today, and I don’t see them feeling threatened. But again, they got their Nazis brooding underground.
Alright, I’m ready to get trashed on this. Bring it on good.
Peace.
Michelle
Freedom isn’t something the state gives to its citizens, it’s something that citizens assert over the state. And good luck doing that if people who’s sole function is preservation of the current state can see you coming from miles away and are able to negate any attempt at change.Right with you on the first sentence at least Fuzzy. That's how our government was set up originally, and the checks and balances plus the amendment process was meant to curtail a "big government" from subordinating the rights of the people. It can develop in the other direction if the voters allow it. It's entirely up to us to alter the system in order to benefit our collective needs, like an improved infrastructure. As to the second sentence, most Americans consider even the concept of a big government anathema to democracy. That's BTW why we have the snake flag waving Teabaggers and the ever growing militia groups. That's why Southerners are now flying the Confederate flag in their front yards and screaming for secession. There's always been the fear of a strong central government from 1775 until today. That's why ultra conservatives drag out our revolutionary past and dress up like minutemen. The consensus here has always been anti-government not pro. They have no intentions of "preserving" the current state and would like nothing more than to dismantle any Federal reform or watchdog agency. that's why it's so damned hard to pass any progressive reforms here not to mention the States still not wanting to give up their limited sovereignty. Ain't gonna happen without an out and out civil conflict, again. Cap't Jack
I assume everyone here knows that the Nazis collected and organized detailed information on Jews before they started putting them in concentration camps and gassing them. When a government starts collecting information on its people, anything can happen. Nobody knows what the next regime will decide to do with the information. LoisBesides this being more hyperbolic comedy, what do you do at the DMV(motor vehicles) do you refuse to give your name and address. With all of the hysterical blather you're spouting certainly you must have some ideas on what they might do with any information they have collected. Any ideas? Besides gassing the jews? Do you even know what info they have collected, if any? Probably not. We all know the government collects and holds a great deal of information about us through driver's licenses, the IRS, Social Security, military records, and who knows what else. What we did not know until Snowdon was that they were listening in to and recording our phone calls and reading and collecting our emails, which was against the law. We know from other sources that they have tried to get information on what books we take out of libraries--and possibly what books we buy or download. Are you really ready to giveu p every scrap of privacy because they already have information on us? Edmund Burke said, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." I'd say doing nothing is not the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil. I'd add "and for good people to believe that the government collecting information about the public's conversations, letters, reading material and more is benign or necessary to the public's security, which is equally necessary for the triumph of evil." Lois
I assume everyone here knows that the Nazis collected and organized detailed information on Jews before they started putting them in concentration camps and gassing them. When a government starts collecting information on its people, anything can happen. Nobody knows what the next regime will decide to do with the information.Lois, collecting info on the Jews in particular began centuries before the Nazis came to power, even the persecution of the Jews. That began during the First Crusade in 1095. Subsequent laws were passed to form ghettos and an 1879 law in what became Germany demanded that all Jews wear The Star of David for identification. This practice of gathering personal info was passed down as tradition there and the Nazis just put it to their own use. if you want to be really paranoid about collecting personal info, the Mormons have a geological library that would probably put the NSA to shame. Cap't Jack
Once again Lois, I'm pretty sure you misinterpreted 99% of what someone wrote in their post. This is exactly what I was talking about. Tone down the raving and ranting. Take the time to read what someone posted. I'm pretty sure Write4you wasn't conveying anything you seem to be rebutting or rebuking.No, I read and responded to what he wrote. He wrote: “IMO, having the government spy on possible subversive activity is far more preferable than having another 911." Which is a false dichotomy. Maybe you should take a little of your own advice,
No, I read and responded to what he wrote. He wrote: “IMO, having the government spy on possible subversive activity is far more preferable than having another 911." Which is a false dichotomy. Maybe you should take a little of your own advice,Technically it is a false dichotomy, but in Plain English it conveys the message. The message that he understands the surveillance and why it might be necessary. That was just one part of his post anyways. I think you got the rest wrong as well. You responded: "would you give up the life of a loved one for the right to carry a gun?" for example. What's that? Is that a false dichotomy? It's something! It's pretty unfair and off-topic.
What we did not know until Snowdon was that they were listening in to and recording our phone calls and reading and collecting our emails, which was against the law. We know from other sources that they have tried to get information on what books we take out of libraries--and possibly what books we buy or download. LoisWrong! They weren't listening in. You are buying a bunch of hyped-up garbage. They were collecting meta data. If they want to listen in they get a Warrant from a Federal Judge. That's perfectly legal! It's been that way for along time. There are Supreme Court cases which help to define laws on police, or Government wire-tapping and bugging it's own citizens. They take warrants. They take oversight. They are legal. How many times do I have to say this? Point to something that was illegal....I'll wait. Keep in mind, that all through history, government or private citizens occasionally break the law. There have been illegal wire taps or bugs in the past. It's bad! But it isn't the end of the friggin' world. It usually get's exposed, adjudicated, tried etc..We have checks and balances. They work pretty decent!!!
Hey Lois, ... and Fuzzy, and you other dudes... ... nice to hear from you (Lois). I feel a little lost among the guys ;) Information collection can be scary. Last month me and my "husband" were simply hanging out at a gas station. Cop drives up, tells him to put his hands up and tells me, "Germany", to sit down and shut up. I had never been there before that day. He was known, I wasn't (or so I thought). It's not that we're legally married or anything. - Just as introduction. My project in High School, the last year before I didn't graduate, was Jewish places in our vicinity. Quite a few, just no Jews. I never met a Jewish person before coming to the U.S. - Where did you go to see the KZ, Dachau? Disgusting place. My family's from East and West Germany, both parental sides, as the war distributed them all over. "Don't talk so loud, somebody could hear." - "Don't watch that channel, it's West TV." (As they lived near the border and were able to get it.) - But I only saw that as a kid. I'm from Stuttgart, so we only visited, when allowed. Seemed like a prison to get in there. The night was light as day, watch towers, dogs, soldiers everywhere, never mind the mine field between the two Germanies. Very sick. In '89, when the Stasi files became public, my friend (of today), who grew up in the East, he never wanted to see his file. He is an artist, was prevented from taking art school as it would have created enormous economical problems if he had done so, as art was frowned upon. He never wanted to see his file. Why? "What if my best friend spied on me for them? I really don't want to know that." You're right, that information collection is pretty scary. - I personally still don't mind. I have nothing to hide. If you wanna take me away it doesn't really matter what you know, you will do it anyway. Nobody can take my soul. The larger implications mentioned in this thread here I really have no quarrels with at all... but it's still misdirected. Muslim terrorists are as little a threat to humanity as is America as a "police state". Terrorists are not a functioning force in any way you wanna put it, and America has ways to go to be considered a police state. - But mentioning terrorists, as I noticed, Fuzzy, you took very personal, and for which I apologized but maybe not should have since it was utterly disregarded, and as my framing was a lot more precise than my drunk mind later recalled (always that fuckin' booze, you know)... I made it very clear that I was talking about "going overboard", not disputing anything. Take action anytime. Go against the government anytime. Just don't buy into, and I'm careful now, "conspiracy theory seeming" ideas. - Sure, it's all out there, hence no conspiracy. My point was the "police state", never the points presented. Call it "near-police state" or "on-the-way-to police state", just not police state. The U.S. has way more freedoms than any European country even today, and I don't see them feeling threatened. But again, they got their Nazis brooding underground. Alright, I'm ready to get trashed on this. Bring it on good. Peace. MichelleThe reason behind my position that the government should follow the law has little to do with the country becoming a police state--it is a matter of principle--the principles the country was founded on, which are being trashed under our noses. I am well aware that the worst case scenario is unlikely to happen, we don't have a police state now and there are protections in place against it happening in the future. I seldom see conspiracies anywhere, but I do see principles trashed, principles we have been assured over and over again will not be trashed. In the US the government isn't supposed to be collecting information on its citizens--certainly not personal communications such as what Snowdon reported. There is a reason for laws against unreasonable searches. The people are entitled to their privacy from an intrusive government. And they are entitled to have a government that follows laws and doesn't put itself above laws passed by the people. What's wrong with the government being expected to follow the law and not trying to hide their activities? That they are collecting information surreptitiously is a tip-off that they're up to something nefarious. They love to throw in the old terrorism baloney as their rationale. They aren't likely to catch a terrorist by spying on citizens and it gives them power they shouldn't have--that the people never wanted them to have. If government agencies think it's so important to gather information on people to protect the country from terrorism, why don't they admit what they're doing? Do they think potential terrorists will be somehow insulted orvtipped off? Do they think terrorists are that stupid? No, they're afraid they will be caught breakingthe people's law. Citizens should not be lied to in a country where the government was founded on the principle of government being of, for and by the people--not some government agency that has decided it knows what's best for us, breaks the laws the people have put in place and lies about it. There is a serious principle at stake here and America has been a country of principle (or we like to think so). We live in a country where the government is supposed to follow the laws. This is what the people have decided should be the case, yet we're being taken for fools by a government who has decided it knows what's best for us, as if citizens are children and they are wise and knowing fathers who will lie, cheat and steal for what they decide is our own good, no matter what the law says. In America the government is supposed to act at the people's behest, not make up its own rules. If the people want the government to have free reign over gathering information on citizens they would pass laws makingbthat legal. So far they have not done this, so they apparently see the danger in it. But the government has taken the law into its own hands. It can never come to any good. The people have been defrauded--and too many people, though fortunately, not enough of them yet, have no problem with the government defrauding them and lying to them--as long as they can be comforted with a false sense of safety. Lois
The Mormons are not the government and there is no law against them collecting genealogical information. The government, on the other hand, knew it was againstbthe law to demand that private entities share their information with the government, though they did demand it illegally from Google, Verizon and Microsoft and god knows where else. Unfortunately, Google, Verizon and Microsoft handed it over even though they should have known they were under no obligation to do so. They acted like sheep to the slaughter and helped put the American people in jeopardy. They know where their bread is buttered. LoisI assume everyone here knows that the Nazis collected and organized detailed information on Jews before they started putting them in concentration camps and gassing them. When a government starts collecting information on its people, anything can happen. Nobody knows what the next regime will decide to do with the information.Lois, collecting info on the Jews in particular began centuries before the Nazis came to power, even the persecution of the Jews. That began during the First Crusade in 1095. Subsequent laws were passed to form ghettos and an 1879 law in what became Germany demanded that all Jews wear The Star of David for identification. This practice of gathering personal info was passed down as tradition there and the Nazis just put it to their own use. if you want to be really paranoid about collecting personal info, the Mormons have a geological library that would probably put the NSA to shame. Cap't Jack
If your estimates were correct, Germany was a police state , just as these " lousy little island " ( I mean the UK ) , or half of Europe. No, the problem lies deeper. It is because , as the citizens law enforcement officers saw (image of them) , and how it is today.
Then , police officers are exposed to a lot of stress. They are verbally insulted , spat upon , physically assaulted , and sometimes killed. And yet they are supposed to work professionally . This is not always possible. Here in Berlin attracted a great attention in the case last year . Before the " Red Town Hall " ( there ruled the reigning mayor of the city-state of Berlin) with a fountain .A naked man armed with a knife got in it . He was , as was later proved , mentally confused. A police patrol asked the man to leave the fountain, which the man refused with threatening gestures with the knife. The police called her colleagues for help. There were posted around the fountain total of 12 police officers. First, the officers tried to calm the man, but when he attacked a police officer with a knife, shot the officer. The family sued the police . These were acquitted rightly , as it was an emergency situation. Police officers are allowed to shoot, when your life, or that of another person is in danger.
Michelle, you asked me which concentration camp I visited and I couldn’t remember, it’s been a long time. My husband thinks it was actually in Austria, Mauthausen.
Lois