posted on November 30, 2003 11:24:39 PM new
Scary, scary, scary.
Someone is almost certain to pop up & say "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." But that's not the point. A government shouldn't have that much unfettered power. Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on December 1, 2003 04:40:14 AM new
What next? As tragic as 9/11 was, it was something that happens in other parts of the world on a daily basis. So, why is that we have to lose more and more of our rights over it? Our government has given the terrorists exactly what they want - a paranoid and increasingly restrictive society. Personally, I'm sick of it all. I suppose that next we'll have to look around the corner to make sure no one is listening before we express our opinions. We've gone back to a book burning mentality. It seems to me that it wasn't the American people who created this mess, so why are we the ones paying the price for what our government has helped to create? What kind of America is my granddaughter going to grow up in?
posted on December 1, 2003 04:43:26 AM new
It is all in line with Welfare and socialistic healthcare, I can't believe some people support those intrusions upon our freedoms and are against the FBI abilty to do it's job.
posted on December 1, 2003 06:13:31 AM new
More on Ashcroft from Brian Leiter
Weapons of Math Instruction
At New York's Kennedy airport today, an individual later discovered to be a public school teacher was arrested trying to board a flight while in possession of a ruler, a protractor, a setsquare, a slide rule, and a calculator.
At a morning press conference, Attorney general John Ashcroft said he
believes the man is a member of the notorious al-gebra movement. He is
being charged by the FBI with carrying weapons of math instruction.
"Al-gebra is a fearsome cult," Ashcroft said. "They desire average solutions
by means and extremes, and sometimes go off on tangents in a search of
absolute value. They use secret code names like "x" and "y" and refer to
themselves as "unknowns", but we have determiner - they belong to a
common denominator of the axis of medieval with coordinates in every
country.
"As the Greek philanderer Isosceles used to say, there are 3 sides to every
triangle," Ashcroft declared.
When asked to comment on the arrest, President Bush said, "If God had wanted
us to have better weapons of math instruction, He would have given us more
fingers and toes. I am gratified that our government has given us a sine
that it is intent on protracting us from these math-dogs who are willing to
disintegrate us with calculus disregard. Murky statisticians love to inflict plane on every sphere of influence," the President said, adding: "Under the circumferences, we must differentiate their root, make our point, and draw the line."
President Bush warned, "These weapons of math instruction have the potential
to decimal everything in their math on a scalene never before seen unless we
become exponents of a Higher Power and begin to factor-in random facts of
vertex."
Attorney General Ashcroft said, "As our Great Leader would say, read my
ellipse. Here is one principle he is uncertainty of: though they continue to
multiply, their days are numbered as the hypotenuse tightens around their necks.
posted on December 1, 2003 10:27:38 AM new
Maybe the Congress wasn't sleeping. Maybe they are listening to the majority of what American citizens are comfortable with.
In a google search for the most recent polls on the Patriot Act I could not find ONE where the majority of Americans said these powers have gone too far. Most polls show that a majority feel the Patriot Act is just fine the way it is, and approx. 28-30% said it should be stronger. Now maybe those 28% will feel it is stronger.
The Gallup poll alone, for the last two years, shows the majority support the Patriot Act.
taken from their front page:
Gallup Poll Analyses - Most Americans Don't Feel Government Threatens Civil Rights POLL ANALYSESOctober 1, 2003
Most Americans Don't Feel Government Threatens Civil Rights No sign of public backlash against Patriot Act by Lydia SaadGALLUP NEWS SERVICE. PRINCETON, NJ - The USA Patriot Act - the anti-terrorism law that was signed shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks - has become
Gallup Poll Analyses - Public Little Concerned About Patriot Act POLL ANALYSES September 9, 2003 Public Little Concerned About Patriot Act Wants civil liberties respected, but feels Bush administration has not gone "too far" in restricting liberties by David W. MooreGALLUP NEWS SERVICE. PRINCETON, NJ
posted on December 1, 2003 10:50:36 AM new
That's because "most Americans" have allowed fear to rule their lives. They have become sheep who want mommy & daddy (aka government) to wipe their noses and hold their hands.
"Most Americans" will take comfort from being closely watched & "protected"...until it infringes on their lives & actions, that they are the target and not some nebulous "them." But by then it might be too late to get back the control they so freely give up now.
How pathetic "most Americans" have become.
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on December 1, 2003 11:14:30 AM new
I don't think we're pathetic. I think we understand that in order for the government to do it's job, some flexibility is necessary. I'm sure you've read Patriot Act II. It just expands what the FBI has already been able to do....only under different circumstances. Not many can see the 'reasons' behind allowing the FBI to do things with say other criminals, but not with terrorists.
posted on December 1, 2003 11:24:40 AM new
The majority is often wrong. Beliefs do not become true or false on the basis of how many people support them.
posted on December 1, 2003 11:54:00 AM new
And on the new additions:
News & Politics : Patriot Act Expansion Moves Through Congress 11-22-03
WASHINGTON -- Congress is poised to approve new legislation that amounts to the first substantive expansion of the controversial USA Patriot Act since it was approved just after the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and the Pentagon.
Acting at the Bush administration's behest, a joint House-Senate conference committee has approved a provision in the 2004 Intelligence Authorization bill that will permit the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to demand records from a number of businesses--without the approval of a judge or grand jury--if it deems them relevant to a counter-terrorism investigation.
The measure would extend the FBI's power to seize records from banks and credit unions to securities dealers, currency exchanges, travel agencies, car dealers, post offices, casinos, pawnbrokers and any other business that, according to the government, has a "high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax or regulatory matters."
Such seizures could be carried out with the approval of the judicial branch of government.
Until now only banks, credit unions, and similar financial institutions were obliged to turn over such records on the FBI's demand.
Shortly after the conference agreement was reached, the House of Representatives approved the underlying authorization bill by a margin of 263 to 163. The measure is expected to pass the Senate shortly.
[ edited by Linda_K on Dec 1, 2003 12:04 PM ]
posted on December 1, 2003 12:15:26 PM new
Here's an article that I agree with.
At minimum, critics should stop talking about the Patriot Act's "trampling of rights" in the present tense. And lest they claim that they are being "vigilant" in the face of potential threats, someone should remind them that vigilance is fine, but lying and fear-mongering is crying wolf.
The Section 215 bashing is just the latest in an ongoing campaign to make up a problem out of the Patriot Act that does not exist. I'm sure you've heard that the Patriot Act also permits, in the words of Nick Gillespie of Reason magazine, "spying on the Web browsers of people who are not even criminal suspects." Errr, wrong. The Patriot Act actually toughens the standards by which the government can snoop on electronic communications.
Before the Patriot Act, there was no settled law on whether the government - or for that matter, some random stalker or Amazon.com - could acquire that kind of information. The Patriot Act made it a crime for the government or anybody else to pry into your e-mail without getting a court order.
There's been a lot of gnashing of teeth over the allegedly "widespread" civil rights abuses since Sept. 11. Well, it's a good thing the Patriot Act requires the DOJ's inspector general to investigate civil rights complaints. The last report, issued over the summer, found that there were 34 "credible" allegations of abuse out of 1,037 claims made over a six-month period (note: that's allegations, not convictions). And most of these "credible" but unproven allegations involved such horrors as verbal harassment of prisoners by prison guards. That's not nice and it shouldn't happen, but it's hardly 1930s Germany.
The complaints of lost civil rights go on. We hear about prisoners "kept in secret" when they're really not. Rather, the government won't release their names to the media - or to the terrorists who are keen to find out such information. However, the prisoners themselves - through their lawyers or families - are free to release their names.
The ACLU says that the feds can secretly enter your home while you're out and rifle through your files, underwear drawer, whatever. Well, that's true, if the cops get a warrant first and notify you later. If that scares you, I'm sorry. But it's hardly something new.
And of course, there's the partisanship. John Ashcroft (for whom my wife works) is the most unpopular man in the universe - if you go by what the Ashcroft-phobes say.
There's nothing you can say that goes far enough for the hysterical base of the increasingly hysterical Democratic party. Senator John F. Kerry declared at a recent debate that he could see in the audience "people from every background, every creed, every color, every belief, every religion. This is, indeed, John Ashcroft's worst nightmare here."
One might ask Kerry, "Have you no shame, Senator?" But it's too late for that. The pertinent question now is: "Have you lost your mind?" Ashcroft's job approval rating with the American people is about the same or higher than every major Democratic figure, including Hillary and Bill Clinton and Tom Daschle. The Ashcroft - and Bush - haters need to get out more[/i].
[i]Indeed, we're told there's a nationwide groundswell against the supposed "trampling of civil liberties." But two years of Gallup polls show that as many people think the government hasn't gone "far enough" restricting civil liberties in order to fight terrorism as think it's gone "too far." Meanwhile, a solid majority believe - and have believed all along - that the government's gotten it "about right" on civil liberties.
This should be sobering to the people who have steadily beaten the drums about this stuff because it shows that most Americans don't take them seriously - and they're right not to[/i].
[Jonah Goldberg is editor of National Review Online, a TownHall.com member group.]
posted on December 1, 2003 12:38:26 PM new
Linda, if you read my link above, you realize that the provisions described resulted in a huge furor, and were removed from the patriot act. They are now being snuck through attached to another, unrelated piece of legislation. The potential for abuse notwithstanding, what I find really frightening is the administration's disregard for the very public opinion you cite." If it caused a furor once, we'll just sneak it through so nobody notices."
I am quite certain that it goes on all the time, and has been done by other congresses. That doesn't make it right. It's called pulling a fast one on the American public. If giving up constitutional rights of citizenship ("flexibility" makes the American public feel safer, then the American public deserves what it is slowly but surely getting.
___________________________________
The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then gets elected and proves it.
-- P. J. ORourke (Holidays in hell, 1989)
posted on December 1, 2003 12:56:49 PM new
Yes, profe, I did read your link. And I do understand what it said.
And that's just politics, the 'system' works the same with both parties.
No one was asleep. If all those democrats, or even republicans, do not read what they're voting on before they pass these measures....then we're all in trouble.
Not trying to go off topic, but using this as an example. To me this issue is just like the gay-marriage issue. The democratic candidates want to have it both ways. They want the votes of those who think marriage is between one man and one woman, yet they want the gay activists to think they're behind [what they believe] are their civil rights. They have to make a stand.
And in the topic case, they can't have that both ways either, imo. Their vote speaks for their position on the subject.
Have you read any accounts where the average 'Joe/Josephine Citizen' believes their civil rights have been abused? This is, just like my above article correctly calls it....Separating Hysteria from fact. So far all the 'worries' have not come about, in what TWO years? I think that's why the majority support giving these additional powers our government...in their war on terrorism aren't so outraged as some here.
posted on December 1, 2003 02:17:09 PM new
"If all those democrats, or even republicans, do not read what they're voting on before they pass these measures....then we're all in trouble."
Then we are in trouble. Some of these bills are thousands of pages long and I can't believe they do anything but trust the authors to give them a summary - and completely unrelated items are attached as it moves along.
Do you really think your congressman sits down amd studies a 1200 page bill carefully? - Ha!
posted on December 1, 2003 02:36:47 PM new
gravid - do you really think.....
Since I'm not around them, I really can't answer that question. But it is their ultimate responsiblity to know what they're voting on....whether they themselves read it or someone in their staff does. No excuses for voting and then saying "I didn't know that was there". Geeesh
posted on December 1, 2003 04:23:59 PM new
Twelvepole: Do I take it you are against welfare and socialized healthcare also?
I am indeed against welfare as it has evolved. As originally meant, welfare was to be a temporary aid to get someone back up on their feet. It was never meant to go on & on & on & on for a person or family.
I am in two minds about the healthcare issue. Still studying on it, as it were. Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on December 1, 2003 09:11:16 PM new
Linda I am in agreement with you that both parties do it, I said as much in the post above. To say that's just politics is to make excuses for a system which allows sneak provisions to be added to laws without the public's foreknowlege. If that's OK with you, fine. It's not OK with me, no matter who's doing it. I haven't read of any abuses as yet, but if you're familiar with the Patriot Act, you'll be aware that there is no due process required in investigations, and as a result it is entirely possible that abuses will never come to light.
To me, this issue has nothing to do with gay marriage or what democratic candidates want. It has to do with basic constitutional rights of due process being threatened in the name of security.Anyone who voted for this measure will never get my vote, and I do not vote for parties. If you think it's only "some here" who are opposed to these measures, do yourself a search on the number of entire towns who have passed measures opposing the patriot act. Yes, I know those resolutions are powerless when push comes to shove, but they are some indication of the numbers of people out there who are leery of putting this kind of power into the hands of government, "war on terror" or no. Talk about wanting it both ways, it never ceases to amaze me how many Republicans will talk their state's rights, small government BS, but hand over this kind of power to the Feds on a silver platter when it suits their ends. I guess that's "just politics"
___________________________________
The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then gets elected and proves it.
-- P. J. ORourke (Holidays in hell, 1989)
posted on December 2, 2003 05:09:56 AM new
That response from twelvepole above, is in answer to my earlier question which was, What about the children of those people who really cannot work or do not make enough money to feed and shelter their children?
How would you handle the children who would be without medical care, food and shelter if there was no welfare?
Apparently, the answer from twelvepole is that because there are a few people who abuse the system that we should abolish it and let children shift for themselves.
That takes mean, "conservative compassion" to a level unacceptable in a civilized society.
posted on December 2, 2003 05:21:04 AM newThe U.S.A.P.A. is in actuality a compilation of about 15 existing statutes that have been reworked to fit the 21st century. Though to hear its critics, "ordinary Americans have taken a tremendous blow with this law." Some, like Bill Moyers of PBS fame, has said that the present administration is engaged in a "deliberate, intentional destruction of the United States of America."
It would be enlightening for all if any of these critics could point to any specific law abiding American citizen whose rights have been denied to their actual detriment.
We all get to hear generalities, blanket condemnations and even laws passed by a town in California that makes it illegal to comply with the USA Patriot Act, but why? Who in America need fear a law that makes being an enemy of America—a terrorist—a target of American justice?
[ edited by Linda_K on Dec 2, 2003 05:33 AM ]
posted on December 2, 2003 05:28:13 AM new
Here you go, helen
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." --Benjamin Franklin
posted on December 2, 2003 06:05:28 AM new
profe -
Intelligence spending bills are considered sensitive, so they are usually drafted in secret and approved without debate or public comment. [Hold that thought]
::"To say that's just politics is to make excuses for a system which allows sneak provisions to be added to laws without the public's foreknowledge."::
Please note the above quote, taken from your link. That's why it wasn't discussed publically. But this is really all about **who's** responsibility it is to KNOW what's in a bill, ANY BILL, and for them to speak out against it..if that is their position....not vote for it.
::"If that's OK with you, fine. It's not OK with me, no matter who's doing it." My statment was NOT condoning how *any* unrelated bill is attached to another bill, but rather to point out the FACT that it happens all the time...no matter the subject of the piece of legislation being added. It's just the way it works in DC. It's long been done this way and is accepted by our representatives as normal. Are you aware of a law that prevents them from doing this? So to say they 'snuck' it in on this intelligence spending bill....is to only mention what happens all the times with many other items of legislations, not that I agree they should always, or ever, be allowed to do this. I personally think each bill should stand on it's own. But there are always compromises being made in Congress...and adding bills to other unrelated bills is commonly done as a way of getting more votes for their bill.
::"I haven't read of any abuses as yet"::
And I'm saying there's a reason for that. Most of what was put in the Patriot Act was already currently being allowed, under our laws, but had not been expanded to allow it to be used on 'suspected terrorists' only on thos like drug trafficers. And it's been over two years.
IMO, this legislation could well be the reason we haven't experienced more 9-11s since then. We have allowed the FBI to do better surveillance on those they believe might present a threat to our security. The average Joe/Josephine doesn't present a threat to our nation. To allow these procedures to be used on all but suspectd terrorist, to me, is to reopen the possibility that old binLaden and his crew will have free reign on their attacks.
::"but if you're familiar with the Patriot Act, you'll be aware that there is no due process required in investigations, and as a result it is entirely possible that abuses will never come to light.":: I think some need to read the link I posted where Peter Jennings interviewed Ashcroft and what he stated the safeguards are.
::"To me, this issue has nothing to do with gay marriage or what democratic candidates want. It has to do with basic constitutional rights of due process being threatened in the name of security".:: Well...gays feel not being able to legally marry violates their basic constitutional rights also and the democrats won't take a stand...trying to convince both groups of voters...like maybe was done here with those who didn't object to this 'addition' being added to this bill. Possibly they new exactly what they were voting on, but can know say they were unaware.
::"If you think it's only "some here" who are opposed to these measures, do yourself a search on the number of entire towns who have passed measures opposing the patriot act."::
I didn't say that I think it's ONLY 'some here'. I'm well aware of the opposition....and as I've stated, they are a very small minority. And as you said, "powerless when push comes to shove".
::"Talk about wanting it both ways, it never ceases to amaze me how many Republicans will talk their state's rights, small government BS, but hand over this kind of power to the Feds on a silver platter when it suits their ends."::
Not when it 'suits their ends', but when that affects the nation as a whole, rather than just one or two states. I can only speak for myself. But I am usually, not always, for states rights. But when it comes to Federal issues like National security, to me that is a whole different ball game. We then, imo, cannot bow to the wishes of a very small minority about what's in the best interests of the Nations security. The terrorists won't only be attacking the liberal leaning states.
On the big government BS, as you say. For me, I did not support this recent medicare bill, in it's current form. It's outrageously large, imo. It's an entitlement program usually only supported by the democrats. But now that the republicans have chosen to inact a HUGE entitlement bill....the democrats are screaming. Maybe because they didn't get to make it bigger and take credit for it themselves Changes in medicare are long overdue. and the republicans have now passed one....finally...I just believe it's WAY too expensive.
edited for clarification.
[ edited by Linda_K on Dec 2, 2003 08:00 AM ]
posted on December 2, 2003 06:11:10 AM new
Glad you finally woke up helen. Good luck at the dentist....hope he doesn't hit an 'air pocket'. teasing...teasing...
posted on December 2, 2003 08:51:34 AM new
Get those dentures fixed helen, makes eating alot easier...
The nice thing about our system is that even though something is put inplace as law, it can be repealed... I think that is why most of us aren't that concernd.
makes the American public feel safer, then the American public deserves what it is slowly but surely getting.