Had Enough? Have You?
Friday, June 23, 2006
Time : 10:47 AM
o another intrusive government program has come to light
, this one dealing with the bank records of thousands of Americans being examined by intelligence agencies. Phone records, Internet activity, travel, and now bank records. When is enough enough! Ok, so here comes our wingnut friends saying “Oh, I suppose you would rather have some terrorist blow up your family?” “Live free or die trying asshole”... Thats what I say... people die from shit everyday... cancer, car wrecks, aids, I don't see the government spending a trillion dollars to prevent these much more prevalent causes of death. Terrorism is a ploy stupid! To get you to relinquish your rights, your money and your freedom. Ever see the movie Brazil? Just look at what their setting up right infront of our fat, deep fried Twinkie eating faces... A virtual unification with Canada and Mexico
! The super transcountry shipping corridor
. It's all new world order stuff. This isn't tin foil hat time, this is for real. Inch by inch, law by law, signing statement by signing statement... it's all happening right now and... we are clueless. American Sheeple take notice, you are now officially past critical mass in your consumer driven ignorance and apathy.
But if I pay attention to what the government is really doing, then how will I be able to pay attention to celebrity babies? =)
Wow criss, I hadnt considered that..maybe you could hire a undocumented worker to privide celebrity baby monitoring?
Our rights were gone a long time ago. Some scholars would argue it started with compulsory Social Security contributions, which began in 1937 (it got passed in 1935 with the promise it would be voluntary. Uh-huh. That's how they get their foot in the door, people. Try it, you'll like it!
) If it didn't start then, it definitely started during World War 2,with payroll deductions, when we allowed the government a prior claim
on our hard-earned money. Oh, and anybody remember wage and price controls in the early '70s? Face it, dude--you want rights, you should have arranged to have been born in Iceland.
Well this has been a documented phenomenon for a few years now, the correlation between spending and "perceived risk". A heuristics perspective suggests that there are two things at play, psychology and probability. Probability speaks to what is likely to kill you- and terrorism is of course way down near "shark attack".
Psychology and heuristics theorists say that what the mind sees repeated over and over (like planes, explosions) makes an impression on the mind and causes us to then perceive it as a more imminent threat. The visual cue has the ability to override probability.We might logically know that the risk of a plane crash is relatively low and yet some people will not fly because they have a fear that is out of proportion.
So even though you are far more likely to die from influenza than terror, people will still insist that they are under seige and under threat and will expect the government to act accordingly.
Notice this plays out in many ways. Anthrax, bird flu, the impact of immigration,etc. If this were not true, people would be worrying about their cigarettes, big macs,toxins, and car crashes far more than Islamic extremism. Jihaists will not kill you. You will die from a heart attack, most likely. And not caused by falafel!
Ok lefty, i would say that we don't know all the facts yet, and like the wiretapping(which we do know about), to me, this program seems reasonable.
Just because we are more likely to die from other causes, doesn't mean we shouldn't do everything we can to prevent terrorists from blowing us up. by yours and lilys logic, we shouldn't be using resources to catch and incarcerate murderers because most of us won't be killed by jeffrey dahmer, we'll die from cancer or old age......obviously i have a problem with that.
Terrorism is a ploy to get us to relinquish our rights? so you're saying that everyone is in on it together? Bush/Clinton/Osama/Blair... etc?
I don't think so. Dude maybe you should slow down with the weed man, you're kind of paranoid.
Finally, podvizhnik makes some good points, and Soc. Sec. and payroll taxes are 2 of the many reasons, along with uncle joe, the spread of communism, the growth of labor unions, the cradle to grave government handouts etc. is why i think FDR was by far the worst president in the history of the U.S.
I think the definition of paranoid is spending hundreds of billions of dollars and killing over 100,00 people in a sovereign nation under the false pretense that it will make us safer. paranoid? no, Angry? Yes.. My definition of security would also include not letting about 50 million Americans not have health care. (other than going to emergencies rooms, and declaring bankruptcy) My definition of security is being safe at my pace of work and not having worker safety protection laws undermined my corporations writing the laws. My definition of security is having secure borders and ports, something this administration has played lip service to, even after the recommendations of the 0/11 commission. (this is where wingnuts usually step up to the plate and say "well Clinton ... blah blah blah") Being a good world citizen will make us safer than all the bombs you can drop. Every child you kill adds to the insurgency and ranks of terrorist organizations. Every indigenous peoples we relocate in order to satiate our energy needs turns the world further against us. They don't hate us for our freedom, they hate us for redefining it to suit our needs.
What is this divided, Orwellian mess gonna look like in 2009?
Its incredible what they're getting away with. Shades of 1939 Germany...only technologically more intrusive.
The idiots that blindly support the removal of their own rights would be entertaining if it weren't for the fact that we're going down with them.
The USA/CSA "Civil" War didn't have near the population we have, hence nowhere near the division numerically. At least they had geographic boundaries. Our enemy is well hidden. They're like the Viet Cong- you can't tell them apart from the informed people in this country. Well, unless they're driving a Hummer or an Escalade or sportin' a duh-bya bumper sticker...
Sad. It wasn't anything like this six short (looooong?)years ago.
the media propagates the paranoia daily - blame them for widespread panic over bird flu instead of people paying attention to the murder rates. To my knowledge, no one in my immediate circle of friends has succumbed to bird flu, mad cow disease, or jihadists. My sincerest sympathies to those who have suffered this. Stop watching CNN for the truth and start watching it for people's reactions to the corporate version of the truth.
I agree that the government shouldn't have access to our bank records, phone call information, credit card records, internet activity, etc. However, those things, along with SSNs, shouldn't be available to private parties either. Bush should stay out of my bedroom, but so should Amazon.com, Wal-Mart, and my ex-wife's lawyer and his private investigator buddy.
You're damn skippy this is the welcome mat to The New World Order. And if the govt wanted to do 1 single thing to prevent much more prevalent causes of death, the United States would have universal healthcare.
I did not say we should not care about terrorism. I am just saying that even if we spent billions -terror works because it is unpredictable and because of the way it elicits fear.
Hey, I'm back!
Did you miss me?
I did keep up with some news this week and when this story came out about our bank accounts, I just threw up my hands and said, "We have no privacy in this country anymore." Cause we don't!
Hey! what do you have to hide? The government can spy on me all they want, unless it's when I'm in the shower!
Do you really think our rights were gone with social security?
I just find this line of thinking to be confusing because whether voluntary or compulsory, you think that assistance for seniors is different than other forms of societal relief? What about paying for almshouses and asylums to house the poor, infirm, destitute, ill...so if we take a slice of money, call it social security, it ceases to be a form of aid/entitlement like others funded by a taxpayer?
I wish this remark could be explained a bit more, your issue with social security and privacy. That it requires numbers? Wage information? What?
I would love to eat a falafel right now! Uh...oh!...terrorist food...I admit it...I love terrorist food...so that makes me a sympathizer...right? I just wish they'd not put raisins in the rice so much. Ummm...tabouleh...
Sumo, you will be watched more closely now.
The moonbats and the wingnuts seem to have a lot in common lately. There are a lot of people paranoid that a highway
will mean the destruction of the United States. Get real.
Am I the only liberal that exists today? It seems I'm surrounded by angry socialists and paranoid conservatives lately.
It's just that this thing has been in the works for awhile and no one bothered to tell us.. the people. And really is it a good idea that trucks can move frieght into the US all the way to Kansas city without inspection? Bypassing US ports.. Union workers?
Bowden, a liberal?
You miss the point that people on the left make about government transparency and democratic ideals.
To reduce it to a matter of a highway destroying America means that you do not agree with some basci ideas of the leftm primarily: that government is paid by us to work for us. That citizens should be informed and engaged, and that our interests and wishes matter.
Further, it is a precedent issue. Should infrastructure be managed by foreign companies, or not? This was also a debate with Dubai. What about security? Immigration reform? The trade imbalance?
I'd rather be a moonbat that reads, thank you. Then a critic that simplifies while smugly insulting everyone in sight.
Left or right, you need to stop preaching and start reading.
Yes, I'm liberal as in liberal, not liberal as in socialist.
Not only has there been transparency on this project, there is no logical reason to oppose it. Some claim that it should be opposed because they suspect the "New World Order" is behind it. You claim this is a completely rational objection, since you value transparency and democratic ideals.
Well, I value transparency and democratic ideals, but I know that self-congratulation is not a basis for social and economic policy.
Better yet, if the government wants to take out terrorists then why don't they take out the white corporate terrorists. If Bu$h wants to take out a terrorist all he would have to do is stick a gun to his head and shoot. Same for the Dick, etc.
If you don't like socialists than you aren't a liberal. In fact you may claim to be a liberal, but your blog and comments indicate otherwise.
what I want to know is why with the "virtual" union (not to mistaken for any form of "non-traditional" marriage) of North American (Canada, US, Mexico) WHY does the US flag come first in the cute little logo - since you guys are the middle country? Somehow I see this as a "virtual cluster f@#$" for Canada and Mexico - of course I could be wrong, the US could only have the purest motives and kindest feelings for their socialist gay marrying nieghbours to the north and their endless source of exploitable labour to the south....
george orwell had it right.
Little by little, piece by piece they chip away at it.
"Freedom" is a strange word.
We are willing to give it away in order to protect it. So what is it that we are protecting exactly? Or maybe I should say, WHOSE freedom are we protecting?
Always remember this:
Last years tin foil=this year's truth.
Tin foil is real the equivalent of the second stage of accepting the truth which is violent oppositon. Following that is the third stage of acceptance.
To answer your rhetorical question the only people being protected are the rich white male corporate terrorists. The rest of us are on track to be turned into there slave race. Fight the corporate terrorists now people.