<b>Batman</b>: Just to be clear: I never called you amoral or unnatural. That was MrsJB's doing! Security is just a concept? I'll have to think about that one. I think it is much more. The last time I flew, I had to "conceptually" take off my shoes and my belt for inspection. Damn, it seemed real. If you don't have children, you don't understand the power of them in your life. It gives you extra incentive. My God, they came into my life and I even became a safer driver because they were my passengers. Now they are my lifelong passengers and it gives me an extra sense of urgency to make the world safer for them. I daresay that everyone moves along the continuum in that direction when they have dependents--not all the way to my position, of course. But they do move. <b>Baqui99 and Batman</b>: I didn't make myself clear there but I won't go back and edit so as to look cowardly. My "what's the big deal" reference was to Batman's insinuation that these liberties once-denied would never be restored. That has not proven to be true. I wish I had made that clearer. Anyone see Pearl Harbor, the movie? Remember that scene when the Japanese-American denist was spying on Pearl Harbor and was feeding the enemy information. Anybody know if that was true or just a Hollywood embellishment? What to do about Japanese spying? <b>Mrs.JB</b>: I hope you don't think I ever called you amoral? I haven't and wouldn't. <b>FranchiseBlade</b>: Two is twice as many as one, but it's not very many when you consider the scale of a worldwide war on terrorism. Tim McVeigh was a criminal and was not part of any larger expressed and immediate threat. Same with the '93 Tower bombings. However, 9/11 was different. At least 4 coordinated attacks and eventual evidence of complicity by OBL after much, much , much lying by him and his cohorts.
tba -- I was pointing out to Brian that liberals were not the only ones who had seemingly changed positions on Klayman and his organization. In order to show that conservatives were also seeing Klayman differently I used a conservative coumn from a conservative political group.
Amazing that you can call the greatest scandal of our modern times (make no mistake - Iran Contra was bigger than Watergate) less damaging than Clinton's stuff and then say that it's us who decided facts didn't matter. How did Reagan respond? He lied. He perjured himself. Then he let his underlings take the fall. Very honorable. Iran wasn't a threat to our national security? Didn't they take Americans hostage during the previous administration? Or was that okay, since Carter was prez then? Okay. Clinton took contributions from dangerous sources and that was wrong. As Molly Ivins says, "You gotta dance with them what brung you." Which is also why the Bushies are having so many problems with the Enron scandal. There are no angels in our modern politics. True blindness to facts though is when you recognize the sins of one party and dismiss the sins of the other. The Republicans have been selling access long before the Dems got the hang of it. But it is all wrong. And that's why I worked for Jerry Brown, with his $100 campaign contribution limit. Clinton provided access to technology to our allies, yes. And that was unwise. Bush and Reagan actually armed them though, as has been the practice for a lot of years. We arm the hell out of a country and then we have to go bomb the hell out of them. But no problem there, right? After all, it's good for business. First we arm Iran, ILLEGALLY. Not against the advice of the Dept. of Defense, but ILLEGALLY, against the express order of Congress. Then we arm Iraq to fight Iran. Then we buddy up with Iran to fight Iraq. But hundreds of thousands of dead civilians are nothing next to Clinton exposing himself to some sort of abstract blackmail, according to you, even while there's not even circumstantial evidence to suggest he'd ever been blackmailed. And after all that, after the perjury (a felony when Clinton does it on a sex matter, a denial when Reagan does it on a matter of national security), after the hundreds of thousands dead, after the stream of illegal drugs into our country as a direct result of Iran Contra, after all that Clinton is the devil and Ollie North's a patriot. Yeah, us liberals are really blind to the facts. We're lucky to have folks like you and Ashcroft to remind us what America's all about.
Mrs JB, you are correct- some conservatives have changed their tune about Klayman. That is to be expected from self-proclaimed conservative publications. They announce their bias openly. What is troubling is how the main stream press has changed he way they report about Klayman. CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC are supposed to be independent, but they have proven their bias once again in this case.
giddyup: The 'unnatural' reference was from the 'what makes you gay' thread, where people said that those who didn't procreate were unnatural. The security as a concept thing was a reaction to you saying it was a cheap shot to say Ashcroft was denying civil liberties in the name of a concept. He uses both patriotism and security to justify his means. Both are cynical arguments. I mentioned the children thing because you insinuated that having children makes one better able to understand the threat of terrorism. I don't have children and I don't live in New York (anymore). This does not inhibit my ability to understand the threat of terrorism. On the other thing, liberties revoked are never truly restored. Freed slaves never had the time they were slaves restored. Neither did the innocent Japanese American citizens who were imprisoned. Right after you said that it wasn't a big deal since these violations of civil liberties would eventually be restored, you said it was a damn good thing that we had said violator as Attorney General. If you want to clear something up, clear that up.
They weren't a threat to our country? I can't think of a much bigger threat to our country at the time. Only a few years earlier it was Iran that stormed the U.S. embassy and heald more than fifty Americans hostage. It was also Reagan who proudly boasted that he would not deal with terrorists. Then he turns around sells arms to Iran. Yes Clinton traded technology with China. For whatever reason they are supposedly supposed to be good trading partners according to both Republican and Democratic administrations. Bush also planned not only to trade technology but have a military exchange where Chinese officers would come to the U.S. and the U.S. would send officers to China. That seems to be equally if not more risky. In fact most of the scientists who worked on the technology shared by the Clinton administration were in favor of sharing that technology with anyone who wanted it in the first place. And according them it wouldn't be a great risk to U.S. safety.(According to the book, Understanding Power.) I'm not in favor of trading with China at all until they clean up their human rights violations. But that being said how many U.S. embassies have they stormed, and taken more than fifty hostages? The answer is zero. The Iranians, who Reagan's administration sold arms to can not make the same claim. Like I said the closest thing we've had to a leader with unimpeachable honor, character, and responsibility was Jimmy Carter. You laugh about it all being about he economy, but that's what Reagan used to win the election when he ousted the unimpeachable honorable, and responsible Jimmy Carter. I think if you're grandparent of parent who'd worked hard all their lives and had counted on their stocks as security for their retirements it would matter more than one iota. For plenty of people who were mislead and lost a bundle it's wrong, but some will have another chance to start over, those on the verge of retirement won't. Look at what's happening in the Market now, based on distrust by actions like Cheney's. More people are affected at this moment by that type of activity than by what the Chinese are doing. And if China is making the world so dangerous why doesn't Geroge W. Bush cut off military ties with them, instead of initiating military exchange programs. Or could it be that the danger China poses is only real when it's Democrats Yes let's look at facts. China so far hasn't done anything to the U.S. on the level that Iran did. You have your supposition that they are a real threat to us, and that Clinton's policies with them will endanger us, but that's only your supposition. If we look at facts we see what terrorism has done to us. Iran is, of course, one of those nations listed by the govt. as supporting terrorism, and we also know that they took over a U.S. embassy and held more than fifty Americans hostage shortly before Reagan's administration sold them weapons. Another fact is that stock market is hurting because of fraudulent accounting practices similar to those Cheney is accused of, and people have lost their retirement, and tons of money, while corporate ceo's like Cheney was increased their wealth. As far as Chinese selling arms to terrorist nations, maybe they are just following Reagan's example. And the weapons they sold were not any that were traded from Clinton. The sells happened prior to any of that. In addition the Chinese haven't done anything to us, and are supposed to be our trading partners. Hopefully we can all 'benefit' from your arguments when they contain more facts.
The freedoms taken away by the "Patriot Act" will never be re-instated until the Supreme Court declares it unconstitutional (which it BLATENTLY is). When it comes down to it, the Patriot Act does nothing for the safety of America. Rather, it arbitrarily removes our rights while we sit back and say "Oh, it's for security". Note that this "war" on terrorism can never be won. When will it be over? When we catch Osama Bin Laden? Then why isn't it a war on OBL? Will it be over when we've eliminated every terrorist in the world? How is that possible? Who will define terrorist? Will we be attacking the IRA as well? What about Oliver North and Henry Kissinger? When will this "war" end? The simple truth is that it is a "war" with no end. Yet its invention allows the government to take away more and more freedoms while the media doesn't tell us what's really happening. It merely tows the line of "It's for security", "Give up rights for security". I see, so by having secret trials where the defendent is not allowed in court to even know what he is accused of is for security? Are searches and seizures without warrents for security? Requiring Libraries to hand over lists of what books people are checking out is for national security? I feel so much secure already. The thing is, people are trusting that the government is acting morally. That it wouldn't use its powers in ways that are not in the people's best interests, or for certain people's own personal agendas. Yet we've already seen myriad abuses under this new regime. Heck, we saw abuses of power before under Clinton, Bush 1, Regan and before. The new Patriot act just makes the abuses legal! And then what happens if the US does have another terrorist attack on it? Do we need to give up more rights? Should we burn the constitution and create a military state?
I am no longer needed here. I defer to my more eloquent brothers FranchiseBlade and Vengeance. Good luck, tbagain and giddyup.
Need a little gray in here. I for one don't think conservative and liberal Americans, in general, are for the loss of civil rights. Conservatives are more afraid they will lose their civil rights thru anarchy or the lack of government protection and thus roll the dice that security doesn't become a problem. Liberals are afraid security will become too tight and are more willing to roll the dice that anarchy and terrorism don't take over. I think the pendelum may be swinging to fast to the right despite my inclination usually to this side. The lack of security will ensure as quick a loss of civil rights (especially if you oppose the right to bear arms) as a facist security system will. I think security and civil rights is a balancing act in which you truly don't have either if they aren't balanced.
I was reading something recently (probably because of this thread) that some guy (anthropologist, or something) did a study of national newspapers and television news shows...what he found was that the press more often labels liberals than conservatives. Whatever that is supposed to mean... Brian, I mean this in all honesty and ignorance, but did Klayman's group ever sue Republican politicians prior to this new stuff? If it had only been the Democrat leadership prior, then I might be able to understand such a shift. Besides, isn't it good that his group would now be considered just a watchdog group? This would linguistically imply that it is mainstream and not some extremist group. I dunno...nor do I care. My team still wins. I still have yet to find a "liberal" media watchdog group anyway...you liberals need to get your acts together!
How can it be cynical to be concerned about security when you have just had 3,000 of your residents slaughtered? That was real. It is his responsibility to prevent it. He will get the blame if another attack succeeds. What I meant to get at with the children thing is to say that I (as a parent) have a kind of responsibility that you (as a non-parent) do not have; I don't think I ever said better, did I?. I only meant to indicate that it is different. Actually, I talked about "an extra sense of urgency" to be exact. If you don't have dependents, you can't understand what it's like to be responsible for them. That's easy to clear up: I don't consider Ashcroft to be a Violator. That's you not me. Other than taking my shoes off before flying, my life hasn't changed one iota since 9/11. I think, for a lot of not-so-innocent people, their life has changed quite a bit for the worse. And I hope it gets even worse still for them. Do you really want to compare somewhat reduced civil liberties in a time of war to slavery? Seems kind of like an exaggeration.
It is not cynical to be concerned about security. It is cynical to use this country's concern about security to justify the dismissal of our most basic rights. I do compare this situation to slavery in so much as it is a 'temporary' removal of our basic rights to due process. You only have to take off your shoes at the airport. Others, who have not been charged with a crime and are not allowed access to the evidence against them, have been held for months in prison. Same as with the Japanese internment camps, which you said weren't such a bad thing since the people held were eventually freed. If you can't agree with me that the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' or our right to due process in this country is worth protecting, we really don't have anything to talk about.
Random thoughts. Should we call supporters of Bush, Bushphiles or Bushsprouts. Is Klayman officially now a Bushweed. I guess Condi, Cheney and Rove are Bushthorns. Log cabin republicans pinkbushes or butchbushes. Is Laura a Bush[i/]Bush. Sorry, this is getting bad, I better stop. There is a flat line where as income goes up % of republican registration goes up. There is a U shaped curve with education and demo/repub registration however. The highest group in terms of % who are repub. are those with college degrees. But those with less education or still further education tilt toward demo registration. I don't know the breakdown for physicians specifically, but as their larger group (group with post-graduate degrees) tilts toward demos I would suspect they are either pretty evenly split or favoring demos. I would go along with the premise that journalists as a group lean toward the liberal side. Whether this is more important as far as manipulating public opinion than the fact the companies that those journalists work for as well as overall corporate lobbying leans towards supporting conservative messages I am highly doubtful of. As for PC, this phrase and meaning has been totally bent out of shape. It was a brilliant resurrection by a conservative pundit in the late 80s. Of course there are times when the implication was right on (kernel of truth)--that we were handicapping free expression and communication by being too worried about how it might come off or because is simply because the view wasn’t in political favor at the moment. But the cry of PC has been so bastardized by labeling anything you really want to say but can't get away with socially (racist, sexist, xenophobic stuff, etc) as a infringement due to PC. In truth PC occur across the political spectrum, the most exemplary case of PC was the age of McCarthy/Hoover--except then the punishment wasn't just social scorn for going against the grain but prison or worse. Today the best cases for PC that I can think of is the widespread condemnation of the fellow who challenged the "under god" in the pledge and the people questioning our middle east policy. Mixing PC/patriotism is a dangerous thing IMO, you want to talk about PC squelching the expression of ideas.
If I was in the media and had a liberal bias, I would harp on the fact that Judicial Watch is a conservative group. There's nothing that people love more to help them prove their point than to be able to say "see, his own kind think he did something wrong", etc.
Is it cynical or responsive to adjust? Aren't you exaggerating when you say dismissal? Have "our most basic rights" really been dismissed? Did the slaves understand that their servitude was temporary? There you go again: I didn't say that the internment camps weren't such a bad thing because they were eventually freed. I just pointed out your false innuendo that those were permanent conditions. Regards the innocent-untii-proven-guilty and the right-to-due-process, I guess <b>sometimes</b> we don't have anything to talk about because <b>sometimes</b> those rights are laid aside for greater concerns.
Nobody is saying we shouldn't adjust. What we're saying is that the so-called Patriot Act is exactly what we feared from J. Ashcroft, which is why his hearings were contentious. I don't think telling slaves their enslavement was temporary would have endeared the masters to them. Wrong's wrong, temporary or not. This idea of suspending our rights, however temporarily, is exactly like the internment camps and it is unconscionable. If you like it, I understand why you're glad Ashcroft's AG. But it's exactly why so many of us find him so incredibly dangerous and, along with Enron, etc, it's why Bush will be a one term president.
I don't understand why you keep bringing up Japanese internment camps. Those were completely arbitrary and racist and I don't see that anywhere near comparable to suspension of due process for suspected terrorists, many of which are not citizens and are in the country illegally. Do you really think screaming that the sky is falling is an appropriate way to discuss this issue? Do you seriously believe that a Democratic administration wouldn't be looking to use these same powers to curtail terrorism? Bill Clinton is the President who instituted laws allowing secret evidence and never ending detention without charges. John Ashcroft just gives you an easy target to cry wolf.
You spoil my fun. I was waiting for somebody to jump on me...but either people just ignore me or really didn't know there were leftist media watchdog groups (FAIR isn't the only one). Sigh...I am a loser.
