Internal spying within the US
Velochic du nord
What is all of your takes on this?
I've just been catching the headlines, but this does not sound
promising for long term democracy.
V, observing from the north.
Mean Green Dancing Machine
Velochic du nord <for.ar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>I've just been catching the headlines, but this does not sound
>promising for long term democracy.
Which spying?
http://www.slate.com/id/2132092/?nav=tap3
--
--- Aahz <*> (Copyright 2005 by aa...@pobox.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het Pythonista
'Cultural power/privilege is being in a position where you get to claim
you and your culture are normal and average and don't have to explain
yourself or justify yourself. It's being in a position where your
desires/needs/ways are not considered "special interests."' -- SJM
Velochic du nord
Machine) wrote:
>In article <onbgq15lvhhtq0eds...@4ax.com>,
>Velochic du nord <for.ar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>I've just been catching the headlines, but this does not sound
>>promising for long term democracy.
>
>Which spying?
This spying:
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1134990756458
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1135032611988
The tapping of domestic phones and monitoriing of internet traffic to
suspected individuals without court oversight or warrant.
Because to do so was "too slow".
>
>http://www.slate.com/id/2132092/?nav=tap3
That's of interest... but not what I was thinking of.
Is this is of more imeediate concern to you than the NYT breaking the
story about domestic spying against civil action groups such as the
ACLU and protest groups such as PETA?
On this side of the border, we haven't had as hyped up of a war on
drugs as you have (it's more about criminal organization issues,
stealing of electricty, safety, etc) and we're trying to address it
more as an issue of social policy. It's not been a "war", it's been an
enforcement and reckless endangerment issue.
Although many people in Trawna are a bit ticked about that at the
moment, as we've had a sharp spike in gang related shootings this
year. From 50 murders a year to 80, so far (in a city proper of 2.5
million). All of the increase apparently due to a turf war that an
awful lot of witnesses aren't talking about.
I personally don't care if you do the stuff or not. It's your body.
What I _do_ care about is how your actions may affect others when you
are high or drunk.
U.S. domestic spying issues and the viability of your civil society,
otoh, do have an overflow effect on the neighbours. Don't order
certain books on amazon.com for intance, order them on amazon.ca as
interest in them is flagged as suspicious.
Who among my acquaintances will or will not have trouble entering the
United States for legitimate reasons. The effects on research
collaborations. The effect that the requirement that US citizens must
have passports by 2008 for rentry to their country from this one
will have on our tourism industries.
And in other areas,, the effect that lobbiest are having on trade
sectors within which we are now deeply and structurally tied to the US
as part of NAFTA.
Almost enough to make one start broadening their list o' trading
partners. Which is starting to happen.
Sorry, I started to answer your question, and I rambled.
Velochicdunord
Paul Wallich
I think it's very
NO CARRIER
Penelope Periwinkle
<for.ar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
Oh look, it's Shirley, USA bashing.
Quelle surprise.
Penelope
--
"Maybe you'd like to ask the Wizard for a heart."
"ElissaAnn" <eli...@everybodycansing.com>
steveb
<for.ar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>I've just been catching the headlines, but this does not sound
>promising for long term democracy.
GW Bush said yesterday that it was all necessary, evidenced by the
fact there have been no more attacks since 9/11 ....
OTOH, had there been such an attack, I rather suspect he would be
bleating for more powers, to meet the menace his ascendancy to King
Goerge hadn't managed.
Wasn't the War of Independence fought against the last King George
America had?
steveb
Allison Turner-
>
>On 20 Dec 2005 11:10:47 -0500, Velochic du nord
><for.ar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>I've just been catching the headlines, but this does not sound
>>promising for long term democracy.
>
>GW Bush said yesterday that it was all necessary, evidenced by the
>fact there have been no more attacks since 9/11 ....
Q: Why do Elephants paint their toenails multi colors?
A: To hide in M&M bags.
Ever see an Elephant in an M&M bag?
See how well it works?
-at
Penelope Periwinkle
>On 20 Dec 2005 11:10:47 -0500, Velochic du nord
><for.ar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>I've just been catching the headlines, but this does not sound
>>promising for long term democracy.
>
>GW Bush said yesterday that it was all necessary, evidenced by the
>fact there have been no more attacks since 9/11 ....
I expect that kind of horse shit from Dubya; the scary part for
me is that The New York Times went along with his reasoning, and
sat on the story for a year.
A *year*!
I'm still gobsmacked.
Paul Ciszek
In article <3mcgq11ehmukhe7nt...@4ax.com>,
Velochic du nord <for.ar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>U.S. domestic spying issues and the viability of your civil society,
>otoh, do have an overflow effect on the neighbours. Don't order
>certain books on amazon.com for intance, order them on amazon.ca as
>interest in them is flagged as suspicious.
Meanwhile, books with homosexual or feminist themes are sometimes
confiscated by Canadian authorities.
I wonder what the penalties for book smuggling are? I could do
business both ways...
--
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled |
steveb
<pperi...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>I expect that kind of horse shit from Dubya; the scary part for
>me is that The New York Times went along with his reasoning, and
>sat on the story for a year.
>
>A *year*!
>
>I'm still gobsmacked.
I agree .....
There is a balance between *Our President asked, in the interests of
National Security* ... and good investigative journalism.
The Times got it wrong.
steveb
steveb
wrote:
>Ever see an Elephant in an M&M bag?
>See how well it works?
C J Kregg, in the West Wing regularly makes the point about not being
caught out accepting the premise of the question .... apposite here.
Were any further attacks really planned? If so, did the spying without
warrants actually defeat them? ... the increased security at ports of
entry certainly would not have caught the last bunch ....
Do elephants, in fact, paint their toenails?
We SHOULD be told
ste ...
Allison Turner-
>
>
>In article <3mcgq11ehmukhe7nt...@4ax.com>,
>Velochic du nord <for.ar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>U.S. domestic spying issues and the viability of your civil society,
>>otoh, do have an overflow effect on the neighbours. Don't order
>>certain books on amazon.com for intance, order them on amazon.ca as
>>interest in them is flagged as suspicious.
>
>Meanwhile, books with homosexual or feminist themes are sometimes
>confiscated by Canadian authorities.
Oh yes. We* used to create a 'special' packing list for
certain of our Canadian bookstore customers. A hundred or
so books, with the gay stuff missing from the list. Gay
books near, but not at, the bottom of the box. Usually
worked.
>I wonder what the penalties for book smuggling are? I could do
>business both ways...
When I was a kid, a hippy friend of my mom's smuggled a
small amount of marijuana into Canada successfully. I
couldn't think what the point was, really; surely it
would have been easier and much less dangerous to buy
an ounce once he arrived. Perhaps it was the thrill of
smuggling in and of itself.
Anyway, I can't imagine smuggling across the US/CA
boarder would be astronomically hard. Though personally,
there are much more interesting (and probably more cost
effective) things I'd prefer to do with my life.
-Allison
*book distributor; was fun while it was fun, but no tears
shed on my part when it ended.
Plague Boy
Perhaps they are hoping to pick up the RM Nixon Award
for Co-operative Journalism.
--
"Damn AOL. Then was the September of our discontent."-
Tim Haynes, c.o.l.s, 11-30-01
Mean Green Dancing Machine
Velochic du nord <for.ar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>On 20 Dec 2005 11:16:54 -0500, aa...@pobox.com (Mean Green Dancing
>Machine) wrote:
>>In article <onbgq15lvhhtq0eds...@4ax.com>,
>>Velochic du nord <for.ar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>I've just been catching the headlines, but this does not sound
>>>promising for long term democracy.
>>
>>Which spying?
>
>This spying:
>The tapping of domestic phones and monitoriing of internet traffic to
>suspected individuals without court oversight or warrant.
Sorry -- I was using sarcasm.
>>http://www.slate.com/id/2132092/?nav=tap3
>
>That's of interest... but not what I was thinking of.
>
>Is this is of more imeediate concern to you than the NYT breaking the
>story about domestic spying against civil action groups such as the
>ACLU and protest groups such as PETA?
Possibly less immediate concern. OTOH, even before this broke, anyone
who wasn't outraged wasn't paying attention. We already knew Bush lied
about the basis for the war in Iraq; we already knew that Bushies used
the Patriot Act to expand non-warrant searches and gag orders; we
already knew that people were imprisoned without due process of law
(Jose Padilla). So really, there's nothing new here.
It's just that this is the first new revelation to come since the
Repuglicans started losing momentum from the bungled response to
Katrina, the Rove/Plame investigation, the DeLay indictment, and the
Abramoff scandal.
Long-term, I think the "Stop Snitching" campaign will probably have a
greater impact on USA society. The War on Some Drugs has permeated down
to the local level in a way that the Bush Repuglicans haven't yet. I
knew it was bad, but I hadn't realized just how much it has altered
communities. This seems like a good chance to give a shove in the right
direction.
[Incidentally, I wrote this post without checking any references (other
than to make sure I was spelling "Stop Snitching" correctly). So yeah,
I think I'm pretty well-aware of what's been going on (and not going
on).]
--
--- Aahz <*> (Copyright 2005 by aa...@pobox.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het Pythonista
"..., and some of you may regard all women as evil traps that exist only
to tease, torture, and suck out your very soul." --DrMax
steveb
wrote:
> Perhaps they are hoping to pick up the RM Nixon Award
>for Co-operative Journalism.
They say they were simply *checking their sources*, and the
publication date is entirely unrelated to the fact that an ex
journalist on the case is just about to publish a book.
steveb
Allisson
Penelope Periwinkle <pperi...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On 20 Dec 2005 11:10:47 -0500, Velochic du nord
><for.ar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>Soooooooooooooo.........
>>
>>What is all of your takes on this?
>>
>>I've just been catching the headlines, but this does not sound
>>promising for long term democracy.
>>
>>V, observing from the north.
>
>Oh look, it's Shirley, USA bashing.
>
>Quelle surprise.
>
I see Snarky Clause has made his delivery (or is that Deliverance)
to Miz P early -- guess her gift took up all the sleigh.
I watched a great interview with Doris Kearns Goodwin about what
Bush could do (note: her son was an officer over in Iraq, who signed
up after 9/11) to help create the kind of coalition of support that
Lincoln did during the Civil War Between the States or FDR did to
generate support to for what became WWII. Right, Wrong, or Indifferent
we are at War and all the second guessings, "should'ves", and
"could'ves" fail to change that fact. One of the things that she
suggested is something that both President's did -- open up the Cabinet
to opposing views (Lincoln had appointed rivals for the Presidency, like
Seward; and Stimson was an 180 opposited to FDR) to encourage discussion,
debate, and consider all of the alternatives -- even what actions mean
to the average citizen. Why do I bring this up in relation to what the
artist formerly known as TB writes or your comment to her? I have
found outside views (both personal and institutional (Economist or BBC,
for example) to be illuminating to how we (the US) is percieved in the
rest of the world; why does this matter, because the great experiment
that is the US is allegedly a beacon of what democracy in action
should be to the rest of the world and how our leaders and how we as
citizens or residents of the country behave is emblematic of that
democratic republic that is the US. When you start tipping the balance
from a tripartite series of checks and balances to one branch usurping
power that undemines the others, then government for, of, and by the
people is in serious danger, maybe not today but someday soon. After
all it was taxation without representation that got a whole lot of tea
dumped in Boston Harbor and encouraged 'seditious' acts of publishing
that criticised the government(both Monarchy during and Colonial
afterward). Think about it, to a colonist their fears -- aside from
the 'tyranies of the monarchy'-- was that there would be anarchy and
NO due process for anyone not on the Revolutionary side.
Anyway, thats a lot of rambling... I hear toddlers rip*&*sneaking
presents.
Allisson & twinkies
[I got an A in my Cognitive Neuroscience course and the Prof
I hope to have as PhD advisor, was interested in the idea
behind my class project as potential real work for me as a PhD,
whoo hoo.]
--
Care enough for a result and you will almost certainly
attain it -- William James (Henry James' smarter brother)
Mike Given
>Soooooooooooooo.........
>What is all of your takes on this?
If I have a choice of my government spying on me or some other
government spying on me, I'd rather it be the former.
>I've just been catching the headlines, but this does not
>sound promising for long term democracy.
Spare me.
Firstly, I don't really care if the government peeks in on me 'cuz I
really don't have anything to hide. And even if I *did* have
something to hide, it's certainly not anything of even mild interest
to the USFed. The only thing that'd bother me about it is the amount
of time/money is spent poking into ordinary folk such as myself could
certainly be better spent elsewhere.
Secondly, if the gummint peeks in on you and you're doing something
stupid and/or illegal and you get nabbed for it, I've got no problem
with that. Depriving some religious fundamentalist maniac of
explosives and other potentially nasty materials does not do
disservice to democracy-at-large.
Thirdly, it has nothing to do with democratic process - short *or*
long term. If it's the US Constitution you're actually worried about
you shouldn't fret; total privacy is not explicitly guaranteed by that
hallowed document any more than it's guaranteed by "democracy".
In any case, democracy - even Canadian democracy - is quite safe.
I can still think and say what I want. I can still do pretty much
anything that I want within my capabilities except teach "Intelligent
Design" in a science class in the Dover, PA school district. I can
have bits of the Koran tattooed on my lily-white arse in original
Arabic anytime I want and there isn't a blessed thing the US gummint
can do about it.
I pay my government a shitload of taxes every other week with the
understanding that they will do their best to keep me from getting
blown up. If that means tapping the phones of radical imams, looney
white supremacists, and corrupt congresscritters and associated
lobbyists, well hey, that's absolutely fine with me. If keeping an
eye on the nutbars means keeping an eye on me too, well hey, knock
yerself out - no skin off my butt except for the cost.
There is *one* thing that irritates me a *little*, and that is that
if *I* have nothing to hide then I should be allowed to peek at
anything the gummint's got.
Mikey (..starting with campaign financing.)
Paul Wallich
> On 20 Dec 2005 20:33:33 -0500, Allison Turner- <beto...@sover.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Ever see an Elephant in an M&M bag?
>>See how well it works?
>
>
> C J Kregg, in the West Wing regularly makes the point about not being
> caught out accepting the premise of the question .... apposite here.
>
> Were any further attacks really planned? If so, did the spying without
> warrants actually defeat them? ... the increased security at ports of
> entry certainly would not have caught the last bunch ....
Well, our vice president claimed (which is very nearly tantamount to a
guarantee of falsity) that the wholesale surveillance uncovered a plot
to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge by attacking its support cables with
blowtorches.
Perhaps next we will learn that they also foiled a plot to topple the
washington monument by flooding its foundations with vinegar.
paul
Selki
> Allisson & twinkies
> [I got an A in my Cognitive Neuroscience course and the Prof
> I hope to have as PhD advisor, was interested in the idea
> behind my class project as potential real work for me as a PhD,
> whoo hoo.]
Hurray! If you ever have more time to write about it, I'd be interested.
Selki
prairierabbit
news:dobpjf$afs$1...@reader1.panix.com...
> I watched a great interview with Doris Kearns Goodwin
Charlie Rose, right? Kept me up until past my bedtime, she did...
[note for readers: the book she just wrote is _Team of Rivals : The
Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln_, which is on my winter reading list.]
>about what
> Bush could do (note: her son was an officer over in Iraq, who signed
> up after 9/11) to help create the kind of coalition of support that
> Lincoln did during the Civil War Between the States or FDR did to
> generate support to for what became WWII. Right, Wrong, or Indifferent
> we are at War and all the second guessings, "should'ves", and
> "could'ves" fail to change that fact. One of the things that she
> suggested is something that both President's did -- open up the Cabinet
> to opposing views (Lincoln had appointed rivals for the Presidency, like
> Seward; and Stimson was an 180 opposited to FDR) to encourage discussion,
> debate, and consider all of the alternatives -- even what actions mean
> to the average citizen.
One point she made is that Lincoln was able to set aside his own ego to make
decisions that he thought were best to achieve his political goals,
including preserving the union. She also talked about the qualities that
are needed for leadership, and the ability to listen to different points of
view and *change* *one's* *mind* when the evidence requires it, or pursue
goals in a more gradual way. I'm not sure current leadership has the
ability to do these things.
> Allisson & twinkies
> [I got an A in my Cognitive Neuroscience course and the Prof
> I hope to have as PhD advisor, was interested in the idea
> behind my class project as potential real work for me as a PhD,
> whoo hoo.]
Congrats! That's a lovely way to start the season.
JLC
steveb
>
>Perhaps next we will learn that they also foiled a plot to topple the
>washington monument by flooding its foundations with vinegar.
Walmart just cleared it's shelves of vinegar !!!!
Who's peeping?
(songbird not included)
Allisson
prairierabbit <jlc...@ilstu.edu> wrote:
>"Allisson" <alli...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:dobpjf$afs$1...@reader1.panix.com...
>
>> I watched a great interview with Doris Kearns Goodwin
>
>Charlie Rose, right? Kept me up until past my bedtime, she did...
I got to watch it twice* being a S-SAHM allows me to see rebroadcasts
(* up until recently, we didn't have a TV in the bedroom so sometimes I
now watch it in bed; usually just the rebroadcasts not during school
time)
during the day
>
>[note for readers: the book she just wrote is _Team of Rivals : The
>Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln_, which is on my winter reading list.]
On the Library List.
>
>>about what
>> Bush could do (note: her son was an officer over in Iraq, who signed
>> up after 9/11) to help create the kind of coalition of support that
>> Lincoln did during the Civil War Between the States or FDR did to
>> generate support to for what became WWII. Right, Wrong, or Indifferent
>> we are at War and all the second guessings, "should'ves", and
>> "could'ves" fail to change that fact. One of the things that she
>> suggested is something that both President's did -- open up the Cabinet
>> to opposing views (Lincoln had appointed rivals for the Presidency, like
>> Seward; and Stimson was an 180 opposited to FDR) to encourage discussion,
>> debate, and consider all of the alternatives -- even what actions mean
>> to the average citizen.
>
>One point she made is that Lincoln was able to set aside his own ego to make
>decisions that he thought were best to achieve his political goals,
>including preserving the union. She also talked about the qualities that
>are needed for leadership, and the ability to listen to different points of
>view and *change* *one's* *mind* when the evidence requires it, or pursue
>goals in a more gradual way. I'm not sure current leadership has the
>ability to do these things.
Yes, this is a difference between leaderships. However the point that
even the appearance of listening to multiple views is politically shrewd.
allisson
[now they are in protest mode]
steveb
> Firstly, I don't really care if the government peeks in on me 'cuz I
>really don't have anything to hide.
This argument has been used to support invasive acts by authorities
for generations.
The trouble with it is this .... by the time you realise you can't
shit without a permit, it's too late.
Governments should not be allowed to peek and pry, and justify it
later. The default condition should be one of freedom and liberty,
with any surveillance agreed only after there is a demonstrated need
for our privacy to be invaded in this way.
steveb
Paul Wallich
What he said.
paul
Paul Wallich
And of course, almost anyone has something to hide. Even exhibitionists.
paul
stealthaxe
news:40tivfF...@individual.net:
I'm pretty sure it doesn't.
--
stealthaxe
miguel
Mike Given wrote:
> Velochic du nord wrote:
> >Soooooooooooooo.........
> >What is all of your takes on this?
>
> If I have a choice of my government spying on me or some other
> government spying on me, I'd rather it be the former.
Well, that's good to know, although I can't see what it's possibly
relevant to.
> >I've just been catching the headlines, but this does not
> >sound promising for long term democracy.
>
> Spare me.
> Firstly, I don't really care if the government peeks in on me 'cuz I
> really don't have anything to hide. And even if I *did* have
> something to hide, it's certainly not anything of even mild interest
> to the USFed. The only thing that'd bother me about it is the amount
> of time/money is spent poking into ordinary folk such as myself could
> certainly be better spent elsewhere.
> Secondly, if the gummint peeks in on you and you're doing something
> stupid and/or illegal and you get nabbed for it, I've got no problem
> with that. Depriving some religious fundamentalist maniac of
> explosives and other potentially nasty materials does not do
> disservice to democracy-at-large.
> Thirdly, it has nothing to do with democratic process - short *or*
> long term. If it's the US Constitution you're actually worried about
> you shouldn't fret; total privacy is not explicitly guaranteed by that
> hallowed document any more than it's guaranteed by "democracy".
Congratulations. This is the stupidest exposition on freedom from
unreasonable (warrantless) governmental intrusion into one's private
affairs I have ever seen. I cannot imagine you making a stupider
exposition on it even if you were Steve Chaney.
miguel
Allison Turner-
Well?
-Allison
Judge John Jones gave a much better commentary on his topic.
Mike Given
>Mike Given wrote:
>>Firstly, I don't really care if the government peeks in on me
>>'cuz I really don't have anything to hide.
>This argument has been used to support invasive acts by
>authorities for generations.
I should hope so, because I came up with it all by myself out of
sheer common sense.
But do let's talk "generations" for a tich.
A few generations ago in the early 1940s we were having this little
conflict thingy with some piddlin' island country clean across the
Pacific Ocean. So, of course, the government was concerned that
natives of this island nuisance might be sabotaging things and
generally making mischief such as reporting on the status of our naval
fleets as they sat idling in harbor. The then-government's response
was to set up what were euphemistically labeled "relocation camps" or
"temporary internment facilities" and promptly started herding large
numbers of citizens with even the slightest hint of an epicanthic fold
into them. Not a very nice thing to do. Of course I'm sure these
people had plenty of privacy once they were safely ensconced behind
layers of cyclone fence and barbed wire.
Maybe that's what we should do with this Muslim critters. Shut 'em
all behind a chain-link fence. Or maybe just catapult 'em across the
border into Canada.
No solution is perfect. Domestic terror needs to be dealt with and
a bit of peeking seems the least invasive method with the best quality
of return. If it means that some CIA analyst records a few of my
boring-ass phone confabs to rule me out of the picture, then "big
fucking deal" says I.
>The trouble with it is this .... by the time you realise you
>can't shit without a permit, it's too late.
Spare me. That's completely alarmist nonsense and anyone with even
the slightest smidge of smarts can see it. There's a lot of ground to
cover between the government being a busybody and Stalinesque
scatological totalitarianism.
And by the way (at least indirectly speaking) you already can't just
shit any old where ya want, neither can your dog, and I personally
consider the miracles of plumbing and public water and sewage to be
wonderful and yea verily, even a blessed thing.
>Governments should not be allowed to peek and pry, and justify it
>later.
Why not? You do realize that wiretaps can be issued without your
knowing it, right? And sakes-alive, don't even get me started on the
number of personal orifices the IRS is allowed to probe (and plunder).
>The default condition should be one of freedom and liberty,
Ah. So perhaps what we disagree on is an issue of "condition".
We already know that the government is not allowed to house troops in
our homes and we're also protected again *unreasonable* search and
seizure unless supported by oath or affirmation.
Would you consider the current political condition one of "default"?
If some CIA analyst records a phone conversation of yours and
dismisses it as harmless, in what way was your freedom or liberty
impaired? If that same CIA analyst subsequently eavesdrops on a
conversation from some fundamentalist freak about to blow up a federal
office building in, oh, I don't know, say, the middle of Oklahoma, in
what way would your freedom and/or liberty be impaired?
>with any surveillance agreed only after there is a
>demonstrated need for our privacy to be invaded in this
>way.
Good old Ben Franklin once said "They that can give up essential
liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty
nor safety." Definitely a lofty ideal. But where was good old Ben
from 1776 until 1785? Was he here in America, alternately fleeing
from and taking up arms against the British? Why no - rough'n'tumble
Ben was in France, hooting it up with the hoy-poloy and generally
being a fat bastard.
Courageous words - from a craven diplomat that didn't have to face
or even be mildly inconvenienced by the consequences of his own
actions. L-A-X.
I don't see the current US situation as "default". I don't see
non-invasive monitoring of communication via public utilities and
resources that are subsidized by tax money as unreasonable in this
non-default conidtion. Personally I'd rather pay a few dollars more
for a gallon of gasoline if I thought that would make terrorists stay
the fuck home, but I'm under no such loftily-inspired notion. Right
here, right now, there is a need to *suspend* a *tiny* bit of privacy
to preserve a greater good, because that beats the idea of herding
anyone with Muslim headgear or a swastika tattoo into a concentration
camp.
And the day the government starts issuing poo-pooh permits, I'll be
among the first to load a weapon and take up arms against it.
Mikey ("Give Me Liberty, or Give Me...double-ply, please.")
Mike Given
>Mike Given wrote:
>>Velochic du nord wrote:
>>>Soooooooooooooo.........
>>>What is all of your takes on this?
>>If I have a choice of my government spying on me or some
>>other government spying on me, I'd rather it be the former.
>Well, that's good to know, although I can't see what it's
>possibly relevant to.
Considering your recent bouts of narow-minded liberalism, that comes
as no surprise.
[...]
>Congratulations. This is the stupidest exposition on freedom
>from unreasonable (warrantless) governmental intrusion into
>one's private affairs I have ever seen.
Yah, okay. I keep forgetting that a niggling piece of paper with a
judge's signature will save me from government probing.
But it won't save you from my selling you this really nice bridge I
got in Brooklyn, NY.
>I cannot imagine you making a stupider exposition on it
>even if you were Steve Chaney.
So how goes your never-ending quest to find your friend Stebe's home
address? Did your lofty ideals stop you from publishing the name and
address of someone who committed the most heinous crime of badmouthing
your family?
Mikey (..yo momma so fat)
miguel
> Well?
Judge Jones is getting well-paid and he had a couple clerks to help
draft it. :)
Mikey enjoys being contrarian too much.
miguel
miguel
> miguel wrote:
> >Mike Given wrote:
> >>Velochic du nord wrote:
> >>>Soooooooooooooo.........
> >>>What is all of your takes on this?
> >>If I have a choice of my government spying on me or some
> >>other government spying on me, I'd rather it be the former.
> >Well, that's good to know, although I can't see what it's
> >possibly relevant to.
> Considering your recent bouts of narow-minded liberalism, that comes
> as no surprise.
Well, I am somewhat to the left of Dick Cheney, I confess.
> [...]
> >Congratulations. This is the stupidest exposition on freedom
> >from unreasonable (warrantless) governmental intrusion into
> >one's private affairs I have ever seen.
> Yah, okay. I keep forgetting that a niggling piece of paper with a
> judge's signature will save me from government probing.
No, dumbass, that niggling piece of paper saves you from having the
government probe you without an identifiable reason for doing so, and
selling that reason to a judge or magistrate. The Fourth Amendment
doesn't prevent government probing.
> >I cannot imagine you making a stupider exposition on it
> >even if you were Steve Chaney.
> So how goes your never-ending quest to find your friend Stebe's home
> address? Did your lofty ideals stop you from publishing the name and
> address of someone who committed the most heinous crime of badmouthing
> your family?
You've been Christmas shopping at the non sequitur store!
miguel
Allisson
The course was a survey course and one of the goals that the Instructor had
was to get the students thinking of how information, research methodology and
tools (EEG, MEG, fMRI, and others), brain data, vision data (his interest so we
got to read more article regarding vision -- including one cool one from the
animal lit by Reisenhuber and Poggio (1999)* that postulates that there is
a hierarchy of visual perceptual processing as simple edge detectors get
amalgamated into 'shape' detectors as you go up in cortex from the retintopic
representations in V1/2 to the infereotemporal cortex (in the macaque,
correlated with the Medial Temporal Lobe in humans, per other studies))
and data from other disciplines interrelates to each other and to generating
new ideas about existing theories, models, etc by designing experiments to
test these things.
I've been working with one model of perceptual categorization (exemplar
model -- there are three *beeg* models: exemplar (we categorize objects
by their similarity to other exemplars in our memory) retrieval; we
generalize from exemplars to create a prototype in memory that new objects
are judged/contrasted against; and decision bound (which partitions the
feature space into categories based on distance from a 'theoretical'
bound created by salient feature values [an example is a Munsell square
that has three integral dimensions -- hue, saturation, and intensity --
that have an equal distance between colors; if you hold hue constant and
then vary the other two dimensions you could assign the resultant colors to
two distinct (artificial) categories along the linear bound].
Additionally, this idea of a visual hierarchy of perception has been
extended to ortographic representations of words -- which makes sense
when you look at the evidence from dyslexics who are sensitive to
string position (even of non-alphabetic but letter-like stimuli) --
letter combinations could be considered larger objects. It, also, gets at
the advantage for pronouncable nonsense words, as the features that
make them pronouncable are letter groupings that may be percieved as
units, over pure nonsense words in some of the early memory tasks. But
I'm digressing to a side thought (early language learners (productive
not receptive) have a bias for shape -- cows and dogs have a similar
shape [sorry Angela] so the cow is a "doggie"; so are similarly shaped
words categorized by early learners as in a similar category or not?)
I want to look at how increased dimensionality of the stimuli (adding
shape criteria to color stimuli) in a classification task does for the
goodness-of-fit for each model and how using neurophysiological data
(fMRI) follows the predicted time course and what regions of the
brain are involved in these tasks. Each theory posits a different
region as being crucial. This was my class project but I discussed my
idea with the person whom I want for my PhD advisor (I'm applying for
FT study next Fall) and they were "exeptionally interested" in pursuing
it beyond a theoretical class exercise in experimental design.
Now that I've confused more people, it's probably as clear as mud. But,
it's a good place to start.
Allisson
(no twinkies)
* Reisenhuber, M & Poggio T (1999). Hierarchal models of object recognition
in cortex. Nature neuroscience [1097-6256] vol:2 iss:11 pg:1019 -1025.
I can send article if interested, as not everyone has journal access.
Allison Turner-
>
>Allison Turner- wrote:
[Miguel's response to Mikey]
>> Well?
>
>> Judge John Jones gave a much better commentary on his topic.
>
>Judge Jones is getting well-paid and he had a couple clerks to help
>draft it. :)
>
>Mikey enjoys being contrarian too much.
Well... well, drat.
-Allison
I was hoping things would get interesting.
Allison Turner-
>steveb wrote:
>>Mike Given wrote:
>>>Firstly, I don't really care if the government peeks in on me
>>>'cuz I really don't have anything to hide.
>>This argument has been used to support invasive acts by
>>authorities for generations.
>
[...]
> No solution is perfect. Domestic terror needs to be dealt with and
>a bit of peeking seems the least invasive method with the best quality
>of return. If it means that some CIA analyst records a few of my
>boring-ass phone confabs to rule me out of the picture, then "big
>fucking deal" says I.
What you are not addressing is the possibility that they
will record your boring-ass phone confabs and *not* rule
you out of the picture. That is what concerns me. Just
because whatever you chat about on the phone now, or
whatever you store on your harddrive now, or whatever,
does not happen to be illegal or set some wingnut faction
raving at the moment, doesn't mean it won't become the
prevailing fashion in one or three or ten years to arrest
people like you on some pretext of protecting the rest
of America[tm] from such morally corrupt fellows as you
obviously are.
And me, too. You're a bit on the raving side, just as
I am if ya get me going. We've got our strong opinions
(which generally don't agree, but I think you're cute
despite your wonked viewpoints). Remember the "Anything
you say can *and will* be held against you in a court of
law" line? It's not particularly far-fetched that, as
political and social norms shift and change, the powers
that be might take your wonked viewpoints, and my ever-
so-reasonable ones, pull them out of context, and make
our lives particularly cumbersome. The fact that there's
some fraction of a billion of us to contend with is really
the only thing that makes it unlikely for any particular
individual, if you ask me.
Government being allowed to tap my phone without my
knowledge and without some approval from *someone*
independent (a judge-stamped search warrant) is just not
ok. There has too be some sort of check on this kind of
thing. And don't go giving me that "protection from
terrorists" bullshit line. You want to fight terrorists,
go get a goddamn fucking search warrant, just like anyone
else.
-Allison
Mike Given
>Mike Given wrote:
>>miguel wrote:
>>>Mike Given wrote:
>>>>If I have a choice of my government spying on me or some
>>>>other government spying on me, I'd rather it be the former.
>>>Well, that's good to know, although I can't see what it's
>>>possibly relevant to.
>>Considering your recent bouts of narow-minded liberalism,
>>that comes as no surprise.
>Well, I am somewhat to the left of Dick Cheney, I confess.
So'm I, but that aint sayin' much now, is it?
>>[...]
>>>Congratulations. This is the stupidest exposition on freedom
>>>from unreasonable (warrantless) governmental intrusion into
>>>one's private affairs I have ever seen.
>>Yah, okay. I keep forgetting that a niggling piece of paper
>>with a judge's signature will save me from government probing.
>No, dumbass, that niggling piece of paper saves you from having
>the government probe you without an identifiable reason for doing
>so, and selling that reason to a judge or magistrate.
So as long as the proper form is filled out and signed, probing me
is ok.
I feel *so* much better now.
Perhaps you could explain it to John Schmidt, a former US associate
AG under Clinton:
http://tinyurl.com/8q8mt
>The Fourth Amendment doesn't prevent government probing.
Gee, thanks Sancho. I woulda never known.
>>>I cannot imagine you making a stupider exposition on it
>>>even if you were Steve Chaney.
>>So how goes your never-ending quest to find your friend Stebe's
>>home address? Did your lofty ideals stop you from publishing the
>>name and address of someone who committed the most heinous crime
>>of badmouthing your family?
>You've been Christmas shopping at the non sequitur store!
Following ad hominem with ad hominem isn't non sequitur.
Mikey (..which will no doubt lead to ad absurdum.)
steveb
>Muslim critters
?
I am pleased that, with wider reading, it is clear that a large number
of your fellow citizens, and most of the rest of the developed world,
disagrees with you.
There is hope, when at least one Federal Judge on FISA resigns in
protest.
steveb
Mean Green Dancing Machine
Allisson <alli...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>Now that I've confused more people, it's probably as clear as mud. But,
>it's a good place to start.
Actually, I read Science News, so I think I understood most of it.
Thanks!
Mike Given
>Mike Given stated:
>>steveb wrote:
>>>Mike Given wrote:
>>>>Firstly, I don't really care if the government peeks in on me
>>>>'cuz I really don't have anything to hide.
>>>This argument has been used to support invasive acts by
>>>authorities for generations.
>[...]
>>No solution is perfect. Domestic terror needs to be dealt with
>>and a bit of peeking seems the least invasive method with the
>>best quality of return. If it means that some CIA analyst records
>>a few of my boring-ass phone confabs to rule me out of the picture,
>>then "big fucking deal" says I.
>What you are not addressing is the possibility that they
>will record your boring-ass phone confabs and *not* rule
>you out of the picture.
Fair enough. Let's put this into perspective.
The wiretap authorizations don't even get *close* to me. I have
precious few international connections that I either talk or travel
to, I don't handle/launder large amounts of foreign and/or domestic
currency, and the Fed already has my fingerprints on file.
So of the few hundred wiretaps in question, you and I have a better
chance of being struck by lightning or winning the next Big Lotto
Prize! There is no big national conspiracy here, and the NSA and the
office of the POTUS are within their legal authority. This is not
some nationwide conspiracy to listen in on the private musings of each
and every American - it's taps on known money-laundering operations,
for the most part.
>That is what concerns me. Just because whatever you chat
>about on the phone now, or whatever you store on your harddrive
>now, or whatever, does not happen to be illegal or set some
>wingnut faction raving at the moment, doesn't mean it won't
>become the prevailing fashion in one or three or ten years to
>arrest people like you on some pretext of protecting the rest
>of America[tm]
I think your concerns are completely justified. What I think is
somewhat silly is the level of caterwauling over what is a fairly
routine operation (and has been for many years now). The OP sees this
as some sort of threat to "long term democracy", but it's alarmist
nonsense and about half-a-century late to do all that much about.
Democracy, in it's somewhat uniquely American form, is about knowing
when to break the rules.
As to what will be the "prevailing fashion" in ten years I can't
say, but my money is on the fact that there just won't be enough
resources and money budgeted to the US intelligence community to
listen-in on the average peon then anymore than there is now.
>from such morally corrupt fellows as you obviously are.
How *dare* you publicly impugn my virtue.
Bitch.
>And me, too. You're a bit on the raving side, just as I am if
>ya get me going. We've got our strong opinions (which generally
>don't agree, but I think you're cute despite your wonked
>viewpoints). Remember the "Anything you say can *and will* be
>held against you in a court of law" line?
Absolutely. But no one's come to my door to Mirandize me, and no
one's going to either. I'm seriously considering making a short video
of myself burning an American flag in front of a big-ass sign that
says "Hey Bush and Cheney - wiretap THIS!" and posting it on the
Internet to prove the notion.
>It's not particularly far-fetched that, as political and social
>norms shift and change, the powers that be might take your wonked
>viewpoints, and my ever-so-reasonable ones, pull them out of
>context, and make our lives particularly cumbersome.
Actually, it *is* almost wholly far-fetched. Believe me, my ego
would love nothing more than to think that I'm so dangerous that the
government needs to deal with me, but I'm under no sort of notion in
terms of personal pragmatism.
>The fact that there's some fraction of a billion of us to contend
>with is really the only thing that makes it unlikely for any
>particular individual, if you ask me.
Even if that's the *only* thing (and it isn't, really, the statutes
under which the disputed wiretaps are issued don't even apply to
99.99% of US citizens), then that alone would still be perhaps *the*
most potent deciding factor. Aside from resource constraints, if such
a thing were attempted and became know, the resulting unrest would
almost certainly make regime change imminent. I'd say "just ask Dick
Nixon" but I can't 'cuz he's dead. Americans-in-general are quite
tichy about abuse of presidential office, whether to issue wiretaps or
solicit blowjobs from the staff.
>Government being allowed to tap my phone without my knowledge
>and without some approval from *someone* independent (a
>judge-stamped search warrant) is just not ok.
Actually if you're making regular phone calls to a foreign country
with known/demonstrated hostile ties, it *is* ok - but only sometimes.
>There has too be some sort of check on this kind of thing.
There is. Emergency powers granted to the presidency are limited in
both duration and scope.
>And don't go giving me that "protection from terrorists" bullshit
>line.
It's not bullshit, but I'll offer my perspective.
I would imagine that right at this moment my chances of being killed
in a terrorist attack are roughly analagous to my chances of being
wiretapped by the NSA - or being hit by lightning, or winning the Big
Lottery Prize!
Ergo, I see the NSA's response to the terrorist threat to be quite
proportional and reasonable. It's not a threat to the fabric of
democracy or a breakdown of Constitutional rights so much as just
another slow news day.
>You want to fight terrorists, go get a goddamn fucking search
>warrant, just like anyone else.
Thanks, but my tax contributions are as far as I go in the fight on
terrorism; I leave that up to the experts and often tend discount the
shrill voices of (largely uninformed) public opinion on the matter.
Of course, my calm, reasonable, and undeniably correct opinion
amidst the sea of shrill left-wing screeching of "Abuse of the 4th!!"
might also be considered quite patriotic. Who knows, perhaps I'll be
invited to breakfast at the White House. Jenna and Barbara are a bit
young for me but I certainly wouldn't object to 'em serving up some
flapjacks, dontchyaknow.
Mikey (..just so we understand where my priorities fall.)
Mike Given
>Mike Given wrote:
>>Muslim critters
>?
Most likely targets of the under-discussion wiretaps.
>I am pleased that, with wider reading, it is clear that a
>large number of your fellow citizens, and most of the rest
>of the developed world, disagrees with you.
Polled them all, didja?
When you're done polling them, ask 'em what they know about the US
Constitution and the Emergency Powers Act and how they relate to one
another; adjust results accordingly.
>There is hope, when at least one Federal Judge on FISA
>resigns in protest.
That's not hope - that's process. Action, even.
It's the First Ammendment of the US Constitution in action, and a
judge with both the balls and the legs to make use of it.
Of course you realize that he's only one out of a possible eleven
members of FISC, right? Maybe we should wait'n'see how many others
resign.
Mikey (..just as polling experiment, ya understand.)
steveb
> Polled them all, didja?
Nah ... I just watched as they all fell in behind George and his
*Intelligence lead* warmongering.
steveb
ps .... good job on attacking the question, by the way. The trouble
with it is, that you don't actually have to *poll*, when simply
stating the bleeding obvious.
Erich
Mike Given <asp...@gipco.org> wrote:
> So of the few hundred wiretaps in question, you and I have a better
> chance of being struck by lightning or winning the next Big Lotto
> Prize! There is no big national conspiracy here, and the NSA and the
> office of the POTUS are within their legal authority. This is not
> some nationwide conspiracy to listen in on the private musings of each
> and every American - it's taps on known money-laundering operations,
> for the most part.
There is a process in the law for wiretaps. All the government has to
do is present the reason to the FISA court. In an emergency, they are
allowed to start the wiretap first and send the paperwork to the court
up to three days later. This court has only rejected a handful or
requests out of thousands.
We don't actually know what these wiretaps were about. All we have is
our lying President's word that they were for "National Security". The
fact that they didn't go before the court makes it clear they were not
appropriate under the law. But yet again, the right wing noise machine
weighs in with the 1984 doublespeak. Breaking the law is following the
law. Beating people is not really torture.
BTW - The same guy who wrote the "legal" justification for the wiretaps
wrote the infamous "it's only torture when the pain level is the same as
organ failure" memo.
Isn't it time you woke up and stopped repeating their lies?
... Erich
miguel
> Well... well, drat.
Sorry to disappoint. I am afraid I have too much on my plate right now
to engage fully on this subject.
miguel
miguel
> Mike Given wrote:
. . .
> > Perhaps you could explain it to John Schmidt, a former US associate
> > AG under Clinton:
> > http://tinyurl.com/8q8mt
> It's a nice essay, but it's legally defective. For a better exposition,
> look here:
> http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_12_18-2005_12_24.shtml#1135029722
And here:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2005/12/inherent-authority-to-violate-federal.html
"P.S. The Administration's defenders are citing a 2002 dictum by the
FISA Court of Review: "We take for granted that the President does have
that authority [to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign
intelligence information] and, assuming that is so, FISA could not
encroach on the President's constitutional power." In re Sealed Case,
310 F.3d 717, 742 (FIS Ct. Rev. 2002) (emphasis added). That throwaway
line -- not germane to the holding in that case -- was almost certainly
written by Judge Laurence Silberman, who (I am told) testified in his
personal capacity to the same effect in the mid-1970's, when FISA was
being considered. The dictum is, in my view, dead wrong, not because
the President doesn't have the authority to conduct warrantless
searches to obtain foreign intelligence information -- in the absence
of statutory restriciton, he probably does -- but because even if he
does, FISA can and does "encroach" on (i.e., modestly regulate) that
authority. More to the point, however, Congress and the President
rejected Silberman's unorthodox constitutional view when they enacted
FISA, and the FISA system has worked for almost three decades on the
assumption -- shared, as far as I am aware, by all three branches,
without any dissent until Silberman's stray dictum -- that its modest
constraints are not unconstitutional usurpations of presidential
authority. If Silberman and the Bush Administration are correct, then
there's no need for FISA at all -- nor for the FISA Court. The
President may simply proceed with surveillance on his own iniitiative,
if he thinks it will help in the war on terrorism. As one FISA judge
said to the Washington Post, "members could suggest disbanding the
court in light of the president's suggestion that he has the power to
bypass the court.""
Schmidt is wrong.
miguel
Paul Ciszek
In article <doalss$bib$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
Mean Green Dancing Machine <aa...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>Long-term, I think the "Stop Snitching" campaign will probably have a
>greater impact on USA society. The War on Some Drugs has permeated down
>to the local level in a way that the Bush Repuglicans haven't yet. I
>knew it was bad, but I hadn't realized just how much it has altered
>communities. This seems like a good chance to give a shove in the right
>direction.
I'm sorry, but I cannot see people being afraid to "snitch" as a good
thing. After all, no one "snitched" when Kitty Genovese was stabbed.
(For those not familiar with the case: Kitty was the niece of a Mafia
Don, and everyone in her neighborhood knew better than to call the police
when she was stabbed--repeatedly, over an extended period of time--
outside her home in full sight and earshot of the neighbors.)
"Oh, but we only mean that you shouldn't snitch about drug related
stuff," you reply. Well, the same people who are up on the more serious
drug charges *also* commit assault and murder, and *they* won't see it
that way--and they often have the clout to do something about it.
I can easily see a mother who testifies against her son's murderer
being killed for "snitching". It's called "witness intimidation",
and there is absolutely nothing new about it.
--
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled |
Paul Ciszek
In article <lqpiq1h2fjn9kgj5h...@4ax.com>,
Mike Given <asp...@gipco.org> wrote:
>
> Spare me.
> Firstly, I don't really care if the government peeks in on me 'cuz I
>something to hide, it's certainly not anything of even mild interest
>to the USFed. The only thing that'd bother me about it is the amount
>of time/money is spent poking into ordinary folk such as myself could
>certainly be better spent elsewhere.
Would you be OK with President Hillary Clinton having the same power
to spy on you?
> Secondly, if the gummint peeks in on you and you're doing something
>stupid and/or illegal and you get nabbed for it, I've got no problem
>with that. Depriving some religious fundamentalist maniac of
>explosives and other potentially nasty materials does not do
>disservice to democracy-at-large.
But they aren't going after the religious fundamentalists, they're
going after groups like PETA:
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=549
(Hint: It wasn't animal rights activists who blew up the federal
building in OKC, or bombed the Olympics in Atlanta, but the
organizations Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, and Eric Rudolph
have belonged to are not suspect for some reason.)
> Thirdly, it has nothing to do with democratic process - short *or*
>long term. If it's the US Constitution you're actually worried about
>you shouldn't fret; total privacy is not explicitly guaranteed by that
>hallowed document any more than it's guaranteed by "democracy".
But that document does guarantee the right to a trial, and also says,
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported
by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Can you say, with a straight face, that the current administration is
abiding by this?
> In any case, democracy - even Canadian democracy - is quite safe.
> I can still think and say what I want. I can still do pretty much
>anything that I want within my capabilities except teach "Intelligent
>Design" in a science class in the Dover, PA school district.
BTW, the judge who made that decision was a Bush apointee, and a
regular church-goer.
> I pay my government a shitload of taxes every other week with the
>understanding that they will do their best to keep me from getting
>blown up. If that means tapping the phones of radical imams, looney
>white supremacists, and corrupt congresscritters and associated
If only they *would* go after the white supremecists. Right wingnuts
have been involved in far more actuall killings and explosions in this
country than left wingnuts. As for going after corrupt congresscritters,
you and your friends are fighting *against* that tooth and nail.
> There is *one* thing that irritates me a *little*, and that is that
>if *I* have nothing to hide then I should be allowed to peek at
>anything the gummint's got.
Ironically enough, if you every wanted to pursue that goal seriously,
you would probably end up needing the help of the ACLU.
Paul Ciszek
In article <dp8jq1ht7g0gen87r...@4ax.com>,
Put more formally,
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported
by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
--
Paul Ciszek
In article <hq4kq15fnj575dcj6...@4ax.com>,
Mike Given <asp...@gipco.org> wrote:
> Maybe that's what we should do with this Muslim critters. Shut 'em
>all behind a chain-link fence. Or maybe just catapult 'em across the
>border into Canada.
> No solution is perfect. Domestic terror needs to be dealt with and
>a bit of peeking seems the least invasive method with the best quality
>of return.
If it's *domestic terror* you want to do something about, then it's the
Christian Identity Movement than needs to be behind a chain-link fence
more than the Moslems. Moslems didn't bomb Oklahoma City, or the Olympics,
or various abortion clinics. Christians did.
>impaired? If that same CIA analyst subsequently eavesdrops on a
>conversation from some fundamentalist freak about to blow up a federal
>office building in, oh, I don't know, say, the middle of Oklahoma, in
>what way would your freedom and/or liberty be impaired?
They don't spy on *those* freaks, alas.
> And the day the government starts issuing poo-pooh permits, I'll be
>among the first to load a weapon and take up arms against it.
And if the government starts asking people to present "papers, please"
to travel even with one's home city? Because that is already happening.
Paul Ciszek
In article <omglq1d0hegg5cpq4...@4ax.com>,
steveb <twig...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>There is hope, when at least one Federal Judge on FISA resigns in
>protest.
Not really--it means that they are rid of one of the guys who might
have made a fuss about it. Kind of like O'Connor leaving the SCotUS.
Allison Turner-
>
>Allison Turner- wrote:
[...]
>> I was hoping things would get interesting.
>
>Sorry to disappoint. I am afraid I have too much on my plate right now
>to engage fully on this subject.
<pout>*
-Allison
*just for Penelope
Velochic du nord
<pperi...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On 20 Dec 2005 11:10:47 -0500, Velochic du nord
><for.ar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>Soooooooooooooo.........
>>
>>What is all of your takes on this?
>>
>>I've just been catching the headlines, but this does not sound
>>promising for long term democracy.
>>
>>V, observing from the north.
>
>Oh look, it's Shirley, USA bashing.
>
>Quelle surprise.
Actually, I was quite serious in my request. I'm always interested in
what the folks in this forum have to say.
I'm outside the US. Even with the internet, the impression one gets of
what's happening can be quite different than that of those who are
living it Base assumptions are different, and there is stuff you guys
grew up with that just weren't in my experience set.
I've been a bit busy*, so have not been able to follow up that gentle
lob, but I've been reading all the posts.
V.
*The building soap opera never stops. Current story lines are evolving
from an owner's intestate death, claims of right to administer the
estate and a potential illegal occupation, property management
crapcrapcrap, a near miss regarding a fire today, the thrills and
chills of a certain person in my life and local electioneering fun
and games.
And trying to get all my assigned tasks completed before leaving town
in six days.
stealthaxe
@drn.newsguy.com:
> Government being allowed to tap my phone without my
> knowledge and without some approval from *someone*
> independent (a judge-stamped search warrant) is just not
> ok.
this has probably been mentioned already, but wasn't it only
internationally terminating or internationally originating phone calls
that could be tapped without warrant?
not that this is any better of a situation, but, well, how many
international phone calls do you make?
in my case, I spend more or less one hour every day on the phone
internationally, and I make it a point to say something nasty about Bush
each and every time.
> There has too be some sort of check on this kind of
> thing.
There is, but apparently no one is using it at the moment.
> And don't go giving me that "protection from
> terrorists" bullshit line. You want to fight terrorists,
> go get a goddamn fucking search warrant, just like anyone
> else.
And if you want to fight a war on drugs, don't use the anti-terrorist
budget to do it!
--
stealthaxe
stealthaxe
news:scelq114jba6bvg4s...@4ax.com:
> Absolutely. But no one's come to my door to Mirandize me, and no
> one's going to either.
they're trying to get rid of that, too. in fact, they have. my last
case that I was involved in, the judge explained that it's no longer
considered necessary to "read the rights" if they're not planning to
question you. this defendant confessed of his own accord and the defense
attorney was trying to get it thrown out for no Miranda compliance.
Judge said no because it wasn't police questioning that prompted the
confession.
Speaking of wiretaps ... I wonder how they go about tapping VoIP calls?
That could prove to be tricky.
> Even if that's the *only* thing (and it isn't, really, the statutes
> under which the disputed wiretaps are issued don't even apply to
> 99.99% of US citizens), then that alone would still be perhaps *the*
> most potent deciding factor. Aside from resource constraints, if such
> a thing were attempted and became know, the resulting unrest would
> almost certainly make regime change imminent.
I'm not sure I believe that anymore. I'm inclined to believe that the
current rank and file would put up with nearly anything as long as the
cable TV and the Visa keep working.
> Actually if you're making regular phone calls to a foreign country
> with known/demonstrated hostile ties, it *is* ok - but only sometimes.
What exactly constitutes a hostile tie? Should my phone calls to Madrid
be fished? They've got quite an influx of unpapered Arabs.
--
stealthaxe
Steve Daniels
compelled stealthaxe <steal...@comcast.net>, to say:
>Mike Given <asp...@gipco.org> wrote in
>news:scelq114jba6bvg4s...@4ax.com:
>
>
>
>> Absolutely. But no one's come to my door to Mirandize me, and no
>> one's going to either.
>
>they're trying to get rid of that, too. in fact, they have. my last
>case that I was involved in, the judge explained that it's no longer
>considered necessary to "read the rights" if they're not planning to
>question you. this defendant confessed of his own accord and the defense
>attorney was trying to get it thrown out for no Miranda compliance.
>Judge said no because it wasn't police questioning that prompted the
>confession.
It's always been like that. No need to dress it up like anything
sinister and new. I'm not saying that the current administration
wouldn't like to bend the fourth over an oil barrel and assrape
it to death, but this is not a good example.
--
kmd
>If it's *domestic terror* you want to do something about, then it's the
>Christian Identity Movement than needs to be behind a chain-link fence
>more than the Moslems. Moslems didn't bomb Oklahoma City, or the Olympics,
>or various abortion clinics. Christians did.
Aiy. Now I know what this guy feels like:
http://classes.colgate.edu/osafi/personal.htm
--
Kristen, not that you're not right about what they call themselves
Mean Green Dancing Machine
kmd <k...@lifeofaction.org> wrote:
>On 22 Dec 2005 13:46:15 -0500, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
>>
>>If it's *domestic terror* you want to do something about, then it's the
>>Christian Identity Movement than needs to be behind a chain-link fence
>>more than the Moslems. Moslems didn't bomb Oklahoma City, or the Olympics,
>>or various abortion clinics. Christians did.
>
>Aiy. Now I know what this guy feels like:
>
>http://classes.colgate.edu/osafi/personal.htm
<raised eyebrow> Oh, really? Let us know know when you've been hassled
for being Christian. I mean actually hassled, not just dealing with some
snotty comments on Usenet. And when we don't have an overtly Fundie
POTUS.
>--
>Kristen, not that you're not right about what they call themselves
Well, exactly. Why then the concentrated focus on "Ay-rabs"?
Mean Green Dancing Machine
Paul Ciszek <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>In article <doalss$bib$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
>Mean Green Dancing Machine <aa...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>>Long-term, I think the "Stop Snitching" campaign will probably have a
>>greater impact on USA society. The War on Some Drugs has permeated down
>>to the local level in a way that the Bush Repuglicans haven't yet. I
>>knew it was bad, but I hadn't realized just how much it has altered
>>communities. This seems like a good chance to give a shove in the right
>>direction.
>
>I'm sorry, but I cannot see people being afraid to "snitch" as a good
>thing.
Being afraid, no, not a good thing. But right now, people are afraid not
to snitch, so great is the legal pressure used to encourage snitching.
Of the two, I think the coercion of the legal system is overall worse.
More importantly, I think we as a society haven't realized that this
pressure exists -- I didn't until I happened to see it in Slate.
>After all, no one "snitched" when Kitty Genovese was stabbed. (For
>those not familiar with the case: Kitty was the niece of a Mafia Don,
>and everyone in her neighborhood knew better than to call the police
>when she was stabbed--repeatedly, over an extended period of time--
>outside her home in full sight and earshot of the neighbors.) "Oh,
>but we only mean that you shouldn't snitch about drug related stuff,"
>you reply. Well, the same people who are up on the more serious drug
>charges *also* commit assault and murder, and *they* won't see it that
>way--and they often have the clout to do something about it. I can
>easily see a mother who testifies against her son's murderer being
>killed for "snitching". It's called "witness intimidation", and there
>is absolutely nothing new about it.
Oh, please. That's hyperbole that belongs right with the hyperbole
used to countenance the War on Some Drugs and the War on Terror.
Did you actually read the article I linked to?
kmd
Machine) wrote:
>In article <t8tnq1t9q9kjj3f67...@4ax.com>,
>kmd <k...@lifeofaction.org> wrote:
>>On 22 Dec 2005 13:46:15 -0500, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
>>>
>>>If it's *domestic terror* you want to do something about, then it's the
>>>Christian Identity Movement than needs to be behind a chain-link fence
>>>more than the Moslems. Moslems didn't bomb Oklahoma City, or the Olympics,
>>>or various abortion clinics. Christians did.
>>
>>Aiy. Now I know what this guy feels like:
>>
>>http://classes.colgate.edu/osafi/personal.htm
>
><raised eyebrow> Oh, really? Let us know know when you've been hassled
>for being Christian. I mean actually hassled, not just dealing with some
>snotty comments on Usenet. And when we don't have an overtly Fundie
>POTUS.
Aahz, can you come off your soapbox for ten seconds for long enough to
see me as a human being and not a category?
I just listened to Osafi on Krista Tippett's "Speaking of Faith" and
he said a whole bunch of things that resonated with my frustration at
the public appropriation of my faith by a bunch of violent shitheads.
One of the most moving things he talked about was the experience of
listening to pundits and academics bemoan the "deafening silence of
Muslim moderates." And Osafi said what the heck do I have to do --
scream from the rooftops? And he said that one of the worst things one
human being can do to another is to refuse to hear them.
>>Kristen, not that you're not right about what they call themselves
>
>Well, exactly. Why then the concentrated focus on "Ay-rabs"?
Racism. And stupidity. And ignorance. And power mongering.
--
Kristen, next question?
Mean Green Dancing Machine
kmd <k...@lifeofaction.org> wrote:
>On 23 Dec 2005 09:10:59 -0500, aa...@pobox.com (Mean Green Dancing
>Machine) wrote:
>>In article <t8tnq1t9q9kjj3f67...@4ax.com>,
>>kmd <k...@lifeofaction.org> wrote:
>>>On 22 Dec 2005 13:46:15 -0500, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>If it's *domestic terror* you want to do something about, then it's
>>>>the Christian Identity Movement than needs to be behind a chain-link
>>>>fence more than the Moslems. Moslems didn't bomb Oklahoma City, or
>>>>the Olympics, or various abortion clinics. Christians did.
>>>
>>>Aiy. Now I know what this guy feels like:
>>>
>>>http://classes.colgate.edu/osafi/personal.htm
>>
>><raised eyebrow> Oh, really? Let us know know when you've been
>>hassled for being Christian. I mean actually hassled, not just
>>dealing with some snotty comments on Usenet. And when we don't have
>>an overtly Fundie POTUS.
>
>Aahz, can you come off your soapbox for ten seconds for long enough to
>see me as a human being and not a category?
Dunno. Depends on whether your soundbites stimulate appropriate
kneejerks. I actually don't know you well enough to see you as an
instance of human being; all I have to go by are the particular words
you're using at any point in time. Note that this is *not* the same
thing as seeing you as a category -- I won't let you get away with
pulling the either/or card.
>I just listened to Osafi on Krista Tippett's "Speaking of Faith" and he
>said a whole bunch of things that resonated with my frustration at the
>public appropriation of my faith by a bunch of violent shitheads.
That's something different; it certainly wasn't clear you were referring
to this. (And yes, I did take a quick skim of the page you linked to.)
From that standpoint I do understand what you're talking about; I've had
similar reactions when I see the Ultra-Zionists trying to push the
Palestinians out of the Occupied Territories by building settlements.
>One of the most moving things he talked about was the experience of
>listening to pundits and academics bemoan the "deafening silence of
>Muslim moderates." And Osafi said what the heck do I have to do --
>scream from the rooftops? And he said that one of the worst things one
>human being can do to another is to refuse to hear them.
That's true in a philosophic sense, possibly, but not in any practical
sense, and definitely not true from other philosophic standpoints. I
have a right to NOT hear from other "human beings" (such as the scum of
telemarketers and Fred Phelps). I do agree that it's sad (and sometimes
threatening) when a group of people claim to be listening yet prove that
they haven't.
Tangent: I recently had occasion to re-read the earliest e-mail between
me and my primary (who I met on soc.singles fourteen years ago, for those
of y'all who are more recent immigrants to this newsgroup). I find it
interesting how little my writing style has changed over the years.
kmd
Machine) wrote:
>In article <8d1oq1p1eccuij7r5...@4ax.com>,
>kmd <k...@lifeofaction.org> wrote:
>>On 23 Dec 2005 09:10:59 -0500, aa...@pobox.com (Mean Green Dancing
>>Machine) wrote:
>>>In article <t8tnq1t9q9kjj3f67...@4ax.com>,
>>>kmd <k...@lifeofaction.org> wrote:
>>>>On 22 Dec 2005 13:46:15 -0500, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>If it's *domestic terror* you want to do something about, then it's
>>>>>the Christian Identity Movement than needs to be behind a chain-link
>>>>>fence more than the Moslems. Moslems didn't bomb Oklahoma City, or
>>>>>the Olympics, or various abortion clinics. Christians did.
>>>>
>>>>Aiy. Now I know what this guy feels like:
>>>>
>>>>http://classes.colgate.edu/osafi/personal.htm
>>>
>>><raised eyebrow> Oh, really? Let us know know when you've been
>>>hassled for being Christian. I mean actually hassled, not just
>>>dealing with some snotty comments on Usenet. And when we don't have
>>>an overtly Fundie POTUS.
>>
>>Aahz, can you come off your soapbox for ten seconds for long enough to
>>see me as a human being and not a category?
>
>Dunno. Depends on whether your soundbites stimulate appropriate
>kneejerks. I actually don't know you well enough to see you as an
>instance of human being; all I have to go by are the particular words
>you're using at any point in time.
You know that I am a human being, whether you have met me in person or
not. Also, you have read more from me than just these particular words
at this point in time.
>Note that this is *not* the same
>thing as seeing you as a category -- I won't let you get away with
>pulling the either/or card.
I wasn't trying to. Your response suggested to me that you were not
differentiating between me and George W. Bush. Your response suggested
to me that we fit into the same category for purposes of this
discussion, that of "Christian."
>>I just listened to Osafi on Krista Tippett's "Speaking of Faith" and he
>>said a whole bunch of things that resonated with my frustration at the
>>public appropriation of my faith by a bunch of violent shitheads.
>
>That's something different; it certainly wasn't clear you were referring
>to this. (And yes, I did take a quick skim of the page you linked to.)
So you saw that he is a progressive Muslim.
>From that standpoint I do understand what you're talking about; I've had
>similar reactions when I see the Ultra-Zionists trying to push the
>Palestinians out of the Occupied Territories by building settlements.
And to add injury to violence, claiming to do it in the name of the
God of Israel. And then the maddening times when media coverage and
otherwise-intelligent conversation describe this as what "Jews" do. It
feels to me like a collusion with the violent shitheads to appropriate
the public face of life-affirming beliefs and practices and turn that
face into a death mask.
>>One of the most moving things he talked about was the experience of
>>listening to pundits and academics bemoan the "deafening silence of
>>Muslim moderates." And Osafi said what the heck do I have to do --
>>scream from the rooftops? And he said that one of the worst things one
>>human being can do to another is to refuse to hear them.
>
>That's true in a philosophic sense, possibly, but not in any practical
>sense, and definitely not true from other philosophic standpoints.
How is it not true in a practical sense if it's true from Osafi's
experience and from mine?
>I have a right to NOT hear from other "human beings" (such as the scum of
>telemarketers and Fred Phelps). I do agree that it's sad (and sometimes
>threatening) when a group of people claim to be listening yet prove that
>they haven't.
Exactly.
>Tangent: I recently had occasion to re-read the earliest e-mail between
>me and my primary (who I met on soc.singles fourteen years ago, for those
>of y'all who are more recent immigrants to this newsgroup). I find it
>interesting how little my writing style has changed over the years.
Heh. Do you see any changes? I see lots when I go back and look.
--
Kristen
Sweet and Dour Pork
>...It
>feels to me like a collusion with the violent shitheads to appropriate
>the public face of life-affirming beliefs and practices and turn that
>face into a death mask.
My problem with this is that the death mask and the life-affirming
beliefs *are part of the same whole*. A Christianity that doesn't
deal with (address; try to grok; incorporate into its internalized
personal history) the violence of its past and present is like Shiny
Happy Fluffy Wuffy Paganism. Faux.
Yes, I say this from the perspective of an ex-Christian. However, I
would also have said it years ago, when I was a devout believer.
--
Piglet
steveb
wrote:
>> There has too be some sort of check on this kind of
>> thing.
>
>There is, but apparently no one is using it at the moment.
Yeah, it's called the 4th Ammendment
steveb
steveb
>I just listened to Osafi on Krista Tippett's "Speaking of Faith" and
>he said a whole bunch of things that resonated with my frustration at
>the public appropriation of my faith by a bunch of violent shitheads.
Yer not a *fundie*, Kristen. You're a Christian, there's a difference
:)
ste ..
rouq...@look.ca
> Allison Turner- wrote:
>
> >Government being allowed to tap my phone without my knowledge
> >and without some approval from *someone* independent (a
> >judge-stamped search warrant) is just not ok.
>
> with known/demonstrated hostile ties, it *is* ok - but only sometimes.
a few years back, one of my myriad of jobs in this fair town involved a
a project for the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith. the company
i worked for at the time had the unenviable task of taking YEARS of
their english-language newspaper clippings from around the world and
turning them into a searchable database. as the only employee in the
organization with any knowledge of Middle Eastern politics - and my
degree specialization was Canadian public policy - i was charged with
developing the keyword database and creating an instruction seminar
for the contractors who would assist us with the project.
in VERY short order, i learned how confusing personal names are in
that part of the world and that the endless number of variations of a
name like MOHAMED can indicate region of birth and which sect of
Islam or Christianity you were born into.
if you are Mohamed Al-Awari in Rutherford, NJ, who makes calls to
his elderly grandmother in his parents' home country, what's to protect
him from a wire-tap meant for Muhammad El-Awari in East Rutherford
who is actually calling his controller in his home country using code
words that sound remarkly like the innocent conversations the first
man is having with his granny?
for hundreds of Arab-Americans, it *is* a big deal!
angela
kmd
wrote:
>k...@lifeofaction.org, in article <985oq1teldlhaqbdp...@4ax.com>, dixit:
>>...It
>>feels to me like a collusion with the violent shitheads to appropriate
>>the public face of life-affirming beliefs and practices and turn that
>>face into a death mask.
>My problem with this is that the death mask and the life-affirming
>beliefs *are part of the same whole*. A Christianity that doesn't
>deal with (address; try to grok; incorporate into its internalized
>personal history) the violence of its past and present is like Shiny
>Happy Fluffy Wuffy Paganism. Faux.
Hrm.
There are many who do violence and claim that it is their Christian
beliefs that drove/led them to do it. There are centuries of this kind
of history. I acknowledge and grieve everything done in violence in
the name of Christianity.
But this is corruption, distortion. These actions are not a necessary
part of what Christianity is or must be. Nor are they inherent or
inevitable as a result of something in the religion itself.
But the heart of what I'm saying is that violent shitheadedness is not
the *totality* of what Christianity and Christians are. So much of
what I read and hear implies or claims that it is. No small amount of
that comes from so-called Christians who want to assert that theirs is
the only way to be Christian in the world.
--
Kristen
"Woe to those who say nothing when those who have
nothing to say keep chattering on."
Augustine
miguel
> this has probably been mentioned already, but wasn't it only
> internationally terminating or internationally originating phone calls
> that could be tapped without warrant?
Two parts to the answer: (1) the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement
probably does not apply to telephone calls entering or leaving the
country, under either the Border Exception or the National Security
Exception; (2) Regardless of those exceptions to the warrant
requirement, the FISA requirements to obtain judicial approval still
apply.
> > There has too be some sort of check on this kind of
> > thing.
> There is, but apparently no one is using it at the moment.
Yes, it's called "impeachment." Notably, the second article of
impeachment against Nixon was based upon 17 warrantless wiretaps.
It is, however, also possible that the persons at the NSA may be
prosecuted regardless of any executive order by reason of the explicit
language of FISA which prohibits warrantless wiretaps even under color
of law.
In any case, this is *such* a perfect illustration of the hypocrisy of
the GOP. Impeach Clinton for lying about a blowjob? *IT'S ALL ABOUT
THE RULE OF LAW* Impeach Bush for violating FISA, among a host of
other impeachable offenses, such as lying to Congress? Erm. Uh. What
about that shameful war on Christmas, and those athletes and their
steroids? Don't look at my monkey! Don't look at my monkey!
steveb
>Piece 'o cake.
Christmas cake?
Yum :)
Warren Cheney
ITYM "holiday cake."
>Yum :)
Gotcha. Whining never affects the flavor.
-----Warren (hopefully)
Hobart Floyt
"Mike Given" <asp...@gipco.org> wrote in message
news:hq4kq15fnj575dcj6...@4ax.com...
> steveb wrote:
[...]
>>Governments should not be allowed to peek and pry, and justify it
>>later.
>
> Why not? You do realize that wiretaps can be issued without your
> knowing it, right? And sakes-alive, don't even get me started on
> the
> number of personal orifices the IRS is allowed to probe (and
> plunder).
I've been told I would get fired and thrown in jail
if I probe any Taxpayer's personal orifice without
authorization...
P.S. Merry Christmas
stealthaxe
news:diorite-BE09DF...@news.isp.giganews.com:
> Sniff by IP and port at a major router site. Or at the IP phone
> provider's site. Piece 'o cake.
well, yeah, but, VPN? I'm always on a VPN when I'm using VoIP.
They'd have to sniff it right on my PC or right where the VPN switch on the
other end is (on the same subnet you have the IPT equpment).
Also, I wouldn't want to be the one rebuilding the audio from the IP packet
sequence, but I suppose there's equipment out there to do that. You'd have
to try several codecs and, well, a couple of other things if the user is
using a Nortel solution. It's not as easy has having all the packets.
--
stealthaxe
stealthaxe
news:8d1oq1p1eccuij7r5...@4ax.com:
> And he said that one of the worst things one
> human being can do to another is to refuse to hear them.
unfortunately, THAT happens here as well. 1/2 :-)
--
stealthaxe
stealthaxe
news:lrioq1lunqvcin8e8...@4ax.com:
> There are many who do violence and claim that it is their Christian
> beliefs that drove/led them to do it. There are centuries of this kind
> of history. I acknowledge and grieve everything done in violence in
> the name of Christianity.
> But this is corruption, distortion. These actions are not a necessary
> part of what Christianity is or must be. Nor are they inherent or
> inevitable as a result of something in the religion itself.
> But the heart of what I'm saying is that violent shitheadedness is not
> the *totality* of what Christianity and Christians are. So much of
> what I read and hear implies or claims that it is. No small amount of
> that comes from so-called Christians who want to assert that theirs is
> the only way to be Christian in the world.
what this really means to me is that shitheads seem to disperse themselves
among many religions in the world. christianity may have more shitheads
than some others because let's face it, there's a lot of people who call
themselves christians.
years ago, i was in scientology. now there's a prime hangout for shitheads
IME. still, many believers of that faith (if you can call it that, because
we had faith that they weren't just robbing us blind) are not shitheads,
perhaps just because it's very difficult to gather a large crowd and filter
out every last non-shithead.
there. i think i've confused myself.
--
stealthaxe
stealthaxe
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
> In any case, this is *such* a perfect illustration of the hypocrisy of
> the GOP. Impeach Clinton for lying about a blowjob? *IT'S ALL ABOUT
> THE RULE OF LAW* Impeach Bush for violating FISA, among a host of
> other impeachable offenses, such as lying to Congress? Erm. Uh. What
> about that shameful war on Christmas, and those athletes and their
> steroids? Don't look at my monkey! Don't look at my monkey!
i think candidates for President should be required to pass a rigorous
spelling test.
before you start to answer, let that soak in a little.
--
stealthaxe
steveb
<Alacrity...@WhiteShip.com> wrote:
>I've been told I would get fired and thrown in jail
>if I probe any Taxpayer's personal orifice without
>authorization...
You need to steal the Presidency to be allowed THAT privelidge
ste ..
Velochic du nord
<offc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Unless you are pouring on the port... or sherry.
Pass that well soaked (and preserved!) cake.
V.
Velochic du nord
>On 22 Dec 2005 13:46:15 -0500, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
>
>>If it's *domestic terror* you want to do something about, then it's the
>>Christian Identity Movement than needs to be behind a chain-link fence
>>more than the Moslems. Moslems didn't bomb Oklahoma City, or the Olympics,
>>or various abortion clinics. Christians did.
>
>Aiy. Now I know what this guy feels like:
>
>http://classes.colgate.edu/osafi/personal.htm
Kewl.
Here's another one, a woman this time, who's writing and leading in
Toronto:
http://www.raheelraza.com/home.html
Her book isn't in the TPL (Toronto Public Library) system yet, but
I've requested it on the suggested purchases list.
V.
Velochic du nord
wrote:
I have a long reply on this, but I think I need time to think through
and edit my response before posting it.
The gist is that I think that one must acknowledge the capacity for
violence within oneself before one can think through effective
strategies to deal with the shitheads who actually go ahead and
express it. One must acknowledge the dark in order to see the light.
I've had personal experience in the Canadian west with both good,
loving fundies of the christian flavour and wacked, patriachial ones.
We have wacked patriachial ones of all flavours running as subthreads
in _all_ of my cities' religious communities (the sad part is that
most of them don't understand how wacked they are), but a strong,
participatory civil society structure tends to expose them rapidly, at
which point they retreat back into the shadows.
Yes, these are gross generalizations, but I'd have to research and
verify a bunch of stuff from Rumour Control(TM) aka the Mocassin
Telegraph before I'd could post the comprehensive, substantiated list
that would lend substence to my experience. :)
V.
steveb
<for.ar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Unless you are pouring on the port... or sherry.
Brandy
Velochic du nord
Ah yes, but is brandy wine?
(the pun didn't hold up to daylight)
V.
Seth Breidbart
Mike Given <asp...@gipco.org> wrote:
>Velochic du nord wrote:
>>Soooooooooooooo.........
>>What is all of your takes on this?
>
> If I have a choice of my government spying on me or some other
>government spying on me, I'd rather it be the former.
I'd rather it be the latter. If they get caught, they can get hurt
(sitting here in the middle of the US, they probably can't get over a
border too fast). Besides, I sort of expect the latter, if they have
any reason to waste the effort; just like I expect our government to
spy on furriners when it feels like it.
Finally, I've authorized our government to do a lot of spying on me (I
work in finance).
Seth
Seth Breidbart
Mike Given <asp...@gipco.org> wrote:
>steveb wrote:
> No solution is perfect. Domestic terror needs to be dealt with and
>a bit of peeking seems the least invasive method with the best quality
>of return. If it means that some CIA analyst records a few of my
>boring-ass phone confabs to rule me out of the picture, then "big
>fucking deal" says I.
When the government can't even convince its own tame pet court to
allow it, that _is_ a big deal.
>>Governments should not be allowed to peek and pry, and justify it
>>later.
>
> Why not? You do realize that wiretaps can be issued without your
>knowing it, right?
Sure, _if_ they convince a judge that there's a reason (and, with the
current legislation, they have a while _after_ they do it to convince
him, so they can't even claim it was an emergency and they didn't have
time to ask).
> And sakes-alive, don't even get me started on the
>number of personal orifices the IRS is allowed to probe (and plunder).
None. Customs, on the other hand, . . .
> We already know that the government is not allowed to house troops in
>our homes
The only Amendment it hasn't violated.
>If some CIA analyst records a phone conversation of yours and
>dismisses it as harmless, in what way was your freedom or liberty
>impaired?
My privacy, where I (should) have it, is important to me.
> If that same CIA analyst subsequently eavesdrops on a
>conversation from some fundamentalist freak about to blow up a federal
>office building in, oh, I don't know, say, the middle of Oklahoma, in
>what way would your freedom and/or liberty be impaired?
Too bad they don't consider those sorts of people as targets, isn't
it?
Besides, if they wanted to, they could probably get a judge to agree
to let them.
> I don't see the current US situation as "default".
It never is.
> I don't see
>non-invasive monitoring of communication via public utilities and
>resources that are subsidized by tax money as unreasonable in this
>non-default conidtion.
"subsidized by tax money" meaning requiring the service providers to
build systems that allow for government wiretapping at their own
expense? That's the situation, you (should) know.
> Personally I'd rather pay a few dollars more
>for a gallon of gasoline if I thought that would make terrorists stay
>the fuck home, but I'm under no such loftily-inspired notion. Right
>here, right now, there is a need to *suspend* a *tiny* bit of privacy
>to preserve a greater good,
If they could convince judges of that, they wouldn't need to break the
law.
Seth
Seth Breidbart
Diorite <dio...@wowway.com> wrote:
>In article <Xns973564DBFB0ste...@208.49.80.60>,
> stealthaxe <steal...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Speaking of wiretaps ... I wonder how they go about tapping VoIP calls?
>> That could prove to be tricky.
>
>Sniff by IP and port at a major router site. Or at the IP phone
>provider's site. Piece 'o cake.
Expecially when they can force the provider to do it for them, at the
provider's expense.
Seth
Seth Breidbart
stealthaxe <steal...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Also, I wouldn't want to be the one rebuilding the audio from the IP packet
>sequence, but I suppose there's equipment out there to do that.
You mean like your VOIP equipment?
Seth
steveb
<for.ar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Ah yes, but is brandy wine?
If you have enough of it .... who cares?
:)
Paul Ciszek
In article <Xns9736192754084st...@208.49.80.124>,
stealthaxe <steal...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>years ago, i was in scientology. now there's a prime hangout for shitheads
>IME. still, many believers of that faith (if you can call it that, because
>we had faith that they weren't just robbing us blind) are not shitheads,
>perhaps just because it's very difficult to gather a large crowd and filter
>out every last non-shithead.
They'd be just the ones to do it, though.
--
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled |
stealthaxe
news:dolalo$q1o$1...@reader1.panix.com:
Standard VoIP equipment can't be used to snoop on another conversation.
I'm in the business; I know. I'm sure it's not hard to do the necessary
modifications though. Currently my employer's premier VoIP product has no
Lawful Intercept function but from what I know of regulatory it's going to
be a requirement before the product goes GA.
However, VoIP covers a lot of territory, including shareware clients to be
used from PC to PC for example (like Yahoo's service). I'm quite certain
that there's no provision to monitor these kinds of calls. Especially
since you could homebrew your own solution and thereby force would be
snoopers to reverse engineer your solution before they can snoop. It's not
as simple as having a radio receiver or anything like that. Commercial
grade solutions have to have LI provisions for just such reason, but
"freeware" solutions pose a unique problem that you don't exactly see with
POTS.
--
stealthaxe
stealthaxe
> You mean like your VOIP equipment?
by the way...
http://www.cdt.org/digi_tele/voip.shtml
http://www.verisign.com/verisign-inc/news-and-events/news-archive/us-news-
2003/page_000734.html
http://pulverblog.pulver.com/archives/003193.html
Keep in mind that an LI solution is integrated into the provider's network,
and it's non-trivial to build a "snooper" that can tap into private VoIP
networks.
--
stealthaxe
Annette M. Stroud
stealthaxe <steal...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Allison Turner- <beto...@sover.net> wrote in news:doea1m02ad3
>@drn.newsguy.com:
>
>> Government being allowed to tap my phone without my
>> knowledge and without some approval from *someone*
>> independent (a judge-stamped search warrant) is just not
>> ok.
>
>internationally terminating or internationally originating phone calls
>that could be tapped without warrant?
Um, that's what was claimed, but I think it went further.
Annette
Selki
> >Selki wrote:
> >> Allisson <alli...@panix.com> wrote:
> >>>Allisson & twinkies
> >>>[I got an A in my Cognitive Neuroscience course and the Prof
> >>>I hope to have as PhD advisor, was interested in the idea
> >>>behind my class project as potential real work for me as a PhD,
> >>>whoo hoo.]
> >> Hurray! If you ever have more time to write about it, I'd be interested.
> I want to look at how increased dimensionality of the stimuli (adding
> shape criteria to color stimuli) in a classification task does for the
> goodness-of-fit for each model and how using neurophysiological data
> (fMRI) follows the predicted time course and what regions of the
> brain are involved in these tasks. Each theory posits a different
> region as being crucial. This was my class project but I discussed my
> idea with the person whom I want for my PhD advisor (I'm applying for
> FT study next Fall) and they were "exeptionally interested" in pursuing
> it beyond a theoretical class exercise in experimental design.
Cool!
Thanks,
Selki
Selki
> "Allisson" <alli...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:dobpjf$afs$1...@reader1.panix.com...
> > I watched a great interview with Doris Kearns Goodwin
> Charlie Rose, right? Kept me up until past my bedtime, she did...
> [note for readers: the book she just wrote is _Team of Rivals : The
> Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln_, which is on my winter reading list.]
My brother mentioned this book over Christmas. I've never been a huge fan
of Lincoln, but this interested me enough to add to my book list.
Enjoy,
Selki
Mean Green Dancing Machine
kmd <k...@lifeofaction.org> wrote:
>On 23 Dec 2005 09:52:18 -0500, aa...@pobox.com (Mean Green Dancing
>Machine) wrote:
>>In article <8d1oq1p1eccuij7r5...@4ax.com>,
>>kmd <k...@lifeofaction.org> wrote:
>>>On 23 Dec 2005 09:10:59 -0500, aa...@pobox.com (Mean Green Dancing
>>>Machine) wrote:
>>>>In article <t8tnq1t9q9kjj3f67...@4ax.com>,
>>>>kmd <k...@lifeofaction.org> wrote:
>>>>>On 22 Dec 2005 13:46:15 -0500, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If it's *domestic terror* you want to do something about, then it's
>>>>>>the Christian Identity Movement than needs to be behind a chain-link
>>>>>>fence more than the Moslems. Moslems didn't bomb Oklahoma City, or
>>>>>>the Olympics, or various abortion clinics. Christians did.
>>>>>
>>>>>Aiy. Now I know what this guy feels like:
>>>>>
>>>>>http://classes.colgate.edu/osafi/personal.htm
>>>>
>>>>hassled for being Christian. I mean actually hassled, not just
>>>>dealing with some snotty comments on Usenet. And when we don't have
>>>>an overtly Fundie POTUS.
>>>
>>>Aahz, can you come off your soapbox for ten seconds for long enough to
>>>see me as a human being and not a category?
>>
>>Dunno. Depends on whether your soundbites stimulate appropriate
>>kneejerks. I actually don't know you well enough to see you as an
>>instance of human being; all I have to go by are the particular words
>>you're using at any point in time.
>
>You know that I am a human being, whether you have met me in person or
>not. Also, you have read more from me than just these particular words
>at this point in time.
Note carefully the distinction between knowing that you're a human being
and seeing you as a human being. I certainly don't perceive the mass of
people outside when I drive as individual humans, and that doesn't
really change for me until there's some real data about a person stored
in my memory. You're not there yet. Yes, I recall seeing you before,
the same way that I recall seeing lots of people at SF cons who I don't
know.
>>Note that this is *not* the same thing as seeing you as a category --
>>I won't let you get away with pulling the either/or card.
>
>I wasn't trying to. Your response suggested to me that you were
>not differentiating between me and George W. Bush. Your response
>suggested to me that we fit into the same category for purposes of this
>discussion, that of "Christian."
When I made that comment, we were having two different "this discussion",
so your complaint doesn't really apply. My comment was in the context of
a discussion that I thought was about being hassled for being Christian
(which seemed to me the obvious context for your response to Paul).
>>>I just listened to Osafi on Krista Tippett's "Speaking of Faith" and he
>>>said a whole bunch of things that resonated with my frustration at the
>>>public appropriation of my faith by a bunch of violent shitheads.
>>
>>That's something different; it certainly wasn't clear you were referring
>>to this. (And yes, I did take a quick skim of the page you linked to.)
>
>So you saw that he is a progressive Muslim.
Well, yes, but that doesn't mean I know what point you're trying to make
without explicit clarification. Progressive Muslims have all kinds of
beliefs and goals.
>>From that standpoint I do understand what you're talking about; I've had
>>similar reactions when I see the Ultra-Zionists trying to push the
>>Palestinians out of the Occupied Territories by building settlements.
>
>And to add injury to violence, claiming to do it in the name of the
>God of Israel. And then the maddening times when media coverage and
>otherwise-intelligent conversation describe this as what "Jews" do. It
>feels to me like a collusion with the violent shitheads to appropriate
>the public face of life-affirming beliefs and practices and turn that
>face into a death mask.
Exactly.
>>>One of the most moving things he talked about was the experience of
>>>listening to pundits and academics bemoan the "deafening silence of
>>>Muslim moderates." And Osafi said what the heck do I have to do --
>>>scream from the rooftops? And he said that one of the worst things one
>>>human being can do to another is to refuse to hear them.
>>
>>That's true in a philosophic sense, possibly, but not in any practical
>>sense, and definitely not true from other philosophic standpoints.
>
>How is it not true in a practical sense if it's true from Osafi's
>experience and from mine?
It's not true from two standpoints:
* Taking the comment literally, it's simply not the case that refusing to
hear is one of the worst a human can do to another
* Also taking the comment literally, there's an implication that you
have a right to be heard, which I will fight against vigorously
You should note that I'm predicating my response partly on your use of
"one" and "another". From my POV, there's more room for agreement if
you're talking about groups of people, because I believe that much evil
has been done because groups weren't listening to each other. There
still remains the issue that forcing people to hear just doesn't work,
and any movement in that direction brings up all kinds of other problems.
(This is a problem I have with "diversity training", BTW. As long as it
focuses on behavior, that's fine, but I've heard too many stories about
trying to enforce PC thought, which is worse than the disease.)
--
--- Aahz <*> (Copyright 2005 by aa...@pobox.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het Pythonista
Fourteenth Virtual Anniversary: one day and counting
Mean Green Dancing Machine
kmd <k...@lifeofaction.org> wrote:
>On 23 Dec 2005 09:52:18 -0500, aa...@pobox.com (Mean Green Dancing
>Machine) wrote:
>>
>>me and my primary (who I met on soc.singles fourteen years ago, for those
>>of y'all who are more recent immigrants to this newsgroup). I find it
>>interesting how little my writing style has changed over the years.
>
>Heh. Do you see any changes? I see lots when I go back and look.
Not really any change in style. There are some changes in what I talk
about and how I talk about them, and I'm less likely to get sucked into
interminable point/counterpoint discussions where it's apparent that the
other party isn't paying any attention to what I'm saying. I doubt
anyone could find style changes that identify when I was writing.
Mike Given
>Mike Given wrote:
>>Maybe that's what we should do with this Muslim critters. Shut
>>'em all behind a chain-link fence. Or maybe just catapult 'em
>>across the border into Canada.
>>No solution is perfect. Domestic terror needs to be dealt with
>>and a bit of peeking seems the least invasive method with the
>>best quality of return.
>it's the Christian Identity Movement than needs to be behind a
>chain-link fence more than the Moslems.
Not "more than", but speaking otherwise, you're preaching to the
choir on that notion. I find it shameful that we've endured the Ku
Klux Klan for a century without giving them the richly-deserved label
of "terrorist".
>Moslems didn't bomb Oklahoma City, or the Olympics, or various
>abortion clinics. Christians did.
True, but is wasn't Christians that bombed the World Trade Centers -
twice. And again, you're preaching to the choir because I consider
"Intelligent Design" to be a form of Christian terrorism, and have
personally escorted patients past crowds of out-of-town anti-abortion
fanatics blocking entrances to clinics.
>>If that same CIA analyst subsequently eavesdrops on a
>>conversation from some fundamentalist freak about to blow up a
>>federal office building in, oh, I don't know, say, the middle
>>of Oklahoma, in what way would your freedom and/or liberty be
>>impaired?
>They don't spy on *those* freaks, alas.
Precisely my point. If a warrantless wiretap was used to catch a
KKK posse out on a nigger- or gay-hunt I wouldn't shed a single tear.
>>And the day the government starts issuing poo-pooh permits,
>>I'll be among the first to load a weapon and take up arms
>>against it.
>And if the government starts asking people to present "papers,
>please" to travel even with one's home city?
Same casus belli.
>Because that is already happening.
Where do you live? 'Cuz in my home town of brotherly love, any
federal officer asking for travelling papers would probably get the
shit kicked out of him by any number of friendly bystanders on sheer
principle. Plenty of recent immigrants to go around too - it's hardly
uncommon to see a goodly number of kufis, shoras, and burkas wandering
around and no one give 'em a second glance.
Mikey (..but a NY Rangers jersey is another matter entirely.)
steveb
> Precisely my point. If a warrantless wiretap was used to catch a
>KKK posse out on a nigger- or gay-hunt I wouldn't shed a single tear.
Well maybe you should.
The check and balance applied to Government intrusion is necessary
simply because the system is operated by people with agendas. It
doesn't matter what the agenda is, it's enough that it exists and
allows unchecked systems to become persecutory.
How long before the need to justify your existence as an agency
requires that you change focus and begin to spy on .... well any group
that you, or your bosses personally don't like.
I think they call it Totalitarianism.
steveb
Mike Given
>Mike Given wrote:
>>Precisely my point. If a warrantless wiretap was used to
>>catch a KKK posse out on a nigger- or gay-hunt I wouldn't
>>shed a single tear.
>Well maybe you should.
Hm. Lemme ruminate on that for a minute.
Nope. Sorry. I'll never be so morally absolute as to cloud my
judgement in such a manner.
Seriously, why all you people haven't made me Supreme Emperor yet
just boggles the mind dontchyaknow.
>The check and balance applied to Government intrusion is
>necessary simply because the system is operated by people
>with agendas.
Spot the actual problem.
>It doesn't matter what the agenda is,
Wow. I don't even know where to begin on that.
Other than to say that if "fair and reasonable treatment of the
governed" is an agenda, then I'm okay with it.
>it's enough that it exists and allows unchecked systems
>to become persecutory.
I'm familiar with the old "Power corrupts.." bromide, I just don't
subscribe to it. The actual truism comes from a favorite author of
mine who put it as: "Power attracts the corruptible; absolute power
attracts the absolutely corruptible"; nowhere is this more evident
than in the American political system. With labor unions running a
close second and journalism at least falling somewhere in the top ten.
"Persecutory", indeed.
A powerful organization that's operated by a group (or even an
individual) whose "agenda" is simply to enforce the notion that a
person's right to exist ends where the next person's right to exist
begins has got a damn good start. A bit of a conservative ideal, I
admit, but I do at least try to practice what I preach.
>How long before the need to justify your existence as an
>agency requires that you change focus and begin to spy on....
>well any group that you, or your bosses personally don't like.
That's putting the cart before the horse. Not that I'm completely
against putting the cart before the horse if the situation calls for
it, but it's a silly thing to do in this instance.
>I think they call it Totalitarianism.
Actually if that's what "they" call it then "they" are gravely
mistaken.
Mikey (..look up "oligarchy" and get back to "us".)
kmd
Machine) wrote:
>In article <985oq1teldlhaqbdp...@4ax.com>,
>kmd <k...@lifeofaction.org> wrote:
>>On 23 Dec 2005 09:52:18 -0500, aa...@pobox.com (Mean Green Dancing
>>Machine) wrote:
>>>
>>>Tangent: I recently had occasion to re-read the earliest e-mail between
>>>me and my primary (who I met on soc.singles fourteen years ago, for those
>>>of y'all who are more recent immigrants to this newsgroup). I find it
>>>interesting how little my writing style has changed over the years.
>>
>>Heh. Do you see any changes? I see lots when I go back and look.
>
>Not really any change in style. There are some changes in what I talk
>about and how I talk about them,
Yeah, me too. Of course, I've had a worldview conversion since my
first post, so that has a whole lot to do with it. I was decidedly,
snarkily agnostic/atheist when I first arrived in ss(m) if ya can
believe it.
>and I'm less likely to get sucked into
>interminable point/counterpoint discussions where it's apparent that the
>other party isn't paying any attention to what I'm saying.
Is that a comment on the exchange between you and me that you snipped
to get to this last bit?
>I doubt
>anyone could find style changes that identify when I was writing.
Not even you?
--
Kristen
Mike Given
>No small amount of that comes from so-called Christians who
>want to assert that theirs is the only way to be Christian
>in the world.
You vex me, woman. Truly and entirely, you vex me.
Mikey (..either that or I have taught you well.)
Mean Green Dancing Machine
kmd <k...@lifeofaction.org> wrote:
>On 30 Dec 2005 10:45:00 -0500, aa...@pobox.com (Mean Green Dancing
>Machine) wrote:
>>In article <985oq1teldlhaqbdp...@4ax.com>,
>>kmd <k...@lifeofaction.org> wrote:
>>>On 23 Dec 2005 09:52:18 -0500, aa...@pobox.com (Mean Green Dancing
>>>Machine) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Tangent: I recently had occasion to re-read the earliest e-mail between
>>>>me and my primary (who I met on soc.singles fourteen years ago, for those
>>>>of y'all who are more recent immigrants to this newsgroup). I find it
>>>>interesting how little my writing style has changed over the years.
>>>
>>>Heh. Do you see any changes? I see lots when I go back and look.
>>
>>Not really any change in style. There are some changes in what I talk
>>about and how I talk about them,
>
>Yeah, me too. Of course, I've had a worldview conversion since my
>first post, so that has a whole lot to do with it. I was decidedly,
>snarkily agnostic/atheist when I first arrived in ss(m) if ya can
>believe it.
I'll even believe six impossible things before breakfast. ;-) But my
essential worldview has changed not at all, only how I think about it.
For example, I once swore I'd never get involved with a smoker, yet I
celebrated my tenth anniversary with one last October. (No, not the
ProblemOlderWoman for those of you having trouble with dates.) OTOH,
I've never ever seen zir smoking, and zie doesn't have the icky smoker
smell I usually encounter. My basic policy still stands; I've just made
an exception for an unusual circumstance.
>>and I'm less likely to get sucked into
>>interminable point/counterpoint discussions where it's apparent that the
>>other party isn't paying any attention to what I'm saying.
>
>Is that a comment on the exchange between you and me that you snipped
>to get to this last bit?
Nope. I'm not much of one for hidden messages. I did respond to the
rest of the stuff in another post, did you miss it?
>>I doubt
>>anyone could find style changes that identify when I was writing.
>
>Not even you?
Not really. Many's the time I've come across an old post from the early
90s and had to double-check that it really was old because it sounded
exactly like something I'd say now.