Subject:
|
Re: The *real* Phantom Menace and the fall of the republic
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 3 Dec 2001 12:20:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
358 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Shiri Dori writes:
> Hi Richard!
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > > Which American Way are we giving up, exactly?
> >
> > The one in which the rights of the individual is ideally paramount. The one
> > that enumerated those rights both in the body of the U.S. Constitution
> > (basically a summary what the individual could expect the representative
> > govt. to look and act like) and the original Bill of Rights (obviously).
> > Subsequent Amendments, and State Constitutions continue in this vein except
> > for pointedly crazy stuff like prohibition and the 16th Amendment (which
> > does nothing really).
>
> *Actually*, to be fair, the "American Way" as you define it is *much* more
> omnipresent in the Declaration of Independence than in the Constitution. By
> *far*. Read it and weep, bro - and while you're at it, get a copy of the
> constitution as it *was* originally, with amendments marked. Then check what
> the slaves used as basis for their fights, and likewise check out the
> "Declaration of Sentiments" by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott and
> all those excellent ladies. They were all basing their demands on the DoI,
> not the constitution.
>
> (Sorry, that is beyond the point, *but* I felt I must do some historical
> justice here!)
>
> <snip>
>
> > You just lost the 4th and
> > 9th Amendments rights to privacy. Where's the oversight committee? O
> > right, national security...Now maybe rights to privacy seems small potatoes
> > in comparison to almost 5K dead americans in New York, but the thing is --
> > you never know what those powers to surveillance are going to be put to, and
> > that is the worry.
>
> Right on, Rick. It seems okay now but you sure won't like it later.
>
> <snip again>
>
> > BTW, read Glockner's responses. Why do Europeans actually care about their
> > rights? Why do they refuse to become as databased as Americans? What's the
> > difference? Why does Greenspan say investors would rather put money into
> > the U.S. -- is that a good thing? Think over your answers VERY carefully...
>
> Umm, ahem, I know, I know!! Please, please call on me!
>
> Could it possibly be because Americans don't pay attention?
>
> > Do you think that the drug war is more an economic/political, or more a
> > moral/health issue? Note that Congress gave the problem over to a law
> > enforcement agency (the DEA) and not a dependency cessation program (the AMA
> > perhaps?). Which solution might have worked? Has the DEA solution worked?
>
> That's a whole other issue, but yes, just like prohibition helped about zero
> alcoholics, drug-laws will not do much better to either: a) reduce drug
> usage, nor b) help people who are addicted. (This is IMHO, 'course.)
>
> <snip some horrendous examples>
>
> Wow. That just makes me sick. I am fortunate enough to not have been in
> these situations, and hope never to be. But that doesn't mean I think they
> are waaay out of line.
>
> > Is my speech, these very words, protected -- or does it mark me for possible
> > surveillance?
>
> Perfect example. You don't know, you just can't tell. Who knows, you might
> just be jailed for it.
>
> (Sounds farfetched, doesn't it? But that's exactly the kind of things people
> were jailed for in the '20s. For writing newspaper articles about socialism
> - for speaking up against the "butterfly net" policies, etc. And BTW, Rick,
> glad to be of assistance - last year I had Red Scare as my '20s topic to
> write on so I'm pretty adept w/it. Plus, I read Emma Goldman's biography the
> year before - lots of great info from a perspective you're not used to.)
>
> > The whole world has
> > been living under terrorism for years, we have merely joined their ranks
> > (actually, we always belonged -- it's just that the 9-11 incident was SO
> > shocking).
>
> Man, can I relate to this sentence. Here in Israel the general reaction to
> the September 11th events - the first-off, kneejerk reaction was: "Now
> they'll finally know what we've been talking about for so long." Regardless
> of the later reactions, the first thought was "now the U.S. has tasted some
> terrorism. They'll understand now."
I have to say that that strikes me as a fundamentally selfish view.
Repugnant as it may seem, I'm sure there would have been those who yesterday
said of Israel "They'll understand now". When Israel retaliates, will they
say, “They'll understand now”? Will it end? I doubt it.
Scott A
>
> -Shiri
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
27 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
