« Nanny Sues University in MySpace Imbroglio | Main | Limbaugh on Ombama »

May 02, 2007

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

He retained the difference, and so did the Americans, between natural liberties, inalienable but insecure, and civil liberties, more secure but changeable.

Hmm.  Or should I say Hrm.

Another fine mess I've gotten myself into.  If only there were an energetic force nearby to settle it for me...

Ack!

In other words, "Try to stop me."

What are civil liberties exactly, the only thing the law ever does is restrict action, put limits on natural liberty. The practical freedoms of thought, speech and action are most liberated when and where the peaceful flow of civil society is healthy. The enemies of civil society seed fear and create disorder, and insist that the answer is more control, which they will then use to exploit the system as parasites. We need new electoral/political systems that are capable of being defended against such parasites.

The greatest restriction on our liberty is our lack of imagination and vision. Things don't have to be as they have always been, but they will be if we continue to do what we have always done, and to think as we have always thought.

More like, "I'll do what I want." Then the nanny state says, "Don't do X, or The State will Y." the response is "Try to stop Us."

Mansfield is disgusting. But what gets me is the appeals to Americanism on both sides of the argument. It's as if "Americanism" were some kind of special sauce that always tastes just the same.

We in the USA, we're living breathing Americans, so why not just ask is what Mansfield advocates the way we want to live? The answer is obviously no. An even better question is there any good reason, right now, that we have to live the way Mansfield says? I can't think of a single good reason.

Terror is the reason. We need surveillance, repeal of habeas corpus, and at some point martial law and so forth to keep us safe.

"Terror is the reason. We need surveillance, repeal of habeas corpus, and at some point martial law and so forth to keep us safe."

Yeah, and that's flaming bullshit, and everybody knows it. Toss up a picture of the WTC burning and say "9/11 changed everything," right?

Anybody old enough to remember the Cold War looks back today and sees a scam to keep connected defense contractors in $$, intelligence agencies funded, and a standing military when one wasn't needed. The eggheads all said that if Vietnam went, it was going to be the end fo the world, right? What crap.

This scam will last until the the Muslim countries modernize on their own, and considering what's happening in Iran, that will probably be within ten or fifteen years, maybe sooner. The Global War on Terror won't have the shelf life of the Cold War, and by then the EU, China, and who knows who else will be eating the USA's lunch economically. We'll be the cheap labor providers then, and the repressive policies put in plae will make sure the workforce is cheap, scared, and compliant.

Physician/Activist Helen Caldicott thinks like you. She's got the high dudgeon, too, for all the good it'll do her.

Even she admits that with 20% of Americans on some form of anti-depressant medication, it's tough to break through to people like she did in the early '80s (re nuclear armaments):

Missile Envy

Subtitled "The Arms Race and Nuclear War," it exposes the male sexual rivalry underlaying military strategy, including a technical vocabulary with phrases like "deep penetration."

That shit don't play worth shit anymore. Expose the male sexual rivalry underlaying military strategy?? Hell, bring it on. Everyone's a porn star now and the "soft targets" want it long and hard...

What laws, then, specifically, is the President above? Those against graft? Murder? Pedophilia? Shoplifting? Incest? Insider trading based on secret surveillance? Abduction of political enemies?

Buzzkill, you seem to see it coming. So where do we invest our pension savings? Gold bars? Chinese currency? Riot control gear manufacturers? Prison stocks?

"Expose the male sexual rivalry underlaying military strategy?? Hell, bring it on. Everyone's a porn star now and the 'soft targets' want it long and hard..."

Huh? I'm not saying anything about that, although if the shoe fits, as the saying goes. What has me scratching my head is why there aren't more people seeing through the scam. It's been pulled before.

"Buzzkill, you seem to see it coming. So where do we invest our pension savings? Gold bars? Chinese currency? Riot control gear manufacturers? Prison stocks?"

Beats me. Besides, if you agree that's where we're headed, aren't there bigger problems then worrying about our personal finances? Or you just sneering?

The president is like the first man in when a chick is pulling a train. Who says she's asking for it? The president, for god's sake, and he drives it on home. The natural rights of all men are then released in their most potent form. Even then, even with that gift of awesome clarity, some "men" shiver on the sidelines, ambivalent to their own nature. They are more suited to paper work than nation building, and, no worries, there'll be plenty to sort out in the wake of men who act.

What laws, then, specifically, is the President above?

His boldness dictates which laws he's above, mate, and a bold president, like the engine of the train, is above most of them...

And can he, then, delegate to others, so they too are protected from the courts? So they can act on his behalf, above the law? Which operatives in which departments? Would it be best if they acted in secret, so as to be above the law, and beyond criticism by the general public?

Buzzkill, life goes on. With our lunch eaten by the Chinese and our currency inflated to pay off our national debt, how we survive becomes a real issue. Where we put our money is part of our response to supporting or not supporting the way things are going. So, no, I was not being ironic. Where does one invest time money and energy is an alternative?

Would it be best if they acted in secret, so as to be above the law, and beyond criticism by the general public?

Negative, mate. That would be like shooting porn in the dark or deep shadow, right? Much of the effect would be lost.

(Better said, most will be in the dark or deep shadow, but a fair amount will be lighted brightly, or be easily exposed to public view by the 'virtuous'/'vigilant' press. Shock and awe, baby, shock and awe -- in your fucking face!)

In pursuing the national interest, in protecting the American homeland and its people, in extending the democratic/economic model for success, we cannot help but cultivate societal and individual freedoms throughout the world.

The greatest danger is probably in making people too free. It's a giddy state most are not suited to -- the instability does not become them.

Not every geek who jumps on a train is of the firmer stuff, eh? Hell, half his ambivalence is just 'horny'! It's a winnowing process, and in the process of winnowing, the winnowees serve a national purpose: lingering ambivalence, pangs of 'conscience' and the like, will be exposed for the weaknesses they are, and those who still possess them will be hung out to dry.

Can he delegate? Yes, indeed - but also destroy - for the greater good. Think you could? I doubt it, now. But maybe you could learn. You seem to have the seeds of a deep loyalty in you. You just need to see it's misplaced.

I too am in the business of bondage and freedom. Loosing and unloosing the forces of authority and desire. Many find freedom in subservience, and some in cruelty and excess. "Nothing is forbidden," what wonderful words for a President or a Pimp.

Put "Anything Goes" on the Deputy's badge and let's roll...

"I am the law" would be better. Only legal activity is permitted and Deputy Editor is the standard by which legality is determined. The law puts him above the law. That is the law of the law.

The comments to this entry are closed.