News Briefs 29-09-2006

The Spirit of Tyranny is a seductive bastard

Quote of the Day:

Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but “to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER,” and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God.

Thomas Paine, The Crisis

    1. *Slowly shakes head, and
      *Slowly shakes head, and buries head in hands*

      I’ve been watching, with sadness, TDG more and more ramp up it’s political stories and commentary over the past couple years.
      It’s becoming harder and harder to come to my once favorite site because of it.

      I initially started coming to TDG over 3 years ago, multiple times a day, for fringe science, for UFO’s, for Esoterica, and strange cool story links that couldn’t be easily found otherwise. I loved this site for THOSE things. I even went out of my way to spend my money on the newsletter sponsors to do my part.

      Now, I have to trudge through an increasing number of clever political stabs and outright far left political propaganda. Almost on a daily basis now.

      It’s bad enough that the politics of any kind are included here. But having it always be far left bomb throwing and smearing makes it worse.

      I realize that I am in a great minority here, not being of the far-left persuasion, and I don’t want to be catered to. I just feel like coming here should be more of an escape from political banter, not an aspect of it.

      All I’m saying is it just makes me sad. I wish politics didn’t have to be apart of what TDG is. I wish, at the very least, there could be a separate page for it.

      It’s not my site and I have no say… but….Well…. if wishes were dollars…. Maybe I could donate enough $ to Greg to get politics off the main site 🙂

      1. Politics and the invisible
        Hi thrustbucket,

        This may sound strange to you (and then maybe not) but some people see links between ‘esoterica’ metaphysics and psychism.

        Meaning that things are not just into a box of their own without influence on other parts of reality.

        Viewed in this sense, politics become as important as the rest, maybe even more so because it is then one major outlet of psychic forces that have an impact over our lives.

        Regardless of the slant people give to politics, anyone interested in the invisible can make an association between it and politics. You could call that the occult of politics if you want.

        One example is the realm of prophecies that of course can only be played through politics and geopolitics. It is where you will see them either materialize or fail. That alone makes it an interesting trail (politics) to test the validity of prophetic texts.

        It is generally difficult to avoid the slant. It is still possible to have civic conversations using creative opposition. (No systematic opposition need apply.)

        It is possible though not to take statements personally. I believe we would all benefit from dissecting the consequences and social impacts of politics as well as the reasoning and its reason behind slant, political or otherwise. (By this I mean the reason even as for the reasoning.)

        This is one manifestation of the invisible and one cue about its reality.

        One can always look at politics historically speaking to find the alleged links between leaders of the past and powerful magic bonds, usually of the dark type, that were involved and that brought about great destruction and major shifts in world balance.

        It may be more useful to recognize their equivalent today, where they exist now, to be in a position of potential action.

        If it has happened, it will happen.

        The world is being polarized like countries are becoming polarized between Left-Right discourses.

        In the end, it is less the discourse than the fact of being polarized that leads to conflict.

        Conflict to me is a tool of the invisible to keep their reign over the unconscious humanity that is totally absorbed by the form and concepts while it easily forfeits the spirit of the form, what the concepts means integrally and not what it appears to be on the surface.

        Without the polarization that identifying to an ideology brings, there would be no conflict therefore political statements would not be taken personally and the subject would remain on the table rather than in our emotions.

        What the loss of polarization does though is the need to contest any and all concepts that imply domination at one point or the other.

        This is perhaps why many people who have studied metaphysics for so long tend to lean Left as metaphysics asks the individual to leave his ego behind, in a way, and care about the powerless, the poor, those that have not fared as well as we because of their karmic ties.

        On the other hand, one could say that the elevation of human consciousness will also require us to refine our consciousness in ways that are not equivalent to self defeat for the service of a social cause, steering the rudder right again.

        In other words, it can’t be Left and it can’t be right and, because of this, it can’t be center since the center we think of is simply a point of equilibrium between the two poles and even that varies according to the stage they have reached within a society in particular.

        Instead, we would be talking about being centered relative to our own energy and our own polarized views in a way that neutralizes the impressions that these views could have on us, to avoid beings influenced from within.

        Refusing to be influenced by others is obvious enough but do we know not to be influenced by our own internal tensions, our fears to lose or to not have? our fears period?

        All these allow politics to unfold as they do and to create poles of tension between group that pull on the sheet until that sheet is shred to pieces.

        This is where politics become interesting and are debunked as a cosmic conspiracy against the well being of humanity, an invisible conspiracy to maintain a state of conflict and globally maintain the individual prisoner of his ideologies that were programmed into his psychic fabric prior even to his incarnation.

        Know thyself means knowing the invisible links that render man adept of astral magic and dependent on the laws of death.

        Seeing those links automatically makes of one a scientist of politics since the links between the realm of the dead and the unfolding events become increasingly apparent.

        Events that could be predicted or hinted at because they were already globally programmed.

        Politics and geopolitics then become a time meter that inform us on the current psychological status of humanity. It also allows us to see where we are in relation to the end of the times of psychological manipulation, therefore of mortal politics, that people use in all aspects of their lives.

        We do it at work, with our spouses, with everyone from which we need a return.

        We are intrinsically psychological tacticians who hope to influence the environment to our advantage, to the advantage of the ideology to which we are vibratorily tied.

        World politics reflect this psychological reflex as the personality of nations is mainly derived from the personality of its members.

        We need the strength to see the manipulations of our peers and for that we need the strength to see the manipulation within and politics is one of the most extreme useful method to know oneself if we know to observe what it does to us, if we know to take a psychological distance from it.

        There are of course other realms of life experience that are powerful vectors, family is one.

        It is up to us to look at politics in a different light rather than be absorbed by it. If not then we are only playing the game that politics enforce on us with rules that are beyond our will and that we refuse to see for the benefit of the perpetuation of an ideology.

        1. Hmmm
          The long esoteric diatribe

          Of course, many would not be interested in those.

          It would depend on what someone is looking for I guess.

          Tabloid curiosities or somthing else.

          This said, why the need to censor?

          1. Censor?
            I see no censoring on the part of TDG readers who don’t have the power to do even if they so desired. The owner and contributors already censor themselves by virtue of what they choose to post and not post. Offering up critical advice in an attempt to influence thier decisions in that regard is hardly censorship.

      2. Always
        [quote=thrustbucket]It’s bad enough that the politics of any kind are included here. But having it always be far left bomb throwing and smearing makes it worse.[/quote]

        ‘Always’? You obviously must have missed the Chomsky story on Wednesday. Or the ones questioning global warming. Etc.

        [quote]Maybe I could donate enough $ to Greg to get politics off the main site :)[/quote]

        No money required. Just vote your idiot king out…we’re much more relaxed when we don’t have to worry about invasions, torture, human rights abuses and the rest of it.
        😉

        Kind regards,
        Greg
        ——————————————-
        You monkeys only think you’re running things

        1. Political Content
          Greg, I agree with the questioning of the “always” statement and your examples are a good point. However, I do agree that lately the tone has gotten extremlly political and far left (especially when Kat does the posting, you usually seem pretty fair and non-political). But your comment above, and some of the other comments that appear directly insulting the President and his advisors, are just childish in tone and serve no real purpose. Calling Bush an “idiot king” insults not only him, but the majority of the country. First point, Bush is not an idiot. He’s not a genius, but he is an intellegent man. Yes he has some problems speaking at times, but when he does speak he does not try to talk down to people or turn words inside out on them (such as saying that the meaning of a sentence depends on your definition of “is”). Second of all, if he were a king there’d be no debate over all these things because he’d do what he wanted, no questions asked (and if he were, I’d be one of the first to pick up a weapon and fight a non-democratic government). As for worring about invasions, torture, human rights abuses and the like – The terrorists would have attacked no matter who was in office. And if we want to blame someone, blame them. Mr. Clinton says he worked very hard to fight terrorism during his tenure (and I’m sure he feels he did), but we still had multiple terrorist attacks on American targets during the 90’s (WTC1, Kobar Towers, African Embassies, USS Cole). Since 9/11, how many major attacks on American Targets have succeeded outside of IED attacks in Iraq on US Military? There have been major attacks, but they were on other targets, not American. Do we torture? I’m sorry, but I don’t consider things like solitary confinement and tough questioning techniques torture. Even water boarding is tame compared to what these people would do to us if they had the chance. And they wouldn’t care if you fought all the way to the Supreme Court to protect them, they would torture and kill you just the same. I’d rather treat them a little rough and get them to talk about their buddies still out there and use that info to protect us all, than to handle them with kid gloves and be spit on for it. As for Human Rights abuses, have you heard how well the Gitmo prisoners have it? At the moment, there favorite food is McDonald’s Fillet-o-Fish, which they can have any time they want from the one on-base. Our brave soldiers who captured these terrorists have to eat rations while these guys have a very extensive take-out menu at thier beck and call. They are alowed thier 5 daily prayers and guards are punished if the walk to loud during those periods. We are codling these people who want to kill us. And now we need to give them access to our courts to sue us and the guards? MY GODS People, remind me if I ever reach a point in my life that I’m desperate and turn to crime to rob the leftist out there, because they’ll stand up and say it wasn’t my fault. Let’s not forget that one of the “detainnees” is Kalid Sheik Mohhammed, the man who planned the so called “Planes Operation” that we know better as 9/11. Kat, as for your Quote from the great Patriot, Thomas Paine, let’s remembet a few facts. The British Crown detained American Colonists for no reasons and held them without trial. We captured people trying to kill US Soldiers on the battlefeild and wanted to process them through millitary tribunals, so as to expidite things, but the way was blocked by the American left. And if you try and say that the tribunals would not be fair, then I pity your view of your fellow man that you mistrust that much.

          Amadeus_rex

          FORTE EST VINUM, FORTIOR EST REX, FORTIORES SUNT MULIERES: SUPER OMNIA VINCIT VERITAS.
          “Wine is strong, a King is stronger, women are stronger still: but truth conquers all”

          1. Idiots
            [quote=amadeusrex]Calling Bush an “idiot king” insults not only him, but the majority of the country. [/quote]

            Sincerest apologies, but sometimes a country deserves to be insulted…so America, consider yourself insulted. The only mitigating factor is that the alternative is hardly an ‘alternative’. But Bush is an idiot (I didn’t say non-intelligent), and anybody that can’t see that things are going very awry hasn’t done much impartial analysis of the events of the last few years. It’s interesting to note that most comments rebuking political comment here on TDG have gone on to rail against the Democrats…when I don’t think any of us support them either (heck, only one of us is an American). Partisan politics is akin to fundamentalist religion these days.

            But I agree that TDG shouldnt’ be focusing on politics, and we should try to limit that aspect somewhat in future.

            Kind regards,
            Greg

            ——————————————-
            You monkeys only think you’re running things

          2. there’s insults, and then there’s insults
            It is an interesting topic, who can be insulted and who cannot.

            These days it seems ok to insult americans, as in the “typical” american individual, and as a country.

            It also is ok to insult germans individually and as a country, for historical reasons.

            On the other hand, it is not ok to insult Arabians, Muslims, Africans, aboriginal Australians, or Chinese culture.

            Why is that?

            I can think of well-founded insults for pretty much everyone on earth. Including the above-mentioned folks that are not supposed to be insulted. But also Greg, Kat, Bill, Jameske, Ron, the Pope, Mohammed, Jesus, Mother Theresa, the Daila Lhama (sp?), my mother, and of course myself.

            Perhaps the TDG site could add an e-mail feature, so that we can exchange individual insults.

            [Edit:] these individual insults are available on request. If you don’t want to know, don’t ask, and I won’t tell.

          3. Vote the idiot out and the next one in!
            Pardon the language but do you need to feel his balls slapping your ass to realise Georgey B. is f**king you? First of all I would question the values of anyone who argues that torture, whether waterboarding or any other form is an acceptable practice by the supposed leader of the free world against foreign nationals, or if the new detainee bill passes, their own citizens. The moment you compromise on the ideals of basic human rights (FOR ALL PEOPLE)then you throw away everything that our forefathers have fought tyranny for throughout history.
            The ability to even have an open discussion on a topic like this is being threatened more and more each day. Keep the politics on the site guys. This site is all about the truth so keep the views coming cause we sure as hell aren’t going to get the mainstream media to keep us informed. There was a time when the media were the watchdog of the government and the world. This time has saddly passed with the rampant corporation standover of the media and it is only through forums such as this site where we can get a small view of reality before they have polished it. Use your God given ability to use your mind objectively. Any person who makes up their mind before hearing the both sides of the entire issue is a fool. If you find that impossible or if you don’t like the articles or the comments, I suggest you exercise your right to not read them, where as I’ll exercise mine to keep reading them, while we in Australia still have those rights…

            P.S

            1. Bush is an idiot. (and I ‘ve got a few more terms less flattering)
            2. He does do everything he wants (when they jerk his chain)
            3. lets not forget the one of the detainees at Guantanamo ISNT Osama Bin Laden.

            Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
            John 8:32

          4. There you go again
            [quote=amadeusrex]Since 9/11, how many major attacks on American Targets have succeeded outside of IED attacks in Iraq on US Military? There have been major attacks, but they were on other targets, not American. Do we torture? I’m sorry, but I don’t consider things like solitary confinement and tough questioning techniques torture. Even water boarding is tame compared to what these people would do to us if they had the chance.[/quote]
            Sad how right wingers in this country think. “Outside of IED attacks in Iraq” obviously shows the conflating of military casualties lost to insurgents with terrorist attacks. And it shows the right’s inability to deal with logic. Why would the “Islamozombies” or whatever term the right wing is using this week spend money on airfare to attack Americans in the U.S. when Mr. Bush kindly shipped over Americans to them to attack.

            Here above you also see the right wing’s inability to recognize reality. Ignore the fact that when President Clinton ordered strikes on Osama bin Laden, the right wing criticized him. Ignore the numerous deaths of detainees to beatings and violence by U.S. interrogators. They Ignore the fact that detainees have been released after months of torture in captivity because they were found to have been innocent of any wrongdoing. Ignore the countless suicide attempts by those detainees still held in limbo. And ignore the fact that if any of our soldiers were taken prisoner and subjected to such treatment as we’ve done unto others, we damn well would consider it torture. Ignore the fact that counterrorism experts say torture is ineffective at getting useful information outside of the TV show “24” which the right confuses with reality. Ignore the fact that Bush’s own former Secretary of State has called such tactics as endangering the U.S. fight against terrorism and world standing. No, the right only compares our behavior to that of the terrorists. Now there is a hell of a standard to be proud of. To those supporting President Bush and the Republican rubber stamp Congress, are you not yet ashamed enough?

          5. Politics
            [quote=Carnacki] Ignore the fact that when President Clinton ordered strikes on Osama bin Laden, the right wing criticized him. [/quote]

            Clinton was critized because he destroyed a tent, blew-up an asprin factory, and killed a civilian in Pakistan when he attacked ObL. No one critized him for the attack; his failure was critized.

            Bill

          6. Bill
            Are you uninformed or not telling the truth?

            http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/11/reminder-of-gop-attacks-on-clintons.html

            The Republican leaders attacked him for the very reasons I stated. You could not possibly be more wrong. Clinton was attacked by Republicans as shown by their own words not for the methods of the attacks but for even MAKING the attacks on bin Laden in 1998.

            Bearing false witness as you have done is breaking one of the Lord’s commandments as much as adultery.

          7. More politics
            Now we’re arguing about Clinton. The real truth is that I don’t hate Clinton. I just think he lies often and I’m ashamed of him.

            Clinton wasn’t being critized for attacking ObL or Iraq in those quotes. He was being critized for playing the Clinton version of “Wag the Dog”. He was attempting to distrack the press and the public for his activities with Monica in the Oval Office.

            I don’t have any cool Bible verses for you. I don’t think you can properly intrepret what you read. Did you bother to read what you posted?

            Bill

          8. Bill
            You really are an idiot. Saying “wag the dog” was attacking Clinton for the attacks not for the method. Your reading comprehension really is poor. Either that or you’re so deluded as to no longer recognize reality. Probably both. Good day to you.

          9. the way was blocked by
            >>Kat, as for your Quote from the great Patriot, Thomas Paine, let’s remembet a few facts. The British Crown detained American Colonists for no reasons and held them without trial. We captured people trying to kill US Soldiers on the battlefeild and wanted to process them through millitary tribunals, so as to expidite things, but the way was blocked by the American left.

            If that’s the case, then by ‘the American left’, I take it you mean all those Supreme Court Judges appointed by George Herbert Walker Bush and George W. Bush who voted that the tribunals were unconstitutional.

            Kat

      3. Hip and Cool Politics
        Hi Thrustbucket,

        It’s oh-so media hip and cool and to be anti-Bush. After all, all the Hollywood stars that we like are anti-Bush and everyone thinks Jon Stewart is so oh-so hip and cool and funny and the Daily Show is real news, right? So let’s all be hip and cool and funny and we can be the awesome left. In that sense, TDG is not media-fringe; just one of the crowd.

        The Democrats problem is that they believe that they are not winning elections because they are just not getting their message out. Their message is out – people don’t like it. Voters just don’t buy into media anti-Bush, cut-and-run, no response to terrorism (We tried that with Clinton but it didn’t work). I’m for taking the gloves off in Iraq.

        Bill

        1. this blog is interesting
          I now feel like I am ina pub listenging to private discussion. Yes Richard was pedantic in explaining his point of view but he did make some salient points. Everything on this planet is interconnected. No one is seperate from the pack. Bush represents the forces of change. He represents the old families that won’t cede their power, or control of the third world’s strategic resources. This hold won’t last forever. I see these times as a transformational time. Nothing lasts forever. All the old civilizations came and went. Someday someone will come along and look at our civilation and they will find the same problems in our times exists in their times too. TDG is a great escape from the pack, but is also a place for self examination, looking at other cultures and see our own. Finding out about the lakes on Titan. I love getting first hand knowledge from someone on TDG about those pyramids in Bosnia–no where else this would happen but here. We can all forgive the pedagogical sorts. Just imagine living in WWII, or in Ancient Rome. We all would not be discusing such things. Come across a set of rooms and artefacts in a mountain, that would be the devil’s work not the discovery of ancient Atlantis. Keep up the great work Greg, no one can please a critic. I once shot a 35 minute docuementary and passed it around to differant film festivals, it played only in England. Someone I know criticized it, but could they do the same????–nay. Keep up the good work, greg. Keep us monkies in line!

          1. this blog is interesting–nay
            [quote=Paul Collins]

            I now feel like I am ina pub listenging to private discussion. [/quote]

            Bingo, Paul. So do I. You made my point. Look at the title of the column.

            This isn’t a blog; this is the news. Blogs belong in the blogs column, not the news. I do care about the revalent news of the day. I don’t care about Kat’s political opinion at all.

            Bill

        2. The D Word
          [quote=Bill]The Democrats problem is that they believe…[/quote]

          Oops, there’s the D word again. Who mentioned them?
          😉

          [quote]Voters just don’t buy into media anti-Bush,[/quote]

          ROFL. You kill me.

          I just don’t know how Bush was able to go to war with Iraq, the media were just so critical of everything the administration said…

          Kind regards,
          Greg
          ——————————————-
          You monkeys only think you’re running things

          1. Came from the news
            [quote=Greg]
            Oops, there’s the D word again. Who mentioned them?
            😉
            [/quote]
            Actually, Kat did in the next to the last story in the news but she spelled it “Dims”.

            [quote]
            ROFL. You kill me.

            I just don’t know how Bush was able to go to war with Iraq, the media were just so critical of everything the administration said…[/quote]

            No, most were for it before they were against it. When it got tough they broke ranks. Now, most are hip and cool. ;o)

            Bill

          2. Hip and Cool
            [quote=Bill]No, most were for it before they were against it. When it got tough they broke ranks. Now, most are hip and cool. [/quote]

            And by ‘got tough’, you’re obviously referring to the total lack of WMD, lack of chemical trailers, lack of unmanned drones ready to attack the U.S, lack of Al Qaeda connection, and lack of being greeted as liberators. All of which were apparently as real as I am, according to Messrs Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.

            So glad to see that expecting truth in matters of war has finally become “hip and cool”. Kind of like flares, it happens every few decades or so…

            Kind regards,
            Greg

            * “There’s overwhelming evidence there was a connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government.” – Vice President Cheney, 1/22/04

            * “We know where the WMDs are.” Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/30/03

            * “I really do believe we will be greeted as liberators.” – Cheney

            ——————————————-
            You monkeys only think you’re running things

          3. Greg
            I’d point out the people turned against the war even though much of the media refuses to show the real harshness of it.

          4. More politics
            [quote=Greg]

            And by ‘got tough’, you’re obviously referring to the total lack of WMD, lack of chemical trailers, lack of unmanned drones ready to attack the U.S, lack of Al Qaeda connection, and lack of being greeted as liberators. All of which were apparently as real as I am, according to Messrs Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.
            [/quote]

            Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq

            Saddam’s WMD have been found

            500-metric tons (about 1-million pounds of yellow cake uranium) along with 1.8 metric tons of partially enriched uranium.

            I still think the bulk went to Syria but I can’t prove it. Now, what do you think Saddam was going to do with all that stuff? Since he was already funding suicuide attacks in Isreal, do you think some of it might have found its was to Al Queda?

            Stopping them before they do it is a new concept. It really doesn’t matter if you don’t like it.

            BTW Greg, it’s your site so you win. Let’s argue politics and forget all that other stuff.

            Bill

          5. Politics FTW!
            Okay Bill, now you’re starting to insult my intelligence.

            [quote=Bill]Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq
            [/quote]

            Let’s see, your first piece of evidence is a flash news release from mega-wingnut Rick Santorum, which was so credible that Fox News – that bastion of pinko, commie liberal thought – debunked it within hours.

            [quote=Bill]Saddam’s WMD have been found[/quote]

            Next we have an early 2004 article from a rabid neocon propagandist, which grabs at any straw it can find. So much credible evidence in it that in the next two years both Bush and the White House stated a number of times that Iraq did not have WMD. Not to mention the ISG report finding that “Iraq had no deployable WMD of any kind as of March 2003 and had no production since 1991.” You’d think they’d be keen to find a little evidence of WMD wouldn’t you? Perhaps you should pass the article on to them. Seriously, where do you dig this crap up Bill? Do you question anything that Bushco have done over the past 6 years (it’s a very long sheet of paper)?

            [quote=Bill]500-metric tons (about 1-million pounds of yellow cake uranium) along with 1.8 metric tons of partially enriched uranium. [/quote]

            You mean this yellowcake? The material that the IAEA “has kept…at the site safely under UN seal for 12 years.” The one that only started going missing when some idiot invaded the country, allowing it to be looted. But it’s all found now apparently. Certainly sounds like it was worth a war, and 40,000+ people dying.

            [quote=Bill]I still think the bulk went to Syria but I can’t prove it. Now, what do you think Saddam was going to do with all that stuff? Since he was already funding suicuide attacks in Isreal, do you think some of it might have found its was to Al Queda?[/quote]

            ISG again: “it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place”. It’s an unfalsifiable statement though, so I guess this is one point we really can’t argue on conclusively.

            [quote=Bill]Stopping them before they do it is a new concept. It really doesn’t matter if you don’t like it.[/quote]

            It’s not so much me that you should be worried about. It’s the millions of Islamic youth around the world who might not “like it”…the ones more likely to get their jihad on. Dubya and friends are pretty much making the case against pre-emptive war at the moment, so there’s little for me to do. The tragic thing is, this is all supposed to stop terrorism.

            [quote=Bill]BTW Greg, it’s your site so you win. Let’s argue politics and forget all that other stuff.[/quote]

            Hey, I spend four hours a day collecting all that “other stuff”. By the end of it, I’m ready to talk politics…
            😉

            Kind regards,
            Greg
            ——————————————-
            You monkeys only think you’re running things

          6. More politics
            [quote=Greg]Okay Bill, now you’re starting to insult my intelligence.
            [/quote]

            Sometimes your intelligence needs insulting. ;o)

            That Fox News debunker, Alan Colmes, is as liberal as they come. It just depends on who is telling the story. BTW, if you’re going to quote someone it depends on where one stops quoting. I’ll finish this one for you,

            The Iraq Survey Group believes “it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place. However, ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials.” (My bold.)

            You probably won’t read this, Strong Evidence There Were WMDs in Iraq, but you should.

            It is interesting how history is so quickly forgotten. A ceasefire was in force on Iraq following the first Gulf war where Saddam invaded Kuait. Saddam consistently violated the ceasefire by expelling the weapons inspectors among other things. The US Congress passed President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 where it was decided to overthrow Saddam. We encouraged a coup and then rebellion by the people of Iraq, that didn’t work. The US knew that Saddam had chemical- and armament-WMDs because we gave them to him to fight Iran. Then he gassed the Kurds with them. The UN wouldn’t back their own resolutions because Saddam had member nations scamming millions from the Food for Oil program.

            On September 20, 2001 President Bush said, Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated…. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

            Saddam was providing safe haven to terrorist Abu Nidal, Abdul Rahman Yasin (conspirators in the 1993 WTC bombing), Khala Khadr al-Shalat (bomb-maker brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over Scotland), Abu Abbas (mastermind of 1985 Achille Lauro hijacking and murder of Leon Klinghoffer), and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, formerly the director of an al Qaeda training base in Afghanistan and leader of the Al-Qaeda’s forces in Iraq until recently.

            Documents captured in Iraq revealed that Saddam intended to resume anthrax and mustard gas production in two months. Every intelligence agency on earth, including the UN, believed that Saddam had WMDs. Even without them he was supporting suicide bombers in Israel.

            There are things that I don’t support with President Bush, but the invasion of Iraq isn’t one of them. He spends too much money trying to appease liberals.

            The reason that my references are old is because this topic is no longer current. It doesn’t really matter – we are there. What matters is “What do we do now?” Democrats here don’t want to “cut and run” and they don’t want to stay. In other words, they have no plan. I would put more boots on the ground and start bombing again. What would you do?

            Bill

          7. Appeasement
            [quote=Bill]That Fox News debunker, Alan Colmes, is as liberal as they come. It just depends on who is telling the story. BTW, if you’re going to quote someone it depends on where one stops quoting. I’ll finish this one for you,

            The Iraq Survey Group believes “it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place. However, ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials.” (My bold.)[/quote]

            Perhaps more important to bold would be “it was unlikely”, and to a lesser extent “limited” and “related”. But this point isn’t worth arguing – as I said, it’s an unfalsifiable assertion. The best that can be said is that even the ISG can’t find any evidence…hardly anything that you can bring up as justification for pre-emptive war.

            [quote=Bill]You probably won’t read this, Strong Evidence There Were WMDs in Iraq, but you should.[/quote]

            Bill, I’ll read whatever you’re passing on. However, my estimation of your critical thinking is dropping faster than a lead balloon. So far your sources are wingnut Santorum and a rabid neocon propagandist. Now you’re asking me to accept the word of Bill Tierney, a Christian fundie, who says that God showed him where the WMD were in Iraq but nobody would listen. The same Bill Tierney who then turns up at Gitmo as an interrogator, and gets a bit unhinged when he talks about torturing people. The same Bill Tierney who is given the ‘Saddam Tapes’ to translate, and seems to have free reign to release them to the public. The same Bill Tierney that gets interviewed outside Terry Schiavo’s hospice. Can you say “shill” boys and girls?

            [quote=Bill]The reason that my references are old is because this topic is no longer current. It doesn’t really matter – we are there. What matters is “What do we do now?” [/quote]

            No, if you want to rattle your sabre and promote pre-emptive war, then it still does *really* matter. You references are not old because the topic is no longer current, they are old because they have been made obsolete by the ISG report. If you feel the need to continually refer to them (and I can refer you back to the Atta in Prague debate we had much earlier for more of the same), then you are simply trying to reinforce your belief system with incorrect information.

            You can talk about Saddam’s intentions, history etc. But that is not what I am discussing, and what you have been replying to with shoddy sources. Here it is again:

            [quote=Greg]And by ‘got tough’, you’re obviously referring to the total lack of WMD, lack of chemical trailers, lack of unmanned drones ready to attack the U.S, lack of Al Qaeda connection, and lack of being greeted as liberators. All of which were apparently as real as I am, according to Messrs Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.[/quote]

            As per the ISG report for the first few points:

            * Iraq had no deployable WMD of any kind as of March 2003 and had no production since 1991.
            * Any remaining chemical munitions in Iraq do not pose a militarily significant threat…ISG has not found evidence to indicate that Iraq did not destroy its BW weapons or bulk agents
            * Evidence available to ISG concerning the UAV programs active at the onset of OIF indicates these systems were intended for reconnaissance and electronic warfare.
            * ISG judged the mobile units were impractical for biological agent production and almost certainly designed and built for the generation of hydrogen.

            The 9/11 panel found that Iraq had no connection with Al Qaeda (two days after Cheney said Saddam had “long-established ties” with Al Qaeda). And as for being greeted as liberators…

            As for your final question “What matters is “What do we do now?””, that’s the thousand dollar question isn’t it. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t – US troops left in a war zone, or pull out and Iraq descends into civil war. Such a shame you let an idiot and his cronies drag you into this situation. Even bigger shame that you still sit there defending him with wingnut propaganda, rather than questioning decisions and philosophies that rightly deserve considered debate. Time to put your sabre down and think critically.

            Kind regards,
            Greg
            ——————————————-
            You monkeys only think you’re running things

          8. More politics
            Hi Greg,

            No matter what a report says it difficult to debunk actual hardware. I’ve named you the terrorists that Saddam was giving safe haven. I’ve given you the reason that the UN didn’t want to back its own resolution. Keep in mind that this is a war on terror, not any particular branch of terrorists. I feel much better with Saddam in court knowing that he can’t provide terrorists with safe haven, WMDs, or money. For this, we can thank President Bush.

            The invasion of Saddam’s Irag was five years ago. It’s over. You and I will not agree on this. Time moves on. The question you didn’t answer is really the question now.

            Bill

          9. Bill
            You’re kidding right? Do you keep up on current events? The NIE report came out recently stating the exact opposite, that the war in Iraq has made the country less safe, yet you have the shamelessness to write the words above as if they are true. I really feel pity for you and people who think like you do at this point. Sadly the innocent people in Iraq killed by the tens of thousands who had nothing to do with terrorism, 9/11, Saddam Hussein, but just wanted to live their lives, raise their families, and spend time in their children probably will never receive any sympathy for you. But I’ll add you to my prayers just as I do them.

          10. More politics
            [quote=Carnacki] The NIE report came out recently stating the exact opposite, that the war in Iraq has made the country less safe, [/quote]

            Citation link, please.

            Bill

          11. Bill
            As soon as you admit I was right about the Republicans attacking Bill Clinton unfairly when he ordered the attacks in 1998 on Osama bin Laden.

            I’ve got the NIE link right here waiting. But when I gave you a citation for an excellent compilation of quotes you didn’t even acknowledge it so no more links for you until you do.

          12. More politics
            I’ll admit that you didn’t understand why Clinton was being critized because you didn’t comprehend your “excellent compilation of quotes”. You didn’t comprehend what I wrote.

            A bit of advice to you: If you find yourself in a hole way over your head, stop digging.

            Bill

          13. Poor, deluded Bill of the Daily Grail
            [quote=Bill]I’ll admit that you didn’t understand why Clinton was being critized because you didn’t comprehend your “excellent compilation of quotes”. You didn’t comprehend what I wrote.

            A bit of advice to you: If you find yourself in a hole way over your head, stop digging.

            Bill[/quote]

            Irony, thy name is Bill.

            That too probably sailed over your head.

          14. Still quoting Fox News?
            Still quoting Fox News, even after this public admission of bias in June, 2005?:

            “Even we at Fox News manage to get some lefties on the air occasionally, and often let them finish their sentences before we club them to death and feed the scraps to Karl Rove and Bill O’Reilly. And those who hate us can take solace in the fact that they aren’t subsidizing Bill’s bombast; we payers of the BBC license fee don’t enjoy that peace of mind. Fox News is, after all, a private channel and our presenters are quite open about where they stand on particular stories. That’s our appeal. People watch us because they know what they are getting. The Beeb’s institutionalized leftism would be easier to tolerate if the corporation was a little more honest about it.”
            Scott Norvell, London Bureau chief for Fox News
            Quoted (only) in Wall Street Journal, European Edition

            Nothing’s changed since then. Fox News’ O’Reilly Factor recently mislabeled disgraced Republican Congressman Mark Foley as being a Florida Democrat. Then, in their late-night rebroadcasts, they scrubbed the erroneous label – without explanation.

            As Greg’s been urging, perhaps you should try reading other sources. For instance, Factcheck.org just posted a thorough point-by-point assessment of Clinton’s recent claims of doing more to stop Osama:
            Osama Bin Missing: Who’s Tried Hardest to Tackle Top Terrorist?

            Kat

          15. More politics
            Hi Kat,

            Neither Greg or have mentioned Bill o’Reiley. He’s a right wing conservative, but he did not do the interview. No one has mentioned him except you.

            Apparently, you have never heard Alan Colmes either. He is the resident left wing liberal. Colmes did the so-called debunking.

            Bill

          16. Reliable, accurate news
            Above, under the subject ‘More politics’, you used a Fox News report as your source: Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq.

            If you had actually read my post ‘Still quoting Fox News‘, you should have understood that I gave you two examples for why Fox News, in general, is not a reliable news source. In the first example, Fox’s own London bureau chief publicly stated that they were biased. The second example is their recent mislabeling of Foley as being a Democrat. For the purpose of showing that Fox is an unreliable news source, it doesn’t really matter whose show they did that on. But for the purpose of showing they intentionally mislabeled Foley, it matters because of the O’Reilly show’s popularity, and if they didn’t mislabel Foley intentionally, then in their rebroadcasts, they would have apologized for the error and would have properly identified him as a Republican rather than showing him with no identification at all, and no explanation of their earlier ‘mistake’.

            Apparently, you also didn’t bother to check out my link to a reliable source -factcheck.org – for a thorough point-by-point assessment of Clinton’s recent claims of doing more than Bush, pre 9/11, to stop Osama.

            >>Apparently, you have never heard Alan Colmes either. He is the resident left wing liberal. Colmes did the so-called debunking.
            >>Actually, Greg was quoting Fox News for the Alan Colmes “debunking”. I was pointing out that he’s a Fox News, bleeding-heart, liberal. Unlike TDG, they have one in the interest of ‘fair and balanced’.

            Which is exactly what I was pointing out — you won’t find reliable, accurate news at Fox News – or any other news source – which presents the news from either a far right or far left perspective, and presenting it from BOTH a far right AND far left perspective isn’t any better.

          17. More politics
            Kat,

            Both the source that I linked and the response that Greg linked were from Fox News. Ironic, isn’t it? I disagree that this makes the unfair and a poor source. I think they made a mistake on Foley. Even the AP picked it up. It was corrected in later broadcasts.

            I almost always follow your links. I don’t see the merit of some of them so I don’t always address them. And, I usually don’t agree with you.

            There is no doubt that Bill O’Reilly is a conservative commentator. I was pointing out is that Alan Colmes is a liberal commentator. At least they don’t try to conceal it like CBS did with Dan Rather. I did check out your factcheck.org but I was unsure what point you were trying to make. I disagree with their conclusion that Clinton was not trying to get Monica off page one with a strike on Iraq if that was their conclusion – I wasn’t quite sure.

            This is why politics is a poor choice for TDG. It’s all about opinion and perception.

            Bill

          18. Fair and Balanced
            Kat,

            Actually, Greg was quoting Fox News for the Alan Colmes “debunking”. I was pointing out that he’s a Fox News, bleeding-heart, liberal. Unlike TDG, they have one in the interest of ‘fair and balanced’.

            Bill

        3. Bill
          Amazing how you claim Clinton “cut and run.” It just shows you don’t know much about history. And you also don’t know much about current events either. Bush closed the air base in Saudi Arabia — Osama bin Laden’s number one goal. Now that is cut and running. You also ignore the “cut and run” Bush did in Afghanistan. How’s that hunt for Osama going by your boy?

          1. Learn to read
            Do you see what happens when you start talking about politics. It’s all opinion and any illiterate can scurry in.

            Bill

          2. Iliterate?
            I have enough reading comprehension and understanding to know the National Intelligence Estimate, countless reports from the War College and the CIA as well as the DoD has shown that invading Iraq has made us less safer. I also have enough comprehension to know that Republican Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott just said we should cut a deal with the Taliban to allow them back into the Afghan government. I’m sure you’ll justify that “cut and run.”

        1. Lee
          Or a sense of decency or morality. Everything you need to know about them is they knew a Republican Congressman was a sexual predator for years and they didn’t tell the authorities or their Democratic counterparts. Instead, they kept him on the Congressional committee on missing and exploited children. I guess they figured he was an expert on exploiting children so he was on the right committee. It’s their same line of thinking in letting the lobbyists from the oil industry write the environmental laws.

  1. Politics and TDG
    3 years ago I voiced concerns over the amount of political links appearing within TDG, and following a certain amount of debate, these appeared to abate.

    However recent world events such as American politics and global warming issues have seen political items making up quite a proportion of links. Maybe the posters could impose a limit on themselves, of say maybe no more than 15%?

    Personally, I do not come to TDG for politics.

    Nostra

    1. Politics
      Personally, I like to read the political news. I think that TDG has enough of a variety of all sorts of news that anyone can find something they are interested in. One couldn’t read all of the news anyway. I don’t believe in the existence of UFO’s but I have no intention of complaining when information about them is posted. In fact, I sometimes find them interesting. I very much apppreciate all the effort that Greg, Kat and the rest go to. Thank you all so much.

    2. Nostradamus I live in the US
      The truth on our TV’s is about 15% with a heavy sent of propaganda And what has that gotten us. This Fascist goverment and a war on terror that could ingulf the world. I believe your goverment in the UK is also heavely involved in what is now termed by both our goverments as the Long War. Well it is the wrong war. This war on terror has been invented so a group of Corporatist and Bankers can keep their hold of power. And people are dieing and tortoured and brutalize everyday. The cold reality of what is happening can not be regulated to a 15% or any random figure. The Daily Grail is an organic creature and people are just interested in politics. Politics colour science,alternative history and religion. Politics, goverments and social trends helps shape who we are. Limiting content, limits our understanding of ourselves. Something that is a goal of mine. Keep your mind open. There is always something new to discover, and if some of it make you uncomfortable. Ask yourself why?

      1. TDG’s an organic creature
        Thanks, bladerunner, for pointing out how politics is connected to every other aspect of life (not to mention, becoming more connected to it by the second, considering our current lack of privacy).

        Maybe you didn’t notice that Nostra also posted another comment under my blog on The Spirit of Tyranny. Under the subject-line Your sense of outrage, he said:
        ‘I know I said I do not come to TDG for politics, but I have to agree with your comments. I worry about what is going on in America – and I live the other side of the Atlantic!
        ‘Nostra’

        Thanks for the sympathy, Nostra. I very much appreciate your understanding.

        I hope this also means that when the British Parliment follows suit by destroying your right of habeus corpus and/or legalizing torture (just as they’ve followed suit with many of their other recent enactments), you wouldn’t mind me posting an article about it (assuming I haven’t been disappeared by then).

        Kat

        1. never mind Kat….
          those of us who hold a special place in the list of “special interest” are now numbering so many that disapperance would be counter productive……..i’m sure 144,000 was reached a long time ago ;{)

          1. I’m too late
            yes I have met these people, who say they want to save my soul. But then they tell me that the number saved souls is already all booked, so not matter how nice I am, I’m hosed.

          2. tongue in cheek,
            earthling, that was not meant to really have any religious conatations…….but yes, you are right. If you do not believe in a particular religion, then indeed in their eyes you are hosed…………quiet funny really.

        2. More politics
          Kat,

          No one has the right to Habeus Corpus in the US except US citizens. Habeus Corpus has been suspended in almost every war, either formaly or informaly. Abraham Lincoln did it formaly in the War Between the States. FDR did it in WW2 but no one questioned it. So, since this is such a disaster, exactly what have you lost that you once had?

          BTW, don’t worry, neither you or I are important enough to ‘disappear’.

          Bill

        3. More politics
          [quote=Kat]Thanks, bladerunner, for pointing out how politics is connected to every other aspect of life (not to mention, becoming more connected to it by the second, considering our current lack of privacy).
          [/quote]

          Okay Kat, let’s just argue about the Bill of Rights here in front of those that don’t have one. What privacy have you lost and where in the Constitution does it say you have a right to privacy?

          I would hate to believe that you’ve never actually read it or understood it. Is that the case?

          Bill

          1. Evidence of evolution of consciousness
            >>I would hate to believe that you’ve never actually read it or understood it. Is that the case?

            Why, Bill, you ole charmer, you — I can hardly find words to express how flattered I am that you find me so intimidating, you’re unable to restrain yourself from launching a personal attack. I apologize for not thanking you earlier — even though I didn’t see your flattering attack until just now. I missed out on most of this debate due to sleeping until 4 pm last Friday, and then spending most of the next several days studying for and taking the W.O.M.B.A.T. 2 test that was posted at jkrowling.com on Friday.

            Moving right along to the subject of politics, the Constitution, etc.. Since you believe I’m a liberal (although these days, the definition of liberal is anyone who disagrees with the current administration about any issue whatsoever), I’m sure you have no interest in hearing anything further I might have to say about the recently passed terror legislation, the Constitution, or the Bush administration in general. So how about some commentary from a few card-carrying conservatives…

            The Wall Street Journal called Jim Bovard ‘the roving inspector general of the modern state,’ and Washington Post columnist George Will called him a ‘one-man truth squad.’ His 1994 book Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberty received the Free Press Association’s Mencken Award as Book of the Year. His Terrorism and Tyranny won the Lysander Spooner Award for the Best Book on Liberty in 2003. He received the Thomas Szasz Award for Civil Liberties work, awarded by the Center for Independent Thought, and the Freedom Fund Award from the Firearms Civil Rights Defense Fund of the National Rifle Association.

            The United States of Barbarism by Jim Bovard.

            Bovard’s other recent posts include Decimating the Constitution with Military Tribunals and Republican Honor Roll on the Torture-Tribunals Bill, in which he said, ‘A vote for the bill was a vote for torture, plain and simple. Congressmen can hem and haw and pretend that they are only authorizing Bush to make decisions on what methods of interrogation will be used. But everyone who has been paying half-attention knows that the US govt. has been torturing people since 9/11. And now the House of Representatives has sprinkled its holy water over American barbarity.’

            Here are a few of Andrew Sullivan’s recent posts. In Conservatives For Torture, Sullivan said,
            ‘One reason I became a conservative was because as a teenager in the 1970s, conservatives seemed the only people to grasp the true evil of the Sovet Union. At the core of its evil was its deployment of torture to break free people’s souls and to obliterate their liberty by the brute force of the state. Now conservatives are the ones justifying torture – by the United States. They have become what they once fought. Unchecked power does that to you.’

            In Legalizing Tyranny, Sullivan said:
            ‘Whatever else this is, it is not a constitutional democracy. It is a thinly-veiled military dictatorship, subject to only one control: the will of the Great Decider. And the war that justifies this astonishing attack on American liberty is permanent, without end. And check the vagueness of the language: “purposefully supported” hostilities. Could that mean mere expression of support for terror? Remember that many completely innocent people have already been incarcerated for years without trial or any chance for a fair hearing on the basis of false rumors or smears or even bounty hunters. Or could it be construed, in the rhetoric of Hannity and O’Reilly, as merely criticizing the Great Decider and thereby being on the side of the terrorists?

            ‘All I know is that al Qaeda is winning battles every week now. And they are winning them because their aim of gutting Western liberty is shared by the president of the United States. The fact that we are finding this latest, chilling stuff out now – while this horrifying bill is being rushed into law to help rescue some midterms – is beyond belief. It must be stopped, filibustered, prevented. And anyone who cares about basic constitutional freedom – conservatives above all – should be in the forefront of stopping it.’

            And in ‘Walking Back’ on ‘Tyranny’, he said,
            ‘Late last night, before nodding off, I wondered, as I often do, whether I’d hyperbolized the threat from the looming detention-torture bill. “Legalizing Tyranny” is a very strong phrase and I don’t want to cry wolf. In the sense that this president intends to seize random Americans and rush them into black sites and torture them at will, it’s hyperbole. But in a deeper sense, I think it’s completely accurate. The system we’re talking about is to do with wartime. A president in the past has had the option of seizing enemy combatants on a battlefield and detaining them without charge as POWs. There’s no threat to liberty there. What’s new is that in this war, enemy combatants have been designated as such not just on the battlefield – but anywhere in the world. What’s new is that they are no longer entitled to POW status. What’s new is that this war is for ever. So any changes are not just for a time-limited emergency but threaten to alter basic balances in constitutional order. What’s also new is that torture is now allowed on the down-low, on the president’s authority. And what’s also new is that an enemy combatant may or may not be an American citizen.

            ‘Put all that together and you really do have the danger of taking emergency measures for wartime and transforming a peace-time constitution into an essentially martial system, where every citizen or non-citizen can be apprehended at will and detained without charge. I repeat: this is a huge deal. It really should be a huge deal for conservatives who care about restraining government power. Its vulnerability to abuse is enormous; sanctioned torture, history tells us, never remains hermetically sealed. It always spreads. It eats away at decency and law and civility. If the president sincerely believes that torture is our most potent weapon in this war, and that habeas corpus is a quaint relic from the past, then we are in far greater peril than even the most dire pessimists believe.’

            Even George F. Will is getting off-message:
            The Leaders We Have

            First paragraph:
            ‘While leading the hunt for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in the summer of 2003, David Kay received a phone call from “Scooter” Libby, Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, who wanted a particular place searched: “The vice president wants to know if you’ve looked at this area. We have indications — and here are the geocoordinates — that something’s buried there.” Kay and his experts located the area on the map. It was in the middle of Lebanon.’

            Last paragraph:
            ‘”Where’s the leader?” Bush, according to Woodward, has exclaimed in dismay about the Iraqi government’s dithering. “Where’s George Washington? Where’s Thomas Jefferson? Where’s John Adams, for crying out loud?” For a president to ask that question about Iraq, that tribal stew, is enough to cause one to ask it about the United States.’

            These conservatives are saying much the same thing others are saying:

            In Lost in a Bermuda Triangle of Injustice: Mini-Gulags, Hired Guns, Lobbyists, and a Reality Built on Fear, Tom Engelhardt said:
            These are increasingly the crucial realities of our world — and it’s not the world of a republic. It’s not a world of checks and balances. It’s not a world where even a change of ownership in one or both houses of Congress in November would prove a determining factor. It’s not a world where people out there are just “starting to question whether we’re following our own high standards.” It’s distinctly not the world as we Americans like to imagine it, but it is the world we are, regrettably enough, lost in. It’s the world created not just by a commander-in-chief presidency, but by a Pentagon-in-chief-dominated government, and by a corporation-in-chief style of imperial rule.

            Btw, totally apart from the new terror legislation, another aspect of Constitutional law is also under attack:
            Legislating Violations of the Constitution
            With little public attention or even notice, the House of Representatives has passed a bill that undermines enforcement of the First Amendment’s separation of church and state. The Public Expression of Religion Act – H.R. 2679 – provides that attorneys who successfully challenge government actions as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment shall not be entitled to recover attorneys fees. The bill has only one purpose: to prevent suits challenging unconstitutional government actions advancing religion.

            Since, a few weeks ago, you expressed confusion as to what subject I was arguing about, it bears repeating – I’m not arguing about anything; I’m just presenting information for your consideration. Why do I bother? Because I’ve seen evidence that evolutionof consciousnessis possible.

            Kat

          2. More politics
            Hi Kat,

            I did not intend to attack or offend you. It is not uncommon believe the Bill of Rights states something that it does not. After all, that’s why there is a Supreme Court. I made no mention of torture, by the way. My question concerned your privacy; I made no reference at all to torture.

            The Fourth Amendment states, “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.”

            At any rate, my question remains even after reading all those quotes. My question was, “What privacy have you lost and where in the Constitution does it say you have a right to privacy?” I guess I’m no good at extracting your answer from all those quotes and links so you’ll have to spell it out for me. By the way, one of your conservative sources believes that there is a statement of “separation of church and state” in the First Amendment. He needs to read that one again.

            Bill

          3. clueing me in?
            “What privacy have you lost and where in the Constitution does it say you have a right to privacy?”

            You know very well that the Supreme Court interpreted the 4th to include privacy. The privacy I’ve lost is related to the illegal warrantless wiretapping of my phone records, phone calls, emails, bank records, etc.

            And yes, I’ve read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights – several times. Conveniently, they’re both included in the appendix of my Oxford American Dictionary.

            Kat

          4. More politics
            Hi Kat,

            No, the only Supreme Court rulings on privacy were Griswold vs. Connecticut in 1965 and Roe vs. Wade in 1973. The ruling had to do with sexual privacy in both cases. Your papers, house, vehicle, bank account, are subject to search from a warrant to that effect. They always were.

            There is a Federal Law that prohibits the disclosure of customer phone records. NSA is warehousing individual phone calls for pattern recognition. The new legislation makes both of these activities legal. But the Supreme Court has never ruled on this. IMO they never will because the Constitution has not been violated. Also IMO, “private email” in an oxymoron. Roving taps and phishing are not used unless one of the parties is a known terrorist. Warrants can be issued within 15-days of the activity. But the Supreme Court has never ruled on that either.

            No, I don’t know to what you are referring. I don’t see that your “right to privacy” has changed at all. Please be specific.

            Bill

          5. please get real
            I was specific – you just don’t agree with me, and you like to argue. While I don’t mind discussing interesting issues with open-minded people who have a different point of view, arguing with someone who’s close-minded is almost always a pointless waste of energy. For one thing, I don’t believe for a second that you have the least interest in, or respect for, my opinions on anything, much less on anything political. And I’m not basing that on anything in particular you’ve said or done recently, but on a pattern of your communications over the past several years. For whatever reason, it started long before I became a news editor, and thus long before I ever posted any politics in the news briefs. And if you don’t know what I’m on about, perhaps it’s long past time that you should notice.

            Kat

          6. The End
            Hi Kat,

            You’re right, we don’t agree on politics. But you are entirely wrong about my opinion of you and there is no illegal warrantless wiretapping of your phone records, phone calls, emails, bank records, etc. I wouldn’t have asked what you mean by privacy if I didn’t want to know. I think you are being misled.

            I can see that this has become a personal discussion between you and I. I suggest that we end this discussion here on TDG. But I would continue this privately by email if you wish and perhaps set things straight between us.

            I don’t know how to contact you by email. Greg and Jameske have my new email address if you would like to ask them.

            Bill

          7. No, really get real
            >>I can see that this has become a personal discussion between you and I. I suggest that we end this discussion here on TDG. But I would continue this privately by email if you wish and perhaps set things straight between us.

            It hasn’t become personal, Bill. It’s been personal for about 5 years. And no thanks – I’ve already tried the private route:

            *I sent you a very nice email about a year and a half ago, saying I might not always agree with you, but I respected you, and always enjoyed your news posts at TDG. You never replied.

            *About a year ago I sent you an email saying I didn’t understand something Greg had just told all of us about, and asking if you would please explain it to me, because he was so busy at the time. Your reply was the single most denigrating email I’ve ever received from anyone.

            If you really wanted to straighten it out in private, at any time over the past year you could have used the TDG contact form, just like everyone else who wants to contact me.

            Edit: Apparently Greg has recently removed the contact button due to the amount of spam we’ve been receiving. My address has been the same for the past 7 years – katvlowry at America Online dot com

            Kat

  2. Did Michigan’s copper fuel Europe’s Bronze Age?
    Some years ago I attended an impromptu seminar behind a tent at the Celtic Festival in Collingwood Ontario, and listened to another amateur archeaologist weave a tale of Celts* braving the great lakes in search of these copper nuggets. Of all the circumstantial evidence, the very most compelling exhibit is found among the drawings preserved in Petroglyph National Park, stone diaries which clearly show among the beasts and men a characteristic long skinny boat trailing a rudder … and an Irish cross on the mainsail.

    His talk at that time (sorry, don’t remember his name) had a sense of urgency as well: he believed that a mound of earth along the top of the escarpment was no glacial byproduct, but was an Irish burial mound, and he and his friends were desperately trying to raise awareness of the site to stall condominium development until the site could be properly studied.


    * ok, ok, I know, not ‘celts’ per se but Celtic-speaking Irish Basques, but who’s splitting haplogroup hairs?

  3. theory of everything……
    a constant source of amusment. At this rate it will be another 300 hundred years before humans answer this. Great minds locked in the limited mathmatical restaints of 2 dimensions. At least with their strings and loops and mass reletivity they can put on a good circus show. Anyway……………most humans don’t even know how their own body works, so what’s the point in knowing how the universe works!!!!!!!!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.