Olice-pay Ate-stay: What to do if you feel you live in one?

Paleocon wrote:
Kraint wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

We're also no longer the land of opportunity btw.

Well, we wouldn't want to be accused of inconsistency.

Shall we examine whether or not we are the Home of the Brave?

Measuring on a per-capita basis, I'd say we left that category long ago.

I guess we are now the Land of the Lost Cliches.

Shall we examine whether or not we are the Home of the Brave?

Hah, this is a nation that was paralyzed in f*cking terror because of a guy with explosive underpants.

Malor wrote:
Shall we examine whether or not we are the Home of the Brave?

Hah, this is a nation that was paralyzed in f*cking terror because of a guy with explosive underpants.

And shoes. Don't forget the shoes.

Malor wrote:
Shall we examine whether or not we are the Home of the Brave?

Hah, this is a nation that was paralyzed in f*cking terror because of a guy with explosive underpants.

A nation where we still take off our shoes and put them through a scanner because they might be bombs.

You guys would make awesome mainstream media commentators.

DSGamer wrote:
Malor wrote:
Shall we examine whether or not we are the Home of the Brave?

Hah, this is a nation that was paralyzed in f*cking terror because of a guy with explosive underpants.

A nation where we still take off our shoes and put them through a scanner because they might be bombs.

A nation where we (TSA) force mothers to drink their breast milk to prove its not a liquid explosive.
A nation where we (TSA) physically harass elderly women in wheelchairs who have colostomy bags that might be bombs
A nation where we (TSA) sexually molest people who refuse to be subjected to radioactive waves in scanners to make sure they're not terrorists.
Etc.

Reaper81 wrote:

You guys would make awesome mainstream media commentators.

They could sure use some more perspective. Our parents and grandparents lived with the possibility of the death of everything they knew and loved on a daily basis for decades. They stared down an industrial nation of three hundred million people, armed to the teeth with enough nuclear weaponry to level every major city on the continent, and we largely stuck to our principles. Two hundred guys in turbans, though, just thirty years later, were enough to tie this nation in spastic knots, enough to throw it into major dysfunction and waste.

For the cost of twenty airline tickets and a little flight training, those jihadis got us to waste more wealth than we spent on World War 2, and it's ongoing.

Terrorism only works if the target is willing to be terrorised, and on that basis, I'd call modern America probably the most cowardly nation that has ever existed. We strut around with our big military and bomb people in far away places, and think that makes us tough, but what REALLY would be tough would be to just keep doing what we'd been doing, to value freedom over kiddie games of let's-pretend to make ourselves feel better about the big, bad terrorists.

That would be bravery. That would take balls. Sending soldiers to die in the desert for nothing and strip-searching elderly grannies is cowardice.

Malor wrote:
Reaper81 wrote:

You guys would make awesome mainstream media commentators.

They could sure use some more perspective. Our parents and grandparents lived with the possibility of the death of everything they knew and loved on a daily basis for decades. They stared down an industrial nation of three hundred million people, armed to the f*cking teeth, but two hundred guys in turbans are enough to tie this nation in spastic knots, enough to throw it into major dysfunction and waste.

For the cost of twenty airline tickets and a little flight training, those jihadis got us to waste more wealth than we spent on World War 2, and it's ongoing.

Terrorism only works if the target is willing to be terrorised, and on that basis, I'd call modern America probably the most cowardly nation that has ever existed. We strut around with our big military and bomb people in far away places, and think that makes us tough, but what REALLY would be tough would be to just keep doing what we'd been doing, to value freedom over kiddie games of let's-pretend to make ourselves feel better about the big, bad terrorists.

That would be bravery. That would take balls. Sending soldiers to die in the desert for nothing and strip-searching elderly grannies is cowardice.

Well said. The terrorists have clearly succeeded in changing our way of life, reducing our liberties and freedoms, and empowering our government to turn on its own people. It deeply saddens me to know that we'll likely never return to a pre-9/11 US and the threat of terrorism will forever hang over this country and keep the masses in perpetual fear.

93_confirmed wrote:
Malor wrote:
Reaper81 wrote:

You guys would make awesome mainstream media commentators.

They could sure use some more perspective. Our parents and grandparents lived with the possibility of the death of everything they knew and loved on a daily basis for decades. They stared down an industrial nation of three hundred million people, armed to the f*cking teeth, but two hundred guys in turbans are enough to tie this nation in spastic knots, enough to throw it into major dysfunction and waste.

For the cost of twenty airline tickets and a little flight training, those jihadis got us to waste more wealth than we spent on World War 2, and it's ongoing.

Terrorism only works if the target is willing to be terrorised, and on that basis, I'd call modern America probably the most cowardly nation that has ever existed. We strut around with our big military and bomb people in far away places, and think that makes us tough, but what REALLY would be tough would be to just keep doing what we'd been doing, to value freedom over kiddie games of let's-pretend to make ourselves feel better about the big, bad terrorists.

That would be bravery. That would take balls. Sending soldiers to die in the desert for nothing and strip-searching elderly grannies is cowardice.

Well said. The terrorists have clearly succeeded in changing our way of life, reducing our liberties and freedoms, and empowering our government to turn on its own people. It deeply saddens me to know that we'll likely never return to a pre-9/11 US and the threat of terrorism will forever hang over this country and keep the masses in perpetual fear.

I think we're mostly done with the fear now. I know I've grown pretty bored of it. I think it is fairer to say that the restrictions on freedom and liberty are just institutional now. We tolerate them because it would be too much work to do anything about them. It's just easier to take off the shoes and go along with the theatrics.

Fear seems to be generational and terrorism is this generations boogey man.

Forty years ago we engaged in institutionalize fear drills. Doesn't anyone remember the did "duck and cover" drills where we hurled ourselves under desks because we were terrified that the Soviets were going to nuke us.

There's a huge difference between crawling under your desk in a nuke drill and being pornoscanned because you want to travel.

Kraint wrote:

Shall we examine whether or not we are the Home of the Brave?

Paul gives house floor speech on unconstitutional provisions of the NDAA bill and proposes a bill to overturn them. His point about no longer having faith in our justice system to prosecute American terror suspects is the fundamental problem with the NDAA and I'd really like to see legislators try to argue against that point.

For me the difference is not the fear, it's the attitude. With nuclear attack drills the attitude is "be prepared" essentially. With the TSA scans it's "you're all potential criminals."

Another way of putting it, we used to be afraid of other countries attacking us. Now we're apparently afraid of ourselves.

Malor wrote:

There's a huge difference between crawling under your desk in a nuke drill and being pornoscanned because you want to travel.

I think you might be underestimating the amount of nationwide fear that was generated in the early 70's over the coming war with the Soviets.

gregrampage wrote:

For me the difference is not the fear, it's the attitude. With nuclear attack drills the attitude is "be prepared" essentially. With the TSA scans it's "you're all potential criminals."

Another way of putting it, we used to be afraid of other countries attacking us. Now we're apparently afraid of ourselves.

I disagree. I distinctly remember doing these "drills" and there was no preparation involved. It was simply a matter of do this or you'll be incinerated.

Always seemed odd to me, the concept of hiding under a wooden desk to avoid being incinerated.

Bear wrote:
gregrampage wrote:

For me the difference is not the fear, it's the attitude. With nuclear attack drills the attitude is "be prepared" essentially. With the TSA scans it's "you're all potential criminals."

Another way of putting it, we used to be afraid of other countries attacking us. Now we're apparently afraid of ourselves.

I disagree. I distinctly remember doing these "drills" and there was no preparation involved. It was simply a matter of do this or you'll be incinerated.

Always seemed odd to me, the concept of hiding under a wooden desk to avoid being incinerated.

Sure, it was pointless but the attitude was "if this happens, this is what we'll do." It's having a plan in case of emergency. I'm not saying it was a good thing or any less fearful, just that the attitude has changed.

Bear wrote:
Malor wrote:

There's a huge difference between crawling under your desk in a nuke drill and being pornoscanned because you want to travel.

I think you might be underestimating the amount of nationwide fear that was generated in the early 70's over the coming war with the Soviets.

Facing an enemy that will kill 50%+ of the population through nuclear annihilation: hide under wooden desk.

Facing an enemy that killed 3,000 a decade ago: invade two countries, trash the Constitution, and treat every American as a potential terrorist.

Considering we faced the threat of nuclear war for decades and managed to survive without doing too many stupid things our response to 9/11 has been extreme (and highly counter-productive).

OG_slinger wrote:

Facing an enemy that will kill 50%+ of the population through nuclear annihilation: hide under wooden desk.

And invade Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Korea; support militants in Afghanistan, central America, Africa, South and Southeast Asia. Develop a nuclear arsenal capable of destroying the world several times over. Invest in death squads throughout countries suspected of harboring improper socioeconomic beliefs.

Create blacklists and witch hunts, jailing or exiling the country's creative and intellectual classes for suspected allegiance to the enemy.

Oh, and creating a permanent exile population, due to our fear to open trade channels with one of our nearest neighbors, as well as the economic devastation brought by our sanctions.

Bear wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

And invade Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Korea; support militants in Afghanistan, central America, Africa, South and Southeast Asia. Develop a nuclear arsenal capable of destroying the world several times over. Invest in death squads throughout countries suspected of harboring improper socioeconomic beliefs.

Create blacklists and witch hunts, jailing or exiling the country's creative and intellectual classes for suspected allegiance to the enemy.

Oh, and creating a permanent exile population, due to our fear to open trade channels with one of our nearest neighbors, as well as the economic devastation brought by our sanctions.

You forgot to mention Joseph McCarthy and the communist which hunts or trillions of dollars of federal spending to build an army capable of fighting a land war in Europe.

I wish I could remember who Osama Bin Laden was fighting against in Afghanistan when we were giving him stingers?

The cost and impact of the post 9/11 terrorism pales in comparison to the fear of communism.

Thought provoking posts, nonetheless.

Tanglebones wrote:

And invade Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Korea; support militants in Afghanistan, central America, Africa, South and Southeast Asia. Develop a nuclear arsenal capable of destroying the world several times over. Invest in death squads throughout countries suspected of harboring improper socioeconomic beliefs.

Create blacklists and witch hunts, jailing or exiling the country's creative and intellectual classes for suspected allegiance to the enemy.

Oh, and creating a permanent exile population, due to our fear to open trade channels with one of our nearest neighbors, as well as the economic devastation brought by our sanctions.

You forgot to mention Joseph McCarthy and the communist which hunts or trillions of dollars of federal spending to build an army capable of fighting a land war in Europe. Not to mention that the architect of 9/11 was a guy fighting against those evil communists.

The cost and impact of the post 9/11 terrorism pales in comparison to what we spent and what we did due to the fear of communism.

True, I did not mention the Communist which Hunts - nickname for deadly commando Ivan "Bow and Arrow" Spasakov. He could bullseye a squirrel from 800 meters with a bottle of government vodka in each hand.

Tanglebones wrote:

True, I did not mention the Communist which Hunts - nickname for deadly commando Ivan "Bow and Arrow" Spasakov. He could bullseye a squirrel from 800 meters with a bottle of government vodka in each hand.

Ah damn, I have been found guilty of skimming and bad spelling. Off to the gulag with me.

We shouldn't be too sad though, the communism paranoia did lead to a lot of good movies and video games.

Paleocon wrote:
Kraint wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

We're also no longer the land of opportunity btw.

Well, we wouldn't want to be accused of inconsistency.

Shall we examine whether or not we are the Home of the Brave?

IMAGE(http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/5321/okaytemplate.png)

Always seemed odd to me, the concept of hiding under a wooden desk to avoid being incinerated.

It was to protect you against flying glass and falling lights and the like, actually. Most schools of the period had very large windows on exterior rooms, and hanging lights of some kind (well, the ones I've seen in Maryland and elsewhere on the East Coast, anyway). If there was an attack without warning, the shock wave would either kill you outright, or take out the windows and other loose objects and throw them around. You'd have had enough time between the flash and the shock wave arrival (assuming you were far enough away that the walls would not blow in and kill you) to get under a desk, but not enough to rush through the doors to get to an interior hallway or gym.

Ergo, Tommy the Turtle says, "Duck... and cover!"

Robear wrote:
Always seemed odd to me, the concept of hiding under a wooden desk to avoid being incinerated.

It was to protect you against flying glass and falling lights and the like, actually. Most schools of the period had very large windows on exterior rooms, and hanging lights of some kind (well, the ones I've seen in Maryland and elsewhere on the East Coast, anyway). If there was an attack without warning, the shock wave would either kill you outright, or take out the windows and other loose objects and throw them around. You'd have had enough time between the flash and the shock wave arrival (assuming you were far enough away that the walls would not blow in and kill you) to get under a desk, but not enough to rush through the doors to get to an interior hallway or gym.

Ergo, Tommy the Turtle says, "Duck... and cover!"

Also the pressure wave from the bomb would collapse buildings further out than it would continue to be dangerous to people. You stand a better chance of living through a roof falling on your desk instead of directly on you, even if the desk isn't strong enough to take all the weight.

I'm 100% serious when I say that I'm happy to debate the premise of a thread, but unhappy when people don't allow a thread to exist where the premise can be left unquestioned. Every thread mashes into the same thing if you can't ask people to keep some threads on topic. In that spirit I'm happy to repeat here what I said in the "on-topic" thread.

Bear wrote:
DanB wrote:

Social networks are not public spaces. They are private spaces wholly owned by private corporations. I have no problem with cops acting on things the hear in actual public spaces like public parks or on sidewalks. If cops took to hanging around in the foyer of most office blocks hoping to overhear what customers and staff were saying you'd expect most businesses to object.

Maybe I'm just dense but please explain to me what is private about "tweet".

Nothing is private about it. That's not the point. I think the worrisome thing is the idea of the government aggregating data points and coming up with a false picture of what someone is up to. If the FBI scanned P & C they'd probably find enough agitators to pull them aside for questioning. If said agitators were involved in OWS or direct protests and organizing those protests over Twitter or other social networks it's not a huge reach to think you could get a knock on your door for simply wanting to protest something the government was doing that you disagreed with.

I will grant you that this isn't on the level of actual "thoughtcrime". But people are already being cowed into not saying certain things for fear of drawing suspicion. I sincerely believe more people would protest, join groups that oppose the wars, etc. if they didn't suspect that there would be personal or professional blowback from this. If people are already self-censoring then I think if you don't live in a police state the apparatus is in place, at least.

Paleocon wrote:

Well, if you're truly concerned with being arrested for "thoughtcrime", there are a whole scad of organizations that are tremendously helpful when it comes to that. Many have been excoriated as "too liberal", but they still manage to do pretty good work.

Here is a partial list:

The American Civil Liberties Union
The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Amnesty International

I'm already a member and hefty donor to the ACLU. I'm aware of them and these other groups. As I said in the "what you can do if you believe in the premise" thread, this was the first thing I did when the Patriot Act was introduced. This isn't tin-foil hattery. I sincerely think our liberties have been under fire for a good decade. And I've been personally putting my money where my mouth is and trying to think of other ways to turn back the tide, if that's even possible.

The thing I find most depressing is that many seem perfectly content to live in a surveillance state.

If the FBI scanned P & C they'd probably find enough agitators to pull them aside for questioning.

Really? When have people been taken in for questioning based on their participation in a forum, rather than as part of a pre-existing investigation?

And what makes you think that the government doesn't collect *every* website?