Privacy in the 21st Century (was "Google v. the Bush Ad

The place for measured discourse about politics and current events, including developments in science and medicine.
Post Reply
Jnyusa
Posts: 7283
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:04 am

Post by Jnyusa »

Idylle: The military is allowed to use these tactics outside of the US. It may not target a domestic news source, but is not responsible for correcting misinformation domestic media pick up from foreign media.

Everyone needs to think about this for a moment or two and realize what it means.

(The little revolving door that appears and disappears before your eyes is the old MI6 plan, devised in the early 1950s iirc)

Idylle, I dinstinguish in my own mind between propaganda and disinformation. Perhaps it is naive to make such a distinction.

Propaganda has been a characteristic of war (and advertising) since the beginning of time. Disinformation is certainly an important weapon of war, but I don't believe it can be used against one's own people in a democracy or even in a market economy, both of which depend critically on information. Spreading disinformation is, to my thinking, the equivalent of declaring war on one's own people, and should, therefore, be classified and punished as treason.

And that would have to include failure to alert domestic media which pick up stories planted in the foreign media. ;)

Jn
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.
User avatar
IdylleSeethes
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 4:14 pm

Post by IdylleSeethes »

Right or wrong, your view isn't the one that has been accepted for the last 250 years. It certainly isn't treason now, but if Congress chooses to make it so, it would be very helpful to our enemies.

This is a quote of Rehnquist from a speech delivered on 5/3/00:
Surely Abraham Lincoln is the greatest of American Presidents, and Franklin Roosevelt ranks high among the runners up...

...Lincoln felt that the great task of his administration was to preserve the Union. If he could do it by following the Constitution, he would; but if he had to choose between preserving the Union or obeying the Constitution, he would quite willingly choose the former course. Franklin Roosevelt felt the great task of his wartime administration was to win World War II, and, like Lincoln, if forced to choose between a necessary war measure and obeying the Constitution, he would opt for the former.

This is not necessarily a condemnation. Both Lincoln and FDR fit into this mold. The courts, for their part, have largely reserved the decisions favoring civil liberties in wartime to be handed down after the war was over. Again, we see the truth in the maxim Inter Arma Silent Leges -- time of war the laws are silent.

To lawyers and judges, this may seem a thoroughly undesirable state of affairs, but in the greater scheme of things it may be best for all concerned. The fact that judges are loath to strike down wartime measures while the war is going on is demonstrated both by our experience in the Civil War and in World War II. This fact represents something more than some sort of patriotic hysteria that holds the judiciary in its grip; it has been felt and even embraced by members of the Supreme Court who have championed civil liberty in peacetime. Witness Justice Hugo Black: he wrote the opinion for the Court upholding the forced relocation of Japanese Americans in 1944, but he also wrote the Court's opinion striking down martial law in Hawaii two years later. While we would not want to subscribe to the full sweep of the Latin maxim -- Inter Arma Silent Leges -- in time of war the laws are silent, perhaps we can accept the proposition that though the laws are not silent in wartime, they speak with a muted voice.
We seem to have lost touch with the severity of war and its ability to turn our normal world upside down.
Image
Jnyusa
Posts: 7283
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:04 am

Post by Jnyusa »

We seem to have lost touch with the severity of war and its ability to turn our normal world upside down.

I think what we have lost touch with is the fact that war should be an identifiable state with an identifiable start and finish, so that we know when it is that civil liberties are to be restored.

The U.S. is in a state of "low-intensity-conflict" in 100 countries, and the national security rationale ostensibly applies to all of them. We're 'at war' in more countries than we're at peace ... those conflicts just don't make it above the fold. Nor has actual war been declared, so there is no official start to the suspension of certain civil liberties (such as information) as there would be if we were under martial law, and no alert to the nation that those liberties have in fact been curtailed.

Now with the Patriot Act, we've effectively declared war on everyone in the world who doesn't golf with the Bushes. I do seriously wonder what rights will be left when all of this crap reaches its logical conclusion.

And I doubt that the received wisdom of 250 years is up to solving the problem of disinformation any more than it is up to the problem of solving terrorism. Nothing I have seen to date indicates that those who have traditionally protected our liberties (and I include the military in that definition) are up to speed on the new situations we confront.

Jn
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.
User avatar
vison
Best friends forever
Posts: 11961
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:33 pm
Location: Over there.

Post by vison »

Good post, Jnyusa.
Dig deeper.
User avatar
IdylleSeethes
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 4:14 pm

Post by IdylleSeethes »

If the problem only started with Bush it would be more solveable. It started after WWII when the US was optimistic about the ability of countries to work together under the UN to keep peace in the world. That hasn't worked out, but the legacy is a murky definition of war. There is also the claim that, knowing that the UN would be no more successful than the League of Nations, certain people controlling our government saw this as an opportunity to expand the power of the presidency under a ruse of global cooperation. It helps the theory that the Bush family is included in the controlling group as it existed at the time.

Congress no longer declares war. This was used for its expected purpose in Korea, but it allowed Kennedy/Johnson to expand Vietnam. It later allowed ventures into Granada, Panama, and other countries with little prior notice to Congress and no public discussion. Iraq and Afghanistan are different animals, but they benefit from the informality. However, the mood of the nation after 9/11 would have led to the current situation, so I don't think it matters much in the context of Iraq and Afghanistan. The vagueness does allow one to say we are involved in conflicts in 100 countries. It also allows the boundaries of the war on terror to be flexible. It makes no distinction among those in which there is some international authority involved, those in which we have been invited to assist the legitimate governments of countries, and those for which there is some reasonable claim of a state of war. The distinctions are obscured. However, I think any reasonable person would consider that we are at war in Iraq, whether or not they consider it legitimate.

I think the vagueness is wrong and I think Congress needs to rethink the War Powers Act and the years of misdirection that led up to it. It would at least allow Democrats to know when we are at war and with whom, since they seem to forget some days. Unfortunately I don't think anything useful could come out of the current political situation. The Republicans have too much power and the Democrats prefer to live in an imaginary world. The Court has been reluctant to tackle the separation of powers issue directly.

None of this supports the statement that the use of weapons of war, that have been considered acceptable for the life of this nation, are somehow treasonable in Iraq.

I would have thought the pragmatism that can accept Google's support of repression in China might also provide tolerance for accepted tactics in war. Support of a war is one thing, but lack of support for our military and its use of accepted tactics, once committed to war, is another.

The view that the military is just a police force and is subject to the constraints of normal civil law is also a product of the misdirected post WWII change in attitude towards war. It isn't. It is a viscious machine designed to exist within a different legal framework. That is the reason we should never drop posse commitatus.
Image
User avatar
vison
Best friends forever
Posts: 11961
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:33 pm
Location: Over there.

Post by vison »

I think the "lack of support" for the war effort is the natural result of the divisions in the American population. The war is largely seen, even by some present supporters, as a mistake that must be seen through, at best.

The US chose to go to war in Iraq. Or, rather, the present administration chose to. Had the Bush administration chosen to fight "the war on terror" in some way that could be seen as proper by most Americans, there would be no lack of support. Americans would be pretty ruthless should Osama bin Laden ever fall into your hands.

"I would have thought the pragmatism that can accept Google's support of repression in China might also provide tolerance for accepted tactics in war. Support of a war is one thing, but lack of support for our military and its use of accepted tactics, once committed to war, is another."

I can see quite a large difference, myself. If I thought the war was proper, I'd support it and the forces fighting it. It is foolish, IMHO, to keep up the demand that the population "support the military" when the military is engaged in a wrongful invasion.

Google isn't killing anyone, after all. Google isn't sending thousands of young men and women off to a miserable hell-hole in the name of "profit".

There has to be some accountability, I think. It is fine and dandy to say, "Well, the president ordered us to Iraq and so we had to go and now we need the support of the people at home." It's an unpleasant reality that, as in the Vietnam war, people WON'T support the military when the military is fighting a war that has no popular support. Yes, it stinks and it's unfair, but what alternative do people have? Are ordinary people supposed to wave the flag and make heroes of men and women who are off engaged in an illegal invasion? Why should they? No one doubts the personal courage of the soldiers. But that's not the issue, is it?
Dig deeper.
Jnyusa
Posts: 7283
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:04 am

Post by Jnyusa »

Idylle,

It started after WWII...

Yes, that is exactly when I place the beginning too.

The vagueness does allow one to say we are involved in conflicts in 100 countries.

I am quoting a lawyer from the District Attorney's* office - BBC interview - who gave this as the reason we are not signing the ICJ treaty. Until I heard him say it, I did not know to how many countries we had deployed military forces, and I must say the number was a lot larger than I expected (and I rank among the most cynical).

Iraq and Afghanistan are different animals, but they benefit from the informality. However, the mood of the nation after 9/11 would have led to the current situation, so I don't think it matters much in the context of Iraq and Afghanistan. However, I think any reasonable person would consider that we are at war in Iraq, whether or not they consider it legitimate.

Yes ... where I think these wars fit the mold of 'bad news' is in the fact that the U.S. does not have a tradition of Arabist scholarship to lean on, as Great Britain does, for example. So, as is usually the case, I feel that we are always making deals with the wrong side, and this is what accounts primarily for the protraction of such wars.

Example: The description that follows is propaganda, not disinformation. It is the dissemination of information favorable to one's own decision, not the deliberate planting of lies. And in this particular case I suspect that the strategists who disseminated the propaganda actually had not clue that there was another, more stable alternative available to them because of their ignorance of the region.

Afghanistan: Posters may recall that after the invasion of Afghanistan, when we were trying to get all the mini-regional leaders to unite behind Karsai, we have particular difficulty with a 'warlord' named Ishmael Khan from Herat. He was refusing to play the game, and we were launching military attacks against his guerrillas. There was a flurry of news reporting from embedded journalists about this sub-war against Khan, and he was portrayed as recalcitrant, greedy, inimical to US interests, etc. He was the bad guy.

Now, in fact, the current configuration of Afghanistan is the result of a post-WWI redrawing of boundaries for Iran (a regime favorable to the US), and establishment of the Oxus River as a Maginot line between East (USSR) and West (US, GB). This reconfiguration of borders destroyed several kingdoms, bisected the life-giving trade route through the region, and plunged the region into poverty and political discontent.

At the time boundaries were redrawn, we attempted to put all these new nations we'd created into politico-economic alliances, as we did with the OAS, and have them meet regularly, with a representative of the US State Department present at all meeting to take the pulse and let everyone know what direction they're supposed to be going in. I believe the alliance that included Iraq and Afghanistan was called CENTO, but I'd have to look it up. It was founded in 1935. It did not fly, mainly because the countries that were supposed to be members were not real countries. They were theoretical countries.

One of the kingdoms destroyed by this reconfiguration was the Kingdom of Herat, then under the rule of Ishmael Khan's grandfather. This Kingdom - not the dynasty but the territorial integrity of the land - predates Alexander the Great. Herat remembers its long history, and it also remembers that Ishmael Khan is the legitimate ruler of a legitimate sovereignty. In fact, he was, and is, the only legitimate ruler in Afghanistan if we look at things from an historical perspective.

This information about the legitimacy of Khan's cause - he wants his Kingdom back - is withheld from the U.S. public, but I do consider that propaganda and not disinformation. More alarming to me is the fact that I doubt the U.S. military has any perspective whatsoever on the legitimacy of Khan's cause. In fact, with liberation of the 'Stans,' there exists a signal opportunity for redrawing the boundaries in a way that would bring stability and economic growth to the region without the U.S. having to smash its piggy bank, but one must know the history of the region to have this array of strategies available. And, as I said, the U.S. has no tradition of Arabist scholarship to fall back on in devising such strategies.

In the Spring of 2001 I made a confident prediction to my students that the next place the U.S. would be at war would be Afghanistan. Boy, were they freaked in September.

My prediction now is for continuing unrest in Afghanistan. Skirmishes will continue from the east (Herat) and from the Northeast (Tajiq, which should not even be a country at all). The U.S. will not be able to remove its military presence, and if it does, Karsai will be assassinated and we will have to re-enter. If we don't, Russia will.

I think the vagueness is wrong and I think Congress needs to rethink the War Powers Act and the years of misdirection that led up to it.

I couldn't agree with this more.

None of this supports the statement that the use of weapons of war, that have been considered acceptable for the life of this nation, are somehow treasonable in Iraq.

I am not saying that propaganda is treason. If it were, the whole marketing department of GM would be in jail! It is disinformation against one's own countrymen that is treason; and that has not been around for the life of this nation. It is a recent phenomenon.

I do not consider the news that led up to the war to be disinformation, and can't assess yet whether the news coming out of the war is disinformation or not. The whole yellowcake controversy ... this was presentation of information favorable to what Bush et al wanted and suppression of alternate interpretations, i.e. propaganda. That is not the same as planting false information so that people will be deceived as to what is actually happening. If ... for example ... we learned by intelligence that Osama had died a natural death, but we planted a story in Iraqi news that U.S. forces had found and killed him, and domestic news picked it up and ran it and the military did nothing to correct this misconception at home (like, alerting the media not to run it) - that would be disinformation.

It is much harder to create disinformation from a war zone when there are embedded journalists; and much harder to create it anywhere when there are investigative journalists, which is why the US executive branch has busied itself getting rid of investigative journalism ....

I would have thought the pragmatism that can accept Google's support of repression in China might also provide tolerance for accepted tactics in war. Support of a war is one thing, but lack of support for our military and its use of accepted tactics, once committed to war, is another.

Pragmatism means not losing sight of the ultimate goal and deciding the best way to get there (hopefully). That means that the acceptable tactic might change with the situation.

If Google were engaging in deliberate disinformation, e.g. knowingly loading junk from the Chinese government into its Chinese servers alone, the better to provide false information to the Chinese people, that would cross the line for me.

The view that the military is just a police force and is subject to the constraints of normal civil law is also a product of the misdirected post WWII change in attitude towards war. It isn't. It is a viscious machine designed to exist within a different legal framework. That is the reason we should never drop posse commitatus.

But I much prefer that the military handle intelligence insofar as possible, because in the military there is a chain of command and some measure of direct accountability. That is the one thing for which I praise Bush, Jr., and I suspect it is the one big lesson he took from Bush, Sr: Don't let the CIA run your intelligence in a war.

vison,

Had the Bush administration chosen to fight "the war on terror" in some way that could be seen as proper by most Americans, there would be no lack of support.

That's probably true, but not terribly comforting to me. There is broad support for The War on Drugs, and that is arguably the biggest boondoggle and source of disinformation existing in the U.S. today.

Jn

*edit - I meant the Attorney General's office
Last edited by Jnyusa on Tue Jan 31, 2006 1:44 am, edited 2 times in total.
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.
User avatar
IdylleSeethes
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 4:14 pm

Post by IdylleSeethes »

Jnyusa,

I has looking forward to disagreeing with you on something, but I'm at at a loss at the moment. I'll parse it some more before I give up.

Excellent exposition of the Herat issue. Sadly, this is just one of many examples, in the middle east. This behavior hasn't changed much since the Indian (American) Wars.

Vison,

I think you misunderstand me. I'm not sure where to start.

Whether we choose to remember or not, the US went to war. George wasn't alone and I think it is revisionist to claim he lied, although I can understand a claim that he misled us, even though I disagree. The current division is just natural entropy. With the fighting lingering in a way reminiscent of Vietnam, the opinion of the general population has degenerated back to old party lines, with the prompting of some opportunistic politicians.

I may have been unclear on the war vs tactics issue. Let me try again. It may be legitimate to claim we should not be at war in Iraq. You called it illegal, but I'm not sure who's laws were violated and in the scheme of things, I'm ready to assume Hussein tallied up enough violations after the first war to deserve the second. Whether it is legal or not, you don't have the right to hang Col. Klump for spreading misinformation. If you don't like the war, you have to stop it in DC, not in the field. It really saddens me when the media go after some poor soldier who is in a place he doesn't want to be, making snap decisions he doesn't want to make. You make some wrong ones in that environment. Some people suffer and die because of them, but that doesn't automatically make the soldier a war criminal. We need to let the military do the job we assigned them until we decide to call them back. We haven't done that yet, so we should stop the petty attacks on them.

Your use of the word "profit" is a bit charged, but I do agree that the biggest lie of the Gulf War and the war in Iraq is that it isn't about oil. Of course it is. Most wars in history have had economic roots. The cultural and religious bigotry associated with some are just fuel to make the flame hotter. In this case, it is simply about the American economy needing oil to run on. This is more about the survival of American culture than profits.

Speaking of amoral corporate America, I'm not sure about the consequences of Google's actions and I'm not sure we have been told of all of the implications. There is more than one source of disinformation. We do know that a journalist was arrested using Yahoo's help. You seem to have decided that physical repression is worse than other varieties. I haven't. In an "ideal" slave economy, you want your efficiency losses due to death and incapacitation to be zero. Slaves are an investment and it is imprudent to mistreat them. This causes me to discount physical abuse as the sole evil. I don't want the slave economy, whatever means keep it intact.

There is a related story that shows someone is trying to limit the consequences of eternal data storage. This is from a press release of Congressman Markey (D-MA):
"Internet search engines provide an extraordinary service, but the preservation of that service does not rely on a bottomless, timeless database that can do great damage despite good intentions,” said Rep. Markey. “I will be introducing a bill to prohibit the storage of personally identifiable information in internet data bases beyond a reasonable period of time.”

The provision proposed by Rep. Markey is the same standard that Congress has adopted for information gathered by cable companies about individual viewing and subscription habits, and it better balances the tension between the commercial operations of Internet search engines and the privacy concerns of all Americans.
Image
Jnyusa
Posts: 7283
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:04 am

Post by Jnyusa »

Idylle, I greatly enjoy disagreeing with you! Please parse away!

We do know that a journalist was arrested using Yahoo's help.

This crosses my line, btw. Providing political information about private persons is a big no-no in my book. I do not even think it should be legal for non-profit organizations with any kind of political agenda to sell their mailing lists.

In between undergrad and grad school I worked for an insurance company. We had a policy of cooperation with the Treasury Department to provide historic addresses and any other asset information that might help them locate a person they were seeking. It happened that my job was the one that included Treasury requests. It made me tremendously uncomfortable to do this ... I was in my early twenties and didn't have a cushion of experience and precedence to argue the issue effectively to myself, but it just felt wrong.

I guess if we had had a different policy, Treasury could have obtained subpoenas, but I am thinking now in retrospect that we should have made them do that, because then there is a chain of command: a judge reviewing the legitimacy of the request, another set of eyes to avoid mistaken identity, and so forth.

My personal policy today with regard to all governments everywhere: ask, don't tell. ;)

Jn
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.
User avatar
Voronwë the Faithful
At the intersection of here and now
Posts: 46098
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
Contact:

Post by Voronwë the Faithful »

Jnyusa wrote:Idylle,

It started after WWII...

Yes, that is exactly when I place the beginning too.
I place the beginning a bit earlier -- probably sometime in the Paleolithic or Neolithic periods when men first began the baffling practice of using weapons against each other.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
Jnyusa
Posts: 7283
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:04 am

Post by Jnyusa »

Voronwë ... I think the very first lie was told to a woman, who then repeated it. Yes? :D

Jn
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.
User avatar
Voronwë the Faithful
At the intersection of here and now
Posts: 46098
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
Contact:

Post by Voronwë the Faithful »

So some say.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
User avatar
IdylleSeethes
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 4:14 pm

Post by IdylleSeethes »

A friend of mine at the NSA has been watching over this discussion for the last week. :shock: He thought I might be interested in a project they have been working on for the last few years. The group that disappeared in the last days of "remote viewing" actually carried on their work in Project Dreamscape. Remote viewing concerned observing the physical world remotely. Dreamscape seeks to look inside someone's head to record their thoughts, remotely. At the moment this is considered to fall under the same laws as electronic surveillance, so when a certain person was out of the country they were able to collect the following "intelligence". I asked if this means the subject considers himself to have been the hero in his past life. My friend said no. From previous contacts with this same person, they have decided it isn't the hero that is being mimicked but the author. They think the love of melodrama is the driving force. Since November the subject has been dreaming of The Wreck of the Hesperus. :help:




Watch my children and you shall see
The midnight ride of John Kerry,
In '06 on January 25;
Hardly a man is now alive
Who remembers that famous day and year.
He said to his friend, "If the neocons march
By land or sea from the town to-night,
Hang a lantern aloft in the upper arch
Of the Capitol dome as a signal light,--
One if by land, and two if by sea;
And I on the opposite shore will be,
Ready to ride and spread the alarm
Through every American village and farm,
For the country folk to be up and to arm."
Then he said "Good-night!" and with muffled roar
Silently flew to the European shore,
Just as the moon rose over the bay,
Where swinging wide at her moorings lay
The Roberts, neocon man-of-war;
A phantom ship, with each mast and spar
Across the moon like a prison bar,
And a huge black hulk, that was magnified
By its own reflection in the tide.

Meanwhile, his friend looking for signs indiscreet,
Googles and searches, with eager eyes,
Till with the darkness around him he spies
The muster of neocons at the Capitol door,
The sound of arms, and the tramp of feet,
And the measured threat of the vote he decries,
Marching down to the Senate floor.
Then he climbed the tower of the Capitol Dome,
By the wooden stairs, with stealthy tread,
To the domed chamber overhead,
And startled the pigeons from their perch
On the somber rafters, that round him made
Masses and moving shapes of shade,--
By the trembling ladder, steep and tall,
To the highest window in the wall,
Where he paused to listen and look down
A moment on the roofs of the town
And the moonlight flowing over all.
Beneath, on the mall, lay the press,
In their night encampment on the hill,
Wrapped in silence so deep and still
That he could hear, like the union address,
The watchful night-wind, as it went
Creeping along from tent to tent,
And seeming to whisper, "All is well!"
A moment only he feels the spell
Of the place and the hour, and the spying threats
Of the lonely dome and the press;
For suddenly all his thoughts are bent
On a shadowy something far away,
Headed for the dome early Tuesday,--
A line of black that dares cast votes
For the rising tide, as the press takes notes.

Meanwhile, impatient to mount and ride,
Booted and spurred, with a heavy stride
On the opposite shore walked John Kerry.
Now he patted his horse's side,
Now he gazed at the landscape and the sea,
Then, impetuous, stamped the earth,
And turned and tightened his saddle girth;
But mostly he watched for the results of the search
At the arch at the Old Capitol dome,
As it rose above the press near the hill,
Lonely and spectral and somber and still.
And lo! as he looks, on the dome's height
A glimmer, and then a gleam of light!
He springs to the saddle, the bridle he turns,
But lingers and gazes, till full on his sight
A second lamp in the dome burns.
A hurry of hoofs in a village street,
A shape in the moonlight, a bulk in the dark,
And beneath, from the pebbles, in passing, a spark
Struck out by a steed flying fearless and fleet;
That was all! And yet, through the gloom and the light,
The fate of a nation was riding that night;
And the spark struck out by that steed, in his flight,
Kindled the land into flame with its heat.
He has left Davos near mountains so steep,
And beneath him, tranquil and broad and deep,
Is the Alito, guilty of taking sides;
And under the alders that skirt its edge,
Now soft on the sand, now loud on the ledge,
Is heard the tramp of his steed as he rides.

It was twelve by the airport clock
When he crossed and the plane touched down.
He heard the crowing of the cock,
And the barking of the farmer's dog,
And felt the damp of the fog,
That rises after the sun goes down.
It was one by the village clock,
When he flew from Boston town.
He saw the gilded weathercock
Swim in the moonlight as he passed,
And the meeting-house windows, black and bare,
Gaze at him with a spectral glare,
As if they already stood aghast
At the bloody work they would look upon.
It was two by the village clock,
When he came by the bridge into DC town.
He heard the bleating of the flock,
And the twitter of birds among the trees,
And felt the breath of the morning breeze
Blowing over the meadow brown.
And one was safe and asleep in his bed
Who at the bridge would be first to fall,
Who that day would be lying dead,
Tortured by a neocon for making a call.

You know the rest. In the books you have read
How the neocons turned and fled,---
How the farmers gave them vote for vote,
From behind each fence and farmyard wall,
Chasing the neocons down the lane,
Then crossing the fields to emerge again
Under the trees at the turn of the road,
And only pausing to hiss and goad.
So through the night rode John Kerry;=
And so through the night went his cry of alarm
To every American village and farm,---
A cry of defiance, and not of fear,
A voice in the darkness, a knock at the door,
And a word that shall echo for evermore!
For, borne on the night-wind of the Past,
Through all our history, to the last,
In the hour of darkness and peril and need,
The people will waken and watch to see
The hurrying hoof-beats of that steed,
And the midnight message of John Kerry.
Image
Jnyusa
Posts: 7283
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:04 am

Post by Jnyusa »

Is their interest personal or professional? ;)

Jn

p.s. don't worry. Alito will be confirmed
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.
User avatar
IdylleSeethes
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 4:14 pm

Post by IdylleSeethes »

I'm sure he will. He's not my guy. Someday we need to confirm someone interested in individual liberties. My problem all along has been the incivility of the exercise. I posted at length about this elsewhere. Ginsberg's liberal background did not interfere with her confirmation by conservatives. She was the worst they could have been presented, in their minds. They understood their role was to screen out the unqualified, not those of a different political persuasion. It saddens me to see how low the Democrats have sunk. I watched most of the hearings and found the unfairness appalling, especially Kennedy pretending to be the arbiter of ethics. I don't know if we will ever recover from today's travesty. I had hoped they would give up, but since it was all about the melodrama, I should have expected the worst. I expect the next confirmation to be more like Survivor than a Senate procedure.
Image
User avatar
Voronwë the Faithful
At the intersection of here and now
Posts: 46098
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
Contact:

Post by Voronwë the Faithful »

Idylle, there is no way you are going to bait me into responding to that. :)
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
User avatar
IdylleSeethes
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 4:14 pm

Post by IdylleSeethes »

V,

Good, it needs a rest. We'll reconvene when Hilary makes her first nomination and the Republicans are threatening a filibuster. :P
Image
User avatar
Whistler
Posts: 2865
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 2:34 pm
Contact:

Post by Whistler »

I just composed a post about Senator Kennedy, but as an administrator I would have had to insist that I delete it.
User avatar
IdylleSeethes
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 4:14 pm

Post by IdylleSeethes »

I'l put my NSA friend on it tonight and post it tomorrow, with the nasty bits deleted.
Image
Ethel
the Pirate's Daughter
Posts: 604
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 6:57 am

Post by Ethel »

Voronwë_the_Faithful wrote:
Jnyusa wrote:Idylle,

It started after WWII...

Yes, that is exactly when I place the beginning too.
I place the beginning a bit earlier -- probably sometime in the Paleolithic or Neolithic periods when men first began the baffling practice of using weapons against each other.
Nothing baffling about that. Weapons could, and still can, win you good stuff. In the old days: a good bit of forest with game; a nice stone castle where you don't have to worry so much about the people with weapons; young women to bear your children; safety from the other ones with weapons - if and only if you have more of them and wield them more skillfully.

Nowadays? Well, you can fill in the blanks as well as I can.
Post Reply