Well, I don't think anyone is likely to rebel against the US government -- not by force anyway, given that the latter is armed to the teeth. 1.6 billion bullets for DHS, was it?

But not everybody is claiming that the possibility of armed rebellion (preposterous though it may be) makes for a valid argument in support of the second amendment.

Actually I haven't said anything about left- or right-wing, though I suppose that generally speaking the need for the second amendment is felt more strongly by the right-wing. And the need to rid society of all those firearms is perhaps more strongly felt by the left. But, correct me if I am wrong, isn't the Tea Party a minority amongst right-wingers? And by extension, among pro-gun activists?

From the outside, the Ds and Rs don't actually seem all that different, and it would appear that they somehow agree on precisely those issues that are unpopular with both of their supporters. E.g., PATRIOT, domestic NSA transgressions, copyright and patent legislation, and the better part of the US foreign policy come to mind.

Oddly enough, some of the staunchest defenders of the second amendment claim to do so on the principle that an armed populace can keep a government in check -- and overthrow them by force if need be -- and yet those same people seem some of the least likely candidates to criticize the government for all these bogus measures and information black-outs in the name of "national security".

This instance is particularly shocking. They are required to make privacy assessments, presumably as a remnant of more enlightened times when the government still operated on the assumption that at least *some* members of the public are well-meaning, mostly harmless citizens. Times in which the folks who wrote up this requirement didn't even think, apparently, to include a demand that the results be made public.

And now they claim that the results of that assessment must be kept secret. For your own good, honestly. Well, that fact in itself should tell you all you need to know.

Hehe, point taken. Actually I AM a blast at parties, provided I make a point of leaving my assorted linguistic obsessions at home... Anyway, I meant no offense, I trust you got that.

Thats's cute and all, but not actually correct.

Con, as in "pros and cons" comes from "contra", meaning against.

But "con" in congress means basically the opposite, which is to say "with", "together". As in "concert", "consistent", "consonant", "contract" and so on.

But you know, it's still pretty funny.

In French I've heard it say that
on parle == they talk
on ment == they lie

But etymologically that is equally broken I guess.

Absolutely right.

I would only add that, in addition to worrying about an evil foreign power getting hold of such records, we should also worry about evil local groups who might be in government some time in the future.

Which is why, in my opinion, these records should be subject to strict time limitations and expire sooner rather than later -- if we decide we need them at all for, you know, only slightly evil purposes.

I'm not sure why you are surprised -- wasn't the main reason for these intra-agency deals mainly to circumvent the restrictions to spying on ones own citizens?

That said, we in the Netherlands have an absolutely terrible record -- no pun intended -- of evesdropping and phonetapping and so on.

Geen punt joh, doe ik wel even.

Translation of parent post:

Look, I understand the sentiment. I honestly do. Even the suggestion to send our own strong men, though it is preposterous and you know it.

It just seems to me that the surest way to guarantee that this tragedy will just keep on escalating from what should be first and foremost about the victims and their families, is this rush to conclusions and consequences in this volatile geopolitical powder keg. Except, you know, with nukes.

What we know doesn't seem to amount to much yet, sadly, if we disregard the he said / she said.

Until evidence is presented, this is no more credible than the overwhelming evidence of WMD in Iraq and of Assad being behind the sarin attacks.

Likewise, not credible. They would say this anyway.

And this is also quite meaningless, as of now, because of the accuser is basically at war with the accused.

Incidentally I wonder if these militants are less pro-Russian than they are anti-Kiev (post coup).

Meanwhile, though, there are at least some relatively positive developments:

Absolutely agreed, which is why I wasn't supporting anyone.

I'm not insulted, though you are of course right not to care. One-line posts like "you're full of shit" don't exactly make you seem a reasonable commentator, which is why I don't care what you call me.

I'm not saying I'm Mr Reasonable either. But it is rather telling that you go around accusing people of being tools or "useful idiots" when those people aren't even stating any controversial opinion, but merely refuse to be drawn into a propaganda fest before any facts are in.

While, I might add, at the same time making various claims -- which may or may not turn out to be accurate -- but at any rate currently without a shred of evidence either way.

I despise Putin, but only slightly more than I despise the West's handling of this whole sordid affair. And that was even before this latest tragedy.

And why is that Pino (*)?

Unlike you, I don't go around insulting people for disagreeing with me. In short one-line posts with no further references or links or even hints at an argument. Just conclusions and accusations out of thin air.

I haven't actually said anything remarkable here: just throwing out there that, in my opinion, the current mud slinging back and forth only adds to the hurt of the people who've lost friends and family in this catastrophe. I know, because I live among those people.

And yet that gets modded Troll, and you're cheap shot is somehow deemed Insightful.

Sad.

(*) Not that you should care, but Pino is the dutch name for Big Bird.

That goes both ways, though, doesn't it? I don't think anybody has convincingly made any argument about what the separatists, much less Russia, has to gain from this tragic event.

As I've suggested above -- almost all these speculative accusations seems to emanate from one side or the other in a political/military dispute. Meanwhile the families of the casualties can't get closure, or even a credible account of what happened, because of all the propaganda flying back and forth.

Let's point fingers when we have at least some sense of direction.

I am from the Netherlands, where most of the casualties are from: can we PLEASE stop our uninformed finger pointing until at least some evidence turns up?

None of us know what happened.

Russia or the separatists in Eastern Ukraine might have done this -- although no-one is sure what they would stand to gain from it. Ukraine's own military might have done it (they've done it before and denied it vehemently until it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt).

For the moment though, we are doing the victims' families a shameful disservice by pretending to know what happened. Their loved ones are currently being cynically used, by both sides, as pawns in a game they had no part in.

Well, you did say you think the UN are "anti-Jewish" in the context of Israel. And I have had some discussions which turned out to be pointless and frustrating because some people pretend they can not distinguish between criticism of Israel and hatred of Jews.

Which is regrettably still not completely gone, as is racism generally, but I don't think it is the reason why the UN condemns some Israeli actions and policies. Well, the general assembly. There hasn't been a meaningful security council resolution for ages because the US veto everything. Check out the UN voting records, it is rather shocking how many resolutions have overwhelming majorities and a single US veto.

In the 80s, there were various resolutions against South Africa during their Apartheid years. Would you say this is a sign of "anti-white" bias on the part of the UN? Of course not, it is a just the majority opinion of the member states.

I'm not sure what you mean when you write "if they were occupying". They ARE an occupying force, I don't think that is controversial. Some argue that this occupation is justified, or that this is somehow a special kind of occupation that exempts Israel from the Geneva rules -- in particular the one that says you can't move your own population into occupied territories, or provide military and economic support to individuals who move in of their own accord. I, and the vast majority of the "international community" disagree.

I'm going to assume you mean "condemnation" rather than "commendation". There is no shortage of condemnation of Egypt. Not just over their handling of the Palestinian issue, but you might remember there was a military coup that ousted the democratically elected government they had after the revolution. I despise the Muslim Brotherhood, but they did win fair elections.