Apparently the issue is such a sensitive issue that the comments are censored by Reuters."
Link to Original Source
Next mandate, fixed IPv6 IP addresses for all devices. Your devices and their IPv6 addresses get added to the definition of "who you are".
No more internet anonymity except when using a proxy.
Which proxies do you trust?
I think our "modern" notions of idealologies that describe a society, Communism and Capitalism, are both riddled with imperfection that manifests as the corruption that has destroyed them both. Corruption in our society is the thing that makes our idealologies imperfect and as a race we are too niave to accept that we are not as smart as we think we are, that our biggest enemy is human nature. That human nature is born harmless and innocent, but we soon grow out of that and I think that the expression "sinner" just means that we are imperfect. It is that imperfection that causes the corruption in our societies.
I hold that the ideas themselves are prefect. They have a necessary level of structure while leaving the rest open for implementation. Corruption enteres as part of that implementation; it's where the perfect idea becomes a tool for the to further channel those personal agendas.
I like your interpretation of sinner, but that too implies that submission to the greater and more perfect is mandated. A sort of, "know your place" and "fall into the pecking order" rationalization
Agree. I think what is at issue is what is the status quo? What is required to make it more fair to normal, everyday people whilst powerful people weild such influence.
I have a certain level of doubt that fair was ever the intention. Americans and Aussis always have taken the liberty to be oppressive in one form or another; Indigenous Native Americans 17 and 18 hundreds, aborigines, people of east temor, the idea that they would somehow take a stand against the oppression of their prole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four#Background [ see item III lower class ] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell) is a break from culture and tradition.
The falacy of "We do not negotiate with terrorists" has to be challenged because the reality is it is promoting more terrorism. Unless it is a random act of violence, terrorists have a motivation and I want to know what it is that has made them violent so that maybe we can remove that motivation to commit terroist acts in the first place.
It must be this way, the question is who you define as a terrorist and how you treat those terrorists. On one occasion in the recent past when ultra orthodox Jews committed acts of violence and terror against their neighboring Palestinians, the Palestinians came out and declared those actions that of terrorists and denounced those perpetrators as terrorists. The Israelis' response was simple: "Yes their acts are that of terror, you can say they are terrorists, but we will not treat them as terrorists."
The point of negotiating with terror is an oxymoron in a way. Under fear, nobody rationalizes correctly and that's why that phrase has validity. However if you redefine the terms you have an inflection that only causes a degradation in the quality and level of communications. Perhaps it's for this reason that we hear that phrase so much more these days. The powers that be find it convenient to legitimize their declension of quality communications. They prefer that messages are sent by the exploding of bombs.
I think this is the difference between a Civillian and a Citizen. A Civilian will sit around, watching their sport, and take pot shots a people defending democracy as "political" or "whiners" or some other term. I beleive a Citizen is someone who participates in a democracy, not just by voting, but by writing letters to politicians and trying to change things for everyone in a peaceful way through the legislative process. They are the partners of democracy.
I applaud you initiative!
I will try something like writing to my representatives.
I don't know if I wrote this in my prior posting but Citizen is a title of nobility. ei "Citizen" John Dow or "Sargent" Bill McLearner or "President" (to avoid the filters). Civilian is more a military classification of populations as required for their rules and regs. The prior carries some very very interesting implications. A title of nobility like "Sir" as in "Sir" Lancelot implies that Lancelot has pledged his loyalty and life to the servitude of his ruler, King Arthur in this example. Sargent Brown has pledged his loyalty and life to the military he has enlisted in in a similar way. "Esquire" Shapiro probably knows that his title demands his loyalty and life in allegiance with the Bar that gave him his privileges. That implication of devout servitude also applies to those who knowingly or unknowingly accept a title like Citizen. In light of the understanding that the uneducated don't really understand the ways, their unknowing acceptance is pardoned implicitly since keeping the ranks "in line" and "in order" is more important than a proper education or even a straight forward explanation.
After all the three duties of a Citizen (obey laws, pay taxes, and jury duty) are easy enough to enforce with fines and jail time. But the bigger issue that really begs a question is: Who do we serve?
A republic, by definition is a sovereign state where supreme power by the people and their representatives.
The USA (America) is in a bankrupt state operating under emergency powers, that supreme power is no longer held by the people or the representatives but rather the creditors owed.
It cannot be both bankrupt and sovereign, hence to call it a Democracy is more correct than to refer to it as a Republic of some sort.
Just out of curiosity, what is your country?
My view is you can't meet imperfection with any form of perfection. Since human beings are imperfect, no perfect system can be expected to work. That being said, the justice system can't be perfect because it exists to resolve disputes between imperfect people.
There are a few examples of "perfect" systems that fail miserably, communism is idealistically perfect and yet the now defunct Soviet Union's implementation was riddled with corruption and inequity. Native american Indians lived in a very harmonious society, along came the europeans and took up a plan to wipe them out. Human beings are born completely vulnerable, harmless and innocent but the christian church has declared that everyone is born a sinner.
The reason justice is sometimes misunderstood is because we equate justice to fairness or equality. The hard truth is that justice is simply the maintenance of a status quo. In areas where that status quo is not understood, justice in that area is also not likely to be understood. If some force has caused the status quo be altered than the justice system is there to examine whether the forces involved are lawful or not and what "punishment" or reparations are required to re-establish that status quo.
With more laws being passed with secret or classified clauses we can be sure the status quo is changing into something that is less equal, less fair and more fascist. But how those changes will effect lives of Americans is still too subjective an issue to say anything definitive except that we continue to depend on the good judgement of our public servants and citizenry to take those issues and smooth them over by continuing to work for the good of the people.
Personally, I can't share any sympathy for either of the two brothers; their methods have caused more damage to the cause for freedom and the persistance of those values in the Bill of Rights than they can imagine. Their actions make everyone think that a war on terror is a good idea. Besides that, they have left only suffering and grief in their wake and their legacy will stand as that of a public villan.
There is a way to restore freedom. But it isn't easy and most everyone needs to want such a restoration and be willing to pay a price. People need to see the value in seeking more perfection in themselves before that perfection can have an effect on the freedom issue.
I'm still formulating my ideas on this. Possible.
Ok 65 years. Timeline error aside, my point being nobody holds their dominance against them, rather to the contrary.
You are correct.
Plus, words that where defined one way have gradually had their official definition altered over the years... Try looking at how definitions of certain words have changed from Blacks Law 3rd edition to the 7th edition.
You want control of the law? You need only rewrite the dictionary. adverb-verb fictions are your friend.
This gradual and constant inflection leads to the declensions of the self-evident in all areas, not just how government interpretes the authority granted to it. These change of the presumptions and interpretations occur in a way that only invades that which is self-evident.
The fact is most of what happens in court is based on presumptions that are only known by a few. Another example of segregation through information.
The trick works because these changes are done over a 200 hundred years so that any one generation just labels it as "the changing of the times" whereas the actuality can be much more sinister. And all this is done in the name of progress.
Yeah, the problem is people put up fences so it's not as easy to cut across a field.
I agree with your points about the law needing to be respectable and your surrounding viewpoints.
Nothing wrong with rants on
If a rev0lut!on of some sort is to happen, there needs to be a definite plan with a long term strategy. If your strategy is not sound, you risk committing your "fast adopter" contempt group into positions that will compromise those resources for no definite gain.
The best way to throw the bums out of office is to vote them out, but to do that, you need to put forth a champion who can withstand the election process and remain faithful to the true values of your movement.
The idea of a popular uprising needs to be done in a way that does not justify the use of armed forces to prevent social disruption. Regardless of any Weapons Ban Act or the such, the police and government are much much better suited to handle a fighting confrontation than a political one. They have all the guns and military leadership they need to take on entire countries. Throwing stones will just get you sent to the brig where you can contemplate whether the pain of getting shot in the shoulder or hip was worth it.
If you need proof: the Israelis successfully have managed to keep the Palestinians under control for more that 200 years through their various uprisings, and not because the Palestinians where not willing to give their lives for what they believed or because they are not organized, but because their strategy is to confront their opposition where they are strongest. Their strategy is to appeal to international sympathy. It does not work. Nobody is sympathetic to the trouble-makers.
People need to get organized in a political and economic way. The population need to channel their desire for change into an organization or organizations that can displace both political parties without succumbing to the temptations of corruption.
The people need to overcome the media induced fear, the propaganda on TV, and start to listen to a community leader who will obviously need to coordinate his/her community with the organizational goals. Because the issues are so polarizing, it should be quite a bit easier to put something together than if things where more moderate. But it still remains a monumental feat.
Yeah well, the trend is to tighten everything up. I think you are probably right. Another poster sent me a link that showed me the tragic reality of things.
A very very sad day for all of us.
You are right, of course.
The point is, without community level organization, people (the public) are disorganized. The first step is to bring everyone together.
One community may be easily ignored, but how about an entire state of communities, or the majority of communities in most states.
Think of it like a large corporation, except that it's corporate goal is not profit, but the interests of its members.
I would call it a church, except that that term comes with too many pre-conceptions based on the Christianity. Instead of worshiping a deity and the sacrifice of our savior, the worship would be directed towards our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, the organization would work towards those ends.
The problem is people still think blowing stuff up or shooting is a better form of protest as though some savior would see the disperate plight behind such a protest and take constructive affirmative actions. That doesn't happen, the nail that sticks out get's hammered.
There is a reason our leaders have chosen to expand our prison infra rather than build new colleges.
Some people just figure, "hell with it" and do outrageous things and the rest of us get caught up with the TV based propaganda and become afraid to do anything, instead of take the first small steps.
Are you sure about that? or is it just semantics.
We certainly don't have a direct democracy; your vote is merely an optional symbolic show of support for your "representative". Voting is not even an obligation of a citizen; they don't even try to hide how little it really means, or the minimal value our opinions hold.
A citizen has 3 obligations: obey the law, pay taxes, and subject to jury duty. One for each branch of government. I don't see voting anywhere in that list as a symbolic type of action for government related "decision making".
If your representative incidentally speaks or acts on your behalf and you can do nothing to intercede since you have neither the place or the means to make a protest, does it matter what it's called if people view their rule a militaristic or representative type of governance?
How often are public protests or even public opinion on a topic simply ignored by our "representatives" as they carry on with their day to day?
So yes, they are our leaders and we depend on their decisions as leaders so that our futures may be secure. And as a final point the term "Senator" or "Representative" as prefixed to the name of an elected official in the senate or house is a title of nobility. Citizen is another one. Why do you think that is? Do you even know that the implications of titles of nobility are?
Are you suggesting that TSA has a presence in the non-existent train stations or that they put up checkpoints on our motorways?
Travel on an airplane.
Try renting a car and driving, you will not find your travel impeded in any way.
The speed of anything depends on the flow of everything.