NYT Article: Police Surveillance of Cyclists as Political Dissidents

[Elisa Francesca Roselli]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/22/nyregion/22police.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=10dca8926beae1ec&hp&ex=1135314000&partner=homepage

Some extracts:

"Undercover New York City police officers have conducted covert
surveillance in the last 16 months of people protesting the Iraq war,
bicycle riders taking part in mass rallies and even mourners at a street
vigil for a cyclist killed in an accident, a series of videotapes show."


"Provided with images from the tape, the Police Department's chief
spokesman, Paul J. Browne, did not dispute that they showed officers at
work but said that disguised officers had always attended such
gatherings - not to investigate political activities but to keep order
and protect free speech. Activists, however, say that police officers
masquerading as protesters and bicycle riders distort their messages and
provoke trouble."


"After the 2001 terrorist attacks, officials at all levels of government
considered major changes in various police powers. President Bush
acknowledged last Saturday that he has secretly permitted the National
Security Agency to eavesdrop without a warrant on international
telephone calls and e-mail messages in terror investigations.

In New York, the administration of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg persuaded
a federal judge in 2003 to enlarge the Police Department's authority to
conduct investigations of political, social and religious groups. "We
live in a more dangerous, constantly changing world," Police
Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly said."


"Ryan Kuonen, 32, who took part in a "ride of silence" in memory of a
dead cyclist, said that two undercover officers - one with a camera -
subverted the event. "They were just in your face," she said. "It made
what was a really solemn event into something that seemed wrong. It made
you feel like you were a criminal. It was grotesque.""


EFR
Glad to be in Ile de France

[Nuck 'n Futz]

Elisa Francesca Roselli wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/22/nyregion/22police.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=10dca8926beae1ec&hp&ex=1135314000&partner=homepage
>
> Some extracts:
>
> "Undercover New York City police officers have conducted covert
> surveillance in the last 16 months of people protesting the Iraq war,
> bicycle riders taking part in mass rallies and even mourners at a
> street vigil for a cyclist killed in an accident, a series of
> videotapes show."

How long will it take 'em to blame Bush?


> "Provided with images from the tape, the Police Department's chief
> spokesman, Paul J. Browne, did not dispute that they showed officers
> at work but said that disguised officers had always attended such
> gatherings - not to investigate political activities but to keep order
> and protect free speech. Activists, however, say that police officers
> masquerading as protesters and bicycle riders distort their messages
> and provoke trouble."
>
>
> "After the 2001 terrorist attacks, officials at all levels of
> government considered major changes in various police powers.
> President Bush acknowledged last Saturday that he has secretly
> permitted the National Security Agency to eavesdrop without a warrant
> on international telephone calls and e-mail messages in terror
> investigations.

Two paragraphs! Qualifies as RESTRAINT for the NYT!

> Bloomberg
> persuaded a federal judge in 2003 to enlarge the Police Department's
> authority to conduct investigations of political, social and
> religious groups. "We live in a more dangerous, constantly changing
> world," Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly said."
>
>
> "Ryan Kuonen, 32, who took part in a "ride of silence" in memory of a
> dead cyclist, said that two undercover officers - one with a camera -
> subverted the event. "They were just in your face," she said. "It made
> what was a really solemn event into something that seemed wrong. It
> made you feel like you were a criminal. It was grotesque.""
>
>
> EFR
> Glad to be in Ile de France

Once the bribes run out, be careful! (Or just surrender LOL )

N&F

[[email protected]]

Elisa Francesca Roselli wrote:

> Glad to be in Ile de France

That wonderful utopia of diversity, opportunity, and police restraint.

Liberté, Égalité, Vous Papiers?

[[email protected]]

Elisa Francesca Roselli wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/22/nyregion/22police.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=10dca8926beae1ec&hp&ex=1135314000&partner=homepage
>
>
> "Undercover New York City police officers have conducted covert
> surveillance in the last 16 months of people protesting the Iraq war,
> bicycle riders taking part in mass rallies and even mourners at a street
> vigil for a cyclist killed in an accident, a series of videotapes show."
>

Just more evidence that the USA really has sleep-walked its way into a
state of Corporate Fascism, as argued by commentators ranging from Noam
Chomsky through to the comedian Bill Hicks.

No one can doubt that Chomsky is a bona-fide genius and not just some
'conspiracy nut'. When a young man Chomsky virtually invented modern
linguistics. There is, surprisingly enough, even a useful wikki page on
Chomsky http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky

Chomsky's book 'Understanding Power' is a good introduction to this
political thought. It has it's own web page at
http://www.randomhouse.co.uk/understandingpower/

See also:

http://www.chomsky.info/

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm

http://www.thedeprogrammer.com/fascism.html

There are also shed load of books around all from authors who have
reached the same conclusion, such as Friendly Fascism : The New Face of
Power in America by Bertram Gross.

[dgk]

On 22 Dec 2005 03:06:57 -0800, wrote:

>
>Elisa Francesca Roselli wrote:
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/22/nyregion/22police.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=10dca8926beae1ec&hp&ex=1135314000&partner=homepage
>>
>>
>> "Undercover New York City police officers have conducted covert
>> surveillance in the last 16 months of people protesting the Iraq war,
>> bicycle riders taking part in mass rallies and even mourners at a street
>> vigil for a cyclist killed in an accident, a series of videotapes show."
>>
>
>Just more evidence that the USA really has sleep-walked its way into a
>state of Corporate Fascism, as argued by commentators ranging from Noam
>Chomsky through to the comedian Bill Hicks.
>
>No one can doubt that Chomsky is a bona-fide genius and not just some
>'conspiracy nut'. When a young man Chomsky virtually invented modern
>linguistics. There is, surprisingly enough, even a useful wikki page on
>Chomsky http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky
>
>Chomsky's book 'Understanding Power' is a good introduction to this
>political thought. It has it's own web page at
>http://www.randomhouse.co.uk/understandingpower/
>
>See also:
>
>http://www.chomsky.info/
>
>http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm
>
>http://www.thedeprogrammer.com/fascism.html
>
>There are also shed load of books around all from authors who have
>reached the same conclusion, such as Friendly Fascism : The New Face of
>Power in America by Bertram Gross.

Yes, all true unfortunately.

[Jon is Away!]

wrote:
> That wonderful utopia of diversity, opportunity, and police restraint.
>
> Liberté, Égalité, Vous Papiers?

ITYM: "Liberté, Égalité, Vos Papiers?"

;-)

Jon

[[email protected]]

Jon is Away! wrote:
> wrote:
> > That wonderful utopia of diversity, opportunity, and police restraint.
> >
> > Liberté, Égalité, Vous Papiers?
>
> ITYM: "Liberté, Égalité, Vos Papiers?"
>
> ;-)
>
> Jon

See? Those lousy American schools! This must be W's fault, because it
certainly isn't mine.

[[email protected]]

wrote:
>
> Liberté, Égalité, Vous Papiers?

You should look at the treatment many people receive from the US
customs when visiting the USA...

This is from Graham Obree's book 'The Flying Scotsman', speaking of his
treatment when travelling to a world cup track meeting.

'When we reached Miami, I was hauled into immigration, which clearly
meant that I would miss my onward flight... I was forced to sit in a
room full of other detainees for an inordinate amount of time in
unbearable heat, and when I went up to ask about my case, I was
rebuffed in a manner that could start a prison riot. Between expletives
he said that if I did not shut the f*** up, the US government would
have me in handcuffs.'

A few links for your entertainment to illustrate a few other
differences between the USA and France...

http://www.american-pictures.com/english/

http://www.americanlynching.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching

http://www.post-gazette.com/sprigle/default.asp

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/Issues/2005-09-21/news/news.html

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20051010&s=the_porn_of_war

And that's without even considering the real cranks like the KKK,
Survivalists, TV evangelists, gun nuts and all the rest, not to mention
the behaviour of the USA in Iraq...

[Cheto]

> wrote in message
oups.com...



You should look at the treatment many people receive from the US
customs when visiting the USA...

And the UK is a paradise of freedom?
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/transport/article334686.ece

Cheto

[[email protected]]

Cheto wrote:

> And the UK is a paradise of freedom?

Hell no! Blair and Bush are both corporate puppets leading their
respective countries into a corporation-dominated
hierarchical-authoritarian future. In fact you might have noticed that
Blair was just about the only world leader to have his tongue firmly up
Bush's backside when it was clear that Bush was going to go ahead with
his illegal invasion of Iraq. What's more many of the policies Blair is
enacting were taken right off the Republican shelf.

What was it Mussolini said? "Fascism should rightly be called
Corporatism as it is a merge of state and corporate power."

Or, as the UK comedian Bill Bailey said, it's a mystery why the UK
'hangs around' with America, unless it stems from a mutual taste for
violence. America is the bully of the world going around and
threatening other countries that if they don't hand their sweets over
they will have their face smashed in. Meanwhile Britain hides behind
waving its fist and going 'Yeah!...

What we should be doing instead is developing our links with Europe and
adopting their more egalitarian and inclusive social values before the
UK ends up, as Gerorge Orwell predicted as 'Airstrip One' and not only
do we end up with American levels of crime and violence, we also end up
spending more on locking people up than treating thier illnesses.

(By the way, I note that Microsoft's 'Office' suite does not even
recognise the word 'egality' and for 'egalitarian give the definition'
....a belief that all people are, in principle, equal and should enjoy
equal social, political and economic rights and opportunities.' This
does contrast somewhat with the UK dictionary definition which says
that egalitarianism is 'the doctrine of the equality of mankind and the
desirability of political, social and economic equality'. Yup, the
American brainwashing machine operates in some very subtle ways...).

That said, the report you mention does not give me many worries. There
are many types of 'freedom' and in the UK you are certainly not free to
cycle on the roads free of fear due to the generally dreadful standard
of driving and the high level of driving crime, all made worse by the
number of uninsured and unlicenced cars on the road. The technology in
the report may well address some of these issues, thereby giving back
freedom to cyclists and law-abiding drivers by taking it away from the
motoring criminal, which is fine in my book.

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> wrote:
> >
> > Liberté, Égalité, Vous Papiers?
>
> You should look at the treatment many people receive from the US
> customs when visiting the USA...

There is a difference between having one's identitly verified and
intentions determined when entering a foreign country, and being
accosted on the street by police demanding identification because one
doesn't look "french". By contrast, in the US it is such that most
police departments are barred by law from asking anyone their
immigration status.

> This is from Graham Obree's book 'The Flying Scotsman', speaking of his
> treatment when travelling to a world cup track meeting.
>
> 'When we reached Miami, I was hauled into immigration, which clearly
> meant that I would miss my onward flight... I was forced to sit in a
> room full of other detainees for an inordinate amount of time in
> unbearable heat, and when I went up to ask about my case, I was
> rebuffed in a manner that could start a prison riot. Between expletives
> he said that if I did not shut the f*** up, the US government would
> have me in handcuffs.'

One man's story of being told to wait to cross an international border,
where his ego is bruised by not being recognized, does not a police
state make.

> A few links for your entertainment to illustrate a few other
> differences between the USA and France...

The fact that horrible things have happened in the US (and continue to
do so in one form or another) is not unique. Horrible things happen all
over the world. In free societies, the difference is that these
atrocities are made public, and eventually they are put right. Most of
the free societies in the world today (France and the UK included) are
free today thanks to the efforts of the US. Check
http://freedomhouse.org/ to see where the real atrocities are happening
in the world today.

>
> And that's without even considering the real cranks like the KKK,
> Survivalists, TV evangelists, gun nuts and all the rest, not to mention
> the behaviour of the USA in Iraq...

The KKK (started by Democrats, by the way) is a tiny fringe group of
nuts of even less significance today than skin-head movements in
Europe. Survivalists? Like having paranoid doomsday-folks hole
themselves up in the woods is a problem? Perhaps TV evangelists should
be delt with the way missionaries in China are delt with.

By "behavior in Iraq" I assume you mean the despicable behavior of
individual sickos like Lindie England, and not the freeing of millions
of people from a sadistic dictator. Crimes by US soldiers have been
investigated and prosecuted publicly as the illegal abberations they
were. Saddam's Iraq used atrocities as policy. Mass graves with
hundreds of thousands of victims, child prisons, rape-rooms, tounges
being cut out, all that is a thing of the past. Iraq has so far held 3
public elections with a higher voter turn-out than the UK or US has
seen in years. Iraq has joined the free world and it's citizens long
subjected to murderous brutality soon will enjoy all the freedoms you
take for granted.

Joseph

PS: If this thread continues, let's all please try to remain civil.
(Myself included)

[[email protected]]

wrote:

> Iraq has joined the free world and it's citizens long
> subjected to murderous brutality soon will enjoy all the freedoms you
> take for granted.
>
As an American I know that you are led to belive such things But...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1651810,00.html

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > Iraq has joined the free world and it's citizens long
> > subjected to murderous brutality soon will enjoy all the freedoms you
> > take for granted.
> >
> As an American I know that you are led to belive such things But...
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1651810,00.html

I'm sure in another context you would insist Allawi was a stooge of the
US since he was appointed my the US "puppet" IGC. His comments were
made as part of a campaing for the elections where he was running on a
law-and-order platform.

Of course Iraq is in a rough situation, and many bad things happen
there. The difference is that now these bad things are seen as the evil
that they are, not standard policy of the government. And the issue is
brought up in a public forum by a public figure and denounced, and the
will is there to deal with it. All Iraqiis will soon enjoy the freedoms
one has in a free society. Some of them already do.

Joseph

[[email protected]]

wrote:

> Iraq has joined the free world and it's citizens long
> subjected to murderous brutality soon will enjoy all the freedoms you
> take for granted.
>

I know that an American you are led to believe such things But...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1651810,00.html

and..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1643463,00.html

[[email protected]]

wrote:

> By "behavior in Iraq" I assume you mean the despicable behavior of
> individual sickos like Lindie England, and not the freeing of millions
> of people from a sadistic dictator. Crimes by US soldiers have been
> investigated and prosecuted publicly as the illegal abberations they
> were.

Really? To most of the rest of the world it looked like a few 'stupid
grunts' were sold down the river in order to cover up the complicity of
those much higher up who authorised and enabled the atrocities to take
place in the first place!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1664207,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1657434,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1653937,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1638810,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1580243,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1448281,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianweekly/story/0,,1305741,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/editor/story/0,,1235084,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1218400,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1212197,00.html

etc. etc.etc.

[cycle-one]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Cheto wrote:
>
>> And the UK is a paradise of freedom?
>
> Hell no! Blair and Bush are both corporate puppets leading their
> respective countries into a corporation-dominated
> hierarchical-authoritarian future.

Gee and ere I thought I was the last reactionary.

Does anyone else consider as an added benefit the lack of control the state
can exert by eschewing kars and all the attendant licensing;and living a
cycling life?

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > By "behavior in Iraq" I assume you mean the despicable behavior of
> > individual sickos like Lindie England, and not the freeing of millions
> > of people from a sadistic dictator. Crimes by US soldiers have been
> > investigated and prosecuted publicly as the illegal abberations they
> > were.
>
> Really? To most of the rest of the world it looked like a few 'stupid
> grunts' were sold down the river in order to cover up the complicity of
> those much higher up who authorised and enabled the atrocities to take
> place in the first place!
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1664207,00.html
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1657434,00.html
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1653937,00.html
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1638810,00.html
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1580243,00.html
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1448281,00.html
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianweekly/story/0,,1305741,00.html
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/editor/story/0,,1235084,00.html
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1218400,00.html
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1212197,00.html
>
> etc. etc.etc.

There is a big difference between memos discussing what is acceptable
and legal treatment of high-value prisoners for the purpose of
extracting information, and mistreating random prisoners for one's own
sick sadistic pleasure. Those stupid grunts caused significant harm to
the just cause of freeing Iraq, and any suggestion that their
meaningless deeds were authorized or un-officially condoned is
ludicrous. By their own admission many of those accused said they
actively kept such abuses from their superiors because they knew that
it would not be tolerated.

So you think they should give Saddam back his shotgun, and get the
oil-for-palaces program running again so the people don't have to
suffer the indignities of having to vote? Or do you agree that ridding
Iraq of Saddam and his sons was in itself a good thing?

Joseph

[[email protected]]

wrote:

>
> There is a big difference between memos discussing what is acceptable
> and legal treatment of high-value prisoners for the purpose of
> extracting information... and mistreating random prisoners for one's own
> sick sadistic pleasure.

You mean there is a difference between torture in order to serve the
'needs' of the invading forces and torture which is done 'just for
fun'? Probably doesn't make any difference one way or the other to the
victims... You also seem to be in some sort of state of denial when you
talk of 'memos' as though their contents had no relevance to what was
being done as a consequence of them.

> do you agree that ridding Iraq of Saddam and his sons was in itself a good thing?

Looking at Iraq at the moment I don't think that many Iraqis could say
that they are better off. I guess it is a good thing for all the
American companies making a fortune out of 'rebuilding' Iraq, (and
charging extortionate rates for doing so) while in exchange as much oil
as is possible is being pumped out of the country to feed America's car
culture and plans are being drawn up to exploit the remaining 100-200
billion barrels of oil which are still in the ground.

In any case many of the deprivations the Iraqi people suffered under
the the previous regime were no less due to other external factors,
such as the US blockade of medical and other supplies which cost the
lives of over half a million Iraqi children, Oh, and wasn't it the USA
who bolstered his power in the first place by supporting him when he
invaded Iran back in 1980? (And he was an American puppet for a long
time before this).

All that really changed was that Saddam no longer served the needs of
the USA, so it's a bit hypocritical to try to claim 'the moral high
ground' now. After all, history shows us that the USA is quite
prepared to support almost any dictatorship if doing so serves
America's interests. What's more the USA is also quite prepared to
undermine legitimate democratic governments and to engineer the
establishment of dictatorships if this suits its purposes, as it did in
the case of Chile back in 1973.

[Mike Kruger]

> wrote in message
>
> Just more evidence that the USA really has sleep-walked its way into a
> state of Corporate Fascism, as argued by commentators ranging from Noam
> Chomsky through to the comedian Bill Hicks.
>
Can't you do better than Noam Chomsky and some comedian I've never heard of?

> No one can doubt that Chomsky is a bona-fide genius and not just some
> 'conspiracy nut'. When a young man Chomsky virtually invented modern
> linguistics. There is, surprisingly enough, even a useful wikki page on
> Chomsky http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky
>
In linguistics, Chomsky is a bona-finbe genius. Genius isn't all that
transferrable, however. Just because you have achieved brilliance in an
academic field does not mean you are brilliant in all fields, or even more
than one. In politics, Chomsky is on the far, far fringe.

[SB]

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 00:52:11 +0000, Mike Kruger wrote:

> > wrote in message
>>
>> Just more evidence that the USA really has sleep-walked its way into a
>> state of Corporate Fascism, as argued by commentators ranging from Noam
>> Chomsky through to the comedian Bill Hicks.
>>
> Can't you do better than Noam Chomsky and some comedian I've never heard of?
>
>> No one can doubt that Chomsky is a bona-fide genius and not just some
>> 'conspiracy nut'. When a young man Chomsky virtually invented modern
>> linguistics. There is, surprisingly enough, even a useful wikki page on
>> Chomsky http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky
>>
> In linguistics, Chomsky is a bona-finbe genius. Genius isn't all that
> transferrable, however. Just because you have achieved brilliance in an
> academic field does not mean you are brilliant in all fields, or even more
> than one. In politics, Chomsky is on the far, far fringe.

No, he's not. He's right on. He seems on the fringe because
the rest of the western world is disgustingly to the right. Peace, love
and understanding are only for songs and peoples' personal inner circles
in our current corporate dominated society where ignorance and selfishness
prevails.

[andy gee]

wrote in
oups.com:

>
> Elisa Francesca Roselli wrote:
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/22/nyregion/22police.html?pagewanted=1
&
>> ei=5094&en=10dca8926beae1ec&hp&ex=1135314000&partner=homepage
>>
>>
>> "Undercover New York City police officers have conducted covert
>> surveillance in the last 16 months of people protesting the Iraq war,
>> bicycle riders taking part in mass rallies and even mourners at a
>> street vigil for a cyclist killed in an accident, a series of
>> videotapes show."
>>
>
> Just more evidence that the USA really has sleep-walked its way into a
> state of Corporate Fascism, as argued by commentators ranging from
> Noam Chomsky through to the comedian Bill Hicks.

The situation in New York is quite odd. On one hand, we're shoveling
money into bicycle facilities. On the other hand, the City really has
it in for Critical Mass.

The solution to this situation is for Critical Mass to (non)organize
rides to WORK in the MORNING rather than on Friday nights when everyone
is trying to get to the theatre for their $104 shows.


>
> No one can doubt that Chomsky is a bona-fide genius and not just some
> 'conspiracy nut'. When a young man Chomsky virtually invented modern
> linguistics. There is, surprisingly enough, even a useful wikki page
> on Chomsky http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky

What kind of bike does he ride, and how long is his commute? In anthro
at school, our professor shared his lab notes about an ape subject named
Nim Chimsky. Any relation?

--ag

[[email protected]]

Mike Kruger wrote in part:

> In linguistics, Chomsky is a bona-finbe genius. Genius isn't all that
> transferrable, however. Just because you have achieved brilliance in an
> academic field does not mean you are brilliant in all fields, or even more
> than one. In politics, Chomsky is on the far, far fringe.

I see him as sort of a 'radical' inflammatory pundit-professor. In the
end, his informative rants are undermined by an inability to control
his emotions (anger, primarily), which leads to an overreaching that is
ultimately fatal to his arguments. To Chomsky, government conspiracy
and thought control determine pretty much everything, there are no
accidents, there is no democratic choice that has any significant role
in shaping events. Obviously not true, but his writings contain much
more detail and fact-based scholarship than is typical, and this is
useful scholarship that unfortunately is obscured by the 'message.' It
is true that the more you know about history of US foreign policy, the
more angry you get, and ol' Noam knows a great deal. But ultimately he
ignores an entire huge portion of the story, namely that people are
fundamentally stupid and sheep-like and largely complicit in their own
repression and ignorance. (In Chomsky-world, people are not born
stupid, they are made and KEPT that way by sneaky govt.
indoctrination.) As a relentless critic of US policy he performs what I
believe to be a vital role in democracy--makes people think and be less
sheep-like.

Robert

thimk

[Paul Turner]

Mike Kruker wrote:

> In linguistics, Chomsky is a bona-finbe genius. Genius isn't all that
> transferrable, however.

Yeah, I suppose you could say William Shockley was a genius at physics,
but that doesn't mean there was any wisdom in his social and political
views.

--
Paul Turner

[Roger Houston]

"Mike Kruger" > wrote in message
et...
> > wrote in message
>>
> Can't you do better than Noam Chomsky and some comedian I've never heard
> of?

Yeah, if he can't even spell "Norm", then schkrew him.

[Bill Sornson]

wrote:
> Mike Kruger wrote in part:
>
>> In linguistics, Chomsky is a bona-finbe genius. Genius isn't all
>> that transferrable, however. Just because you have achieved
>> brilliance in an academic field does not mean you are brilliant in
>> all fields, or even more than one. In politics, Chomsky is on the
>> far, far fringe.
>
> I see him as sort of a 'radical' inflammatory pundit-professor. In the
> end, his informative rants are undermined by an inability to control
> his emotions (anger, primarily), which leads to an overreaching that
> is ultimately fatal to his arguments. To Chomsky, government
> conspiracy and thought control determine pretty much everything,
> there are no accidents, there is no democratic choice that has any
> significant role in shaping events. Obviously not true, but his
> writings contain much more detail and fact-based scholarship than is
> typical, and this is useful scholarship that unfortunately is
> obscured by the 'message.' It is true that the more you know about
> history of US foreign policy, the more angry you get, and ol' Noam
> knows a great deal. But ultimately he ignores an entire huge portion
> of the story, namely that people are fundamentally stupid and
> sheep-like and largely complicit in their own repression and
> ignorance. (In Chomsky-world, people are not born stupid, they are
> made and KEPT that way by sneaky govt. indoctrination.) As a
> relentless critic of US policy he performs what I believe to be a
> vital role in democracy--makes people think and be less sheep-like.

But you apparently think that "people are fundamentally stupid and
sheep-like and largely complicit in their own repression and ignorance", so
Chomsky changes their very nature?!?

Typical elitist left-wing arrogance.

Bill "by the way, he's not alone in that inability to control emotions
(primarily anger) thing" S.

[Bob]

SB wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 00:52:11 +0000, Mike Kruger wrote:
>
>>In linguistics, Chomsky is a bona-finbe genius. Genius isn't all that
> > transferrable, however. Just because you have achieved brilliance in an
> > academic field does not mean you are brilliant in all fields, or even more
> > than one. In politics, Chomsky is on the far, far fringe.
>
> No, he's not. He's right on. He seems on the fringe because
> the rest of the western world is disgustingly to the right. Peace, love
> and understanding are only for songs and peoples' personal inner circles
> in our current corporate dominated society where ignorance and selfishness
> prevails.

IOW, "I and that very small percentage of the population that agrees
with me are centrists. Everyone else is on the fringe and they are all
disgusting, hateful, ignorant, selfish people."

Thank god the "true believers" on both the left and right think that
this type of foaming at the mouth proselytizing is effective
persuasion. That helps prevent their lunacies from spreading.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Tony B]

cycle-one wrote:

> Gee and ere I thought I was the last reactionary.
>
> Does anyone else consider as an added benefit the lack of control the state
> can exert by eschewing kars and all the attendant licensing;and living a
> cycling life?

Not arf. I've recently (after a four year break) rejoined the "car
owning democracy" as Thatch called it, and have had plenty of time over
the last week to ponder this relationship with the private car.

ISTM that they are both the ultimate in the physical manifestation of
the aspirational ******** we are all conditioned to believe in while at
the same time acting as a really good distraction for the bewildered
herd. People everywhere spend ages moaning about traffic, roads, cameras
etc. while nicely missing the really important things we should all be
bitching about (insert refs to our slide into a totalitarian
dictatorship here).

I agree that being without a car does remove oneself from a whole raft
of govt. interference. As does avoiding air travel.... I can hardly bear
to go into airports these days as they seem to have moved from being
places where one gets on/off an aeroplane to places where you get your
fear levels topped up/reinforced. Coppers with guns? No thanks.

While we (ok, I) are putting the world to rights, may I also add that I
am incredibly ****ed off that I need a passport to get to France.
Indeed, Mrs B on a recent flight from Manchester to Edinburgh was
required to show her passport. "Papers! Papers!" indeed.

Then again, compare my journey to work via cycle and car. On the bike I
get chance to destress and ponder the interconnectedness of all things,
in the car I just feel my life and will to keep kicking slowly ebbing away.

No wonder they don't like cyclists.

Love,

Che

[Bob]

Elisa Francesca Roselli wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/22/nyregion/22police.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=10dca8926beae1ec&hp&ex=1135314000&partner=homepage

Oh my god, the police are WATCHING people in public places! How awful!
<yawn>

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[[email protected]]

Bill Sornson wrote:

> But you apparently think that "people are fundamentally stupid and
> sheep-like and largely complicit in their own repression and ignorance", so
> Chomsky changes their very nature?!?

I would say that reading Chomsky or Bill Buckley or David
Brooks or Tierney or Ayn Rand or Nietzsche or Plato or
C.S. Lewis or St. Augustine or Kazantzakis or Michael Herr
or any number of others who somewhat have their s#*! together,
regardless of political leanings, would help folks begin to
overcome what appears to me to be a natural human tendency
toward not knowing, or caring, what in the hell is going on.

> Typical elitist left-wing arrogance.

Whatever you say man.

How do you define 'left-wing' and what makes you think
I am part of it?

Robert

[Bill Sornson]

wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:

>> Typical elitist left-wing arrogance.
>
> Whatever you say man.
>
> How do you define 'left-wing' and what makes you think
> I am part of it?

I mostly meant the mind-set you ascribe to Chomsky; however, your expressed
views qualify pretty well, too :) (Read: more liberals think that "people
are fundamentally stupid and sheep-like and largely complicit in their own
repression and ignorance" than do conservatives.)

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> wrote:
>
> >
> > There is a big difference between memos discussing what is acceptable
> > and legal treatment of high-value prisoners for the purpose of
> > extracting information... and mistreating random prisoners for one's own
> > sick sadistic pleasure.
>
> You mean there is a difference between torture in order to serve the
> 'needs' of the invading forces and torture which is done 'just for
> fun'? Probably doesn't make any difference one way or the other to the
> victims... You also seem to be in some sort of state of denial when you
> talk of 'memos' as though their contents had no relevance to what was
> being done as a consequence of them.

Torture and abuse are subjective terms, and people disagree on where
the limits are. But morons like Lindie England did not get their
motivation from memos from Rumsfeld. The memos don't say "make people
talk at all costs, and by the way tell the guards to feel free to get
their rocks off however they please."


> > do you agree that ridding Iraq of Saddam and his sons was in itself a good thing?
>
> Looking at Iraq at the moment I don't think that many Iraqis could say
> that they are better off. I guess it is a good thing for all the
> American companies making a fortune out of 'rebuilding' Iraq, (and
> charging extortionate rates for doing so) while in exchange as much oil
> as is possible is being pumped out of the country to feed America's car
> culture and plans are being drawn up to exploit the remaining 100-200
> billion barrels of oil which are still in the ground.

As a matter of fact most Iraqiis DO think they are better off. The
number of people who have mobile phones, cars, and satellite dishes is
a materialsitic way of quantifying that. As is the amount of
electricity consumed. And schools. As is the huge increase in
marriages. People don't get married unless they think things are
getting better. Or you could just ask them. Polls how they think they
are better off,and they think things will get better still. This
doesn't mean things are great right now, just better. The money from
the sale of Iraqii oil goes into a trust fund that is the property of
the Iraqii people. Several plans are being evaluated, and one llikely
one involves each citizen getting a yearly check from the proceeds.
Hardly theft on the grand scale you imagine.


> In any case many of the deprivations the Iraqi people suffered under
> the the previous regime were no less due to other external factors,
> such as the US blockade of medical and other supplies which cost the
> lives of over half a million Iraqi children, Oh, and wasn't it the USA
> who bolstered his power in the first place by supporting him when he
> invaded Iran back in 1980? (And he was an American puppet for a long
> time before this).

The figure of 500,000 is completely bogus. And the oli-for-food program
was specifically supposed to provide essentials, but due to the
incompetance of the UN, and the complicity of France and Russia, it
instead turned into the biggest graft machine the world has ever seen.
The 12 years was wasted time that didn't benefit anyone except Saddam
who should have been removed from power long ago. Back in the 80's Iraq
was supported against Iran as the lesser of two evils.

> All that really changed was that Saddam no longer served the needs of
> the USA, so it's a bit hypocritical to try to claim 'the moral high
> ground' now. After all, history shows us that the USA is quite
> prepared to support almost any dictatorship if doing so serves
> America's interests. What's more the USA is also quite prepared to
> undermine legitimate democratic governments and to engineer the
> establishment of dictatorships if this suits its purposes, as it did in
> the case of Chile back in 1973.

Support of dictatorships around the world during the Cold War was a
complicated issue, with in some cases very unfortunate consequences. At
the time the options were limited, with the destruction of the world
the result of a wrong move. Now that the Cold War is over, and the
dynamic has changed, the situation no longer limits the US to having to
suppport such dictators. Which is a good thing. The only long-term
solution to peace in the world is the elimination of repressive,
non-democratic regimes. Free societies do not attack each other. As
outlined in the Bush Doctrine, the pursuit of this goal is the policy
of the US.

It is clear I am not going to change your mind, and you are not going
to change mine. Maybe next time I am in the UK we can argue about this
over a long bike ride!

Joseph

[[email protected]]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> wrote:
> > Bill Sornson wrote:
>
> >> Typical elitist left-wing arrogance.
> >
> > Whatever you say man.
> >
> > How do you define 'left-wing' and what makes you think
> > I am part of it?
>
> I mostly meant the mind-set you ascribe to Chomsky; however, your expressed
> views qualify pretty well, too :) (Read: more liberals think that "people
> are fundamentally stupid and sheep-like and largely complicit in their own
> repression and ignorance" than do conservatives.)

I think one mind-set is the inability to consider that they might be
wrong.

So the logic goes: "I am correct. I have good intentions. They
disagree, and since I am correct, they only way they could think
otherwise would be if they do not have good intentions. They must
therefore be criminals out to repress all good people for their own
material gain."

Joseph

[sothach]

Mike Kruger wrote:
> In linguistics, Chomsky is a bona-finbe genius.

I dunno about genius: any programmer would start to see the patterns in
human language, he was just one of the first programmers, so was in the
right place... His later stuff is consider to be be crap though, what
was it, P-grammars? He makes the typical programmer mistake: if a
little bit of abstraction is a good thing, lots must be better. Today
SVO tomorrow the Meaning of Life. Time XP came to linguistics.

Does he cycle?

[Zoot Katz]

On 22 Dec 2005 12:22:59 -0800, wrote:

>
>One man's story of being told to wait to cross an international border,
>where his ego is bruised by not being recognized, does not a police
>state make.

How many citizens need to be "rendered" before it's a police state?
--
zk

[Zoot Katz]

On 22 Dec 2005 14:32:52 -0800, wrote:

> What's more the USA is also quite prepared to
>undermine legitimate democratic governments and to engineer the
>establishment of dictatorships if this suits its purposes, as it did in
>the case of Chile back in 1973.

uhh, they're still doing that in Chile.
--
zk

[[email protected]]

Mike Kruger wrote:

> >
> Can't you do better than Noam Chomsky and some comedian I've never heard of?
>

Assuming you are an American, the fact that you have never heard of
Bill Hicks reinforces much of what I was saying. Americans talk about
'freedom' but being 'free' to think what you want counts for little
when almost everything avenue of available information is so tightly
controlled. In reality the USA is one of the most brainwashed nations
on earth and such a good job is done of manipulating what people think
and believe that few even realise that they haven't a 'free' though in
their head and no longer even have the power of genuinely critical
thought.

One obvious example of this relates to religion. Not only do almost 90%
of Americans 'never doubt the existence of 'God' a majority apparently
believe in other even more incredible things such as the Bible being
the literal word of God, the existence of an actual physical 'devil'
and a many even believe that the world is just 10,000 years old. When a
whole nation is able to suspend rationality and critical thought to
such a degree it is no wonder they are also so susceptible to the
propaganda and lies that their government feeds them.

That America as a nation should act in the way it does on the world
stage should be of no surprise either when one sees just how much
fantasies of power, violence and domination pervade every aspect of
American 'Culture'. Just look at the level of violence and the way the
'all-American heroes revel in the horrific deaths of 'the baddies' in
films produced even for children. Characters such as 'Indianna Jones'
and 'Arnie' in The Terminator might be presented as mere entertainment
but their purpose goes much deeper. They indoctrinate the next
generation, desensitising them to death and killing, help present a
simple black and white, fundamentalist view where everyone in the world
is either with you and all you do or are an enemy. They also helps to
present an image to the world which says, 'Look at this this is what
American is all about, mess with us and a whole nation of
Schwarzenegger-like ubermenchen will come and 'blow the f*** out of
you'. In many ways the American 'entertainment' industry plays much the
same role as gladiatorial contests did in Ancient Rome, impressing on
all the might and propensity to violence of the empire.

Americans also talk a lot about 'freedom' and 'democracy' and yet
whilst they might be 'free' to keep an assault rifle under their bed if
the so wish, many Americans are denied the freedom to live a full and
fulfilling life which comes with having a decent standard of living,
access to good education and health care and so on, and poverty, racism
and exclusion affect millions of families. There is no real choice when
it comes to politics either and dissent is usually treated with
McCarthy like intolerance (as with the NYPD and cyclists). As Bill
Hicks said:

'This is the reality of politics in America. "I think the puppet on the
left reflects my views". "I think the puppet on the right is more to my
taste." "Hey the same guy is operating both puppets". Go to sleep
America, your government is in control. Watch the Love Connection and
get fat and stupid, and don't forget to keep drinking the beer you
fuc*ing morons.'

OK, I fully accept that there are many people in the USA who see the
reality of 'Liberty lost still buried today, Beneath the lie of the
USA' as the Manic Street Preachers sang about another truly great
American most will probably never have heard of either (given the
attempts made to write him out of American History) Paul Robeson.
However, the fact remains that last time round the American people
actually voted Bush in for a second term (I know Britain has nothing to
be proud of either, as Blair was voted back into power last time too)
and whilst he might not be so popular at the moment it seems this has
more to do with the price of fuel rising than people realising that
Bush, as Bill Hicks would have said, 'Sucks the dick of Satan.'

[max]

In article . com>,
wrote:

[oy!]

did you breathe while you wrote that, or are you a rilly fast typist?

[[email protected]]

wrote:

> Torture and abuse are subjective terms, and people disagree on where
> the limits are.

And it seems the US government sets the limits rather higher than most
in the civilised world...

> As a matter of fact most Iraqiis DO think they are better off. The
> number of people who have mobile phones, cars, and satellite dishes is
> a materialsitic way of quantifying that.

How VERY American, happiness and fulfillment equals owning a car and a
mobile phone...

> The figure of 500,000 is completely bogus.

Personally, given that these figures were researched by the likes of
the World Health Organization and UNICEF I trust them a whole lot more
than any cooked up by the US government.

>
> Support of dictatorships around the world during the Cold War was a
> complicated issue, with in some cases very unfortunate consequences.

Your touching defence of some of the worst excesses of US foreign
policy marks you out as being a true 'Good American'. I don't think you
need have any fear of being snatched by the CIA and flown off to some
secret prison where a corrupt regime keen to curry favour with the USA
will torture you... However, even though the 'cold war' might be over,
nothing has really changed in that the US will still do whatever it
thinks will serve its own political and economic ends. (Including
trying to scupper any attempts to tackle global warming. Despite Blair
supporting Bush over Iraq it made me laugh to see Bush refuse to
support Blair over global warming saying no 'quid pro quo' existed.
Still, the US has a habit of ignoring international treaties in any
case, whether they relate to global warming or the use chemical and
biological weapons).

The invasion of Iraq is just one example of how the US continues to do
anything which suits its own ends and as I am sure even you must be
aware all the lies spun about there been links between Iraq and the
events of '9/11' and about Saddam having weapons of mass destruction
were simply an excuse to put into action a plan hatched much earlier. (
A plan which had a lot more to do with securing future oil supplies and
ensuring that the worlds supply of oil continues to be traded
primarily in Dollars than any desire to bring 'freedom' to the people
of Iraq).

[[email protected]]

By the way, with regards the way Blair and Bush lied to everyone about
their reasons for invading Iraq, people might recall that Donald
Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney had been advocating invading Iraq to secure
it's oil supplies for at least 5 years before the invasion went ahead.
Donald Rumsfeld also called for the USA to invade Iraq the day after
the World Trade Centre was attacked, seeing this as the perfect excuse
for invasion even though there was no established connection between
the World Trade Centre attacks and Iraq.

Although securing control over Iraq's oil was undoubtedly central to
the invasion the story is a little more complex than it looks at first
sight and it seems it was not just control of the oil itself which the
Americans wanted but control over the currency that oil was traded in.
This was because most oil is traded in Dollars and many oil producing
states were looking to trade oil in Euros instead, a move that would
drastically affect the US economy.

Firstly, it was no secret that American policy advisers and others were
looking to Iraq's oil reserves well before the invasion. For example,
Anthony H. Cordesman, senior analyst at Washington's Centre for
Strategic and International Studies is quoted as saying:

"Regardless of whether we say so publicly, we will go to war, because
Saddam sits at the center of a region with more than 60 percent of all
the world's oil reserves." See

Bush's deep reasons for war on Iraq: Oil, Petrodollars and the OPEC
Euro question.

http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/iraq.html

Prestigious policy study centres such as The Baker Institute' 'an
integral part of Rice University, one of the nation's most
distinguished institutions of higher education' were effectively
recommending direct intervention in Iraq stating:

"The United States remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq
remains a de-stabilizing influence to ... the flow of oil to
international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also
demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use
his own export program to manipulate oil markets. Therefore the US
should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq including
military, energy, economic and political/ diplomatic assessments."

(Strategic Energy Policy: Challenges for the 21st Century. Executive
Summary of the Report by the Independent Task Force. Baker Institute
Study 15, April 2001). Available at

http://bakerinstitute.org/Pubs/Studies.htm

The oil currency angle on all this is that, to paraphrase the words of
one commentator :

'The US has a fundamentally poorly-performing economy that has had
constant balance of trade deficits since WW2. The reason the US is rich
is because the dollar is the most traded currency in the world. Oil,
coal, steel, nearly all commodities are sold in US dollars. Importing
countries all over the world have to buy dollars to pay, thus the
greatest demand in Forex markets is always for US dollars. This has
resulted, year after year, since WW2 in the steady appreciation of the
US dollar relative to other currencies cancelling out the underlying
poor performance of the US economy. However, the Euro has already
seriously threatened the sovereignty of the USD, and if the US loses
control of Middle Eastern oil supplies and so control over the currency
that oil is traded in this would have serious consequences for the US
economy.'

This issue is explored in some detail at:

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html#fn8

I have a feeling that most US readers of this thread will not have
heard a word about any of the above. Then again this is hardly
surprising given that my wife tells me that when she lived in the US
she found that most people didn't have a clue what was happening in the
next state or even city, never mind what was being done in their name
thousands of miles away. And they certainly weren't going to find our
by watching the TV news...

[di]

"Elisa Francesca Roselli" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/22/nyregion/22police.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=10dca8926beae1ec&hp&ex=1135314000&partner=homepage
>
> Some extracts:
>
> "Undercover New York City police officers have conducted covert
> surveillance in the last 16 months of people protesting the Iraq war,
> bicycle riders taking part in mass rallies and even mourners at a street
> vigil for a cyclist killed in an accident, a series of videotapes show."
>
>
> "Provided with images from the tape, the Police Department's chief
> spokesman, Paul J. Browne, did not dispute that they showed officers at
> work but said that disguised officers had always attended such
> gatherings - not to investigate political activities but to keep order and
> protect free speech. Activists, however, say that police officers
> masquerading as protesters and bicycle riders distort their messages and
> provoke trouble."
>
>
> "After the 2001 terrorist attacks, officials at all levels of government
> considered major changes in various police powers. President Bush
> acknowledged last Saturday that he has secretly permitted the National
> Security Agency to eavesdrop without a warrant on international telephone
> calls and e-mail messages in terror investigations.
>
> In New York, the administration of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg persuaded a
> federal judge in 2003 to enlarge the Police Department's authority to
> conduct investigations of political, social and religious groups. "We live
> in a more dangerous, constantly changing world," Police Commissioner
> Raymond W. Kelly said."
>
>
> "Ryan Kuonen, 32, who took part in a "ride of silence" in memory of a dead
> cyclist, said that two undercover officers - one with a camera - subverted
> the event. "They were just in your face," she said. "It made what was a
> really solemn event into something that seemed wrong. It made you feel
> like you were a criminal. It was grotesque.""
>
>
> EFR
> Glad to be in Ile de France
>

Just the fact that this came from the NYT, completely destroys it's
credibility.

[[email protected]]

di wrote:

> Just the fact that this came from the NYT, completely destroys it's
> credibility.

Why, is the NYT run by a bunch of 'pinkos'? Is is just that what 'Free
Republic' types like to believe...

[Peter Cole]

Bill Sornson wrote:

>
> But you apparently think that "people are fundamentally stupid and
> sheep-like and largely complicit in their own repression and ignorance", so
> Chomsky changes their very nature?!?
>
> Typical elitist left-wing arrogance.
>
> Bill "by the way, he's not alone in that inability to control emotions
> (primarily anger) thing" S.
>
>
From the Wikipedia article:

In Chomsky's view there is little reason to believe that academics are
more inclined to engage in profound thought than other members of
society and that the designation "intellectual" obscures the truth of
the intellectual division of labour: "These are funny words actually, I
mean being an 'intellectual' has almost nothing to do with working with
your mind; these are two different things. My suspicion is that plenty
of people in the crafts, auto mechanics and so on, probably do as much
or more intellectual work as people in the universities. There are
plenty of areas in academia where what's called 'scholarly' work is just
clerical work, and I don't think clerical work's more challenging than
fixing an automobile engine—in fact, I think the opposite... So if by
'intellectual' you mean people who are using their minds, then it's all
over society." (Understanding Power, p. 96)

[Peter Cole]

Bob wrote:
> Elisa Francesca Roselli wrote:
>
>>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/22/nyregion/22police.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=10dca8926beae1ec&hp&ex=1135314000&partner=homepage
>
>
> Oh my god, the police are WATCHING people in public places! How awful!
> <yawn>

I think you misrepresent the main thrust of the article. It was about
police undercover infiltration of groups (with no apparent danger to
public safety) and even engaging in provocative behavior -- although I'm
willing to accept that may have been individual overzealousness. We've
been down this road before and it doesn't go anywhere good...

I find it troubling that you, a law enforcement officer I believe, would
dismiss this so easily.

[James Annan]

wrote:

> In fact, anyone who's watched TV shows like Alias, La
> Femme Nikita, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, or Angel knows that torture has
> become a staple of American prime-time entertainment.

Indeed. It's been very noticeable to me how commonly torture is
presented in USA TV shows as (a) normal, acceptable behaviour by the
military and other govt employees (b) near 100% effective in getting
information from the bad guys (the goodies usually resist it fairly
well) and (c) virtually no innocent people ever get tortured by mistake.

I find it unsurprising that such a high proportion of USAians approve of
torture, given such an unremittingly positive portrayal of it. But it is
nevertheless disappointing that their attitudes may be so strongly
determined by TV fiction.

James
--
James Annan
see web pages for email
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/

[[email protected]]

James Annan wrote:
>
> I find it unsurprising that such a high proportion of USAians approve of
> torture, given such an unremittingly positive portrayal of it. But it is
> nevertheless disappointing that their attitudes may be so strongly
> determined by TV fiction.
>

But TV shows, films and so on certainly do play a central part in the
brainwashing process, and an especially effective one given that so
many in the USA have been rendered incapable of complex, rational
thought by a lifetime diet of mindless TV shows.

No one is the UK seems overly bothered about this but at least the
French are alert to how the American 'entertainment' industry is
probably as an important means of achieving American domination as its
huge military machine. This is why they take some pains to try to
protect their own culture. It is also no surprise that such
'resistance' of the France to American hegemony results in them being
targeted, witness all that anti-French hate propaganda about 'Freedom
fries' and websites such as righwingstuff.com selling T-shirts with
logos reading 'Bush's to do list: 1) Bong Iraq (crossed out) 2) Bomb
Iran 3) Bomb France. Most of all the right in the USA are terrified of
the ideology of 'Egality, Liberty and Fraternity', especially the bit
about egality...

A review on Amazon of the book I mentioned earlier 'Friendly Fascism :
The New Face of Power in America' covers similar points saying:

'...for Americans used to the association between the term `fascism'
and the image of angry totalitarian states such as Nazi Germany and the
Italy of the same period of time, it is perhaps difficult to associate
with the notion that clever and systematic manipulation of the general
population through use of the mass media is a form of fascistic
influence. Yet, as Gross argues so persuasively, that is exactly what
it is.

The term that pops to mind is that process that M.I.T. scholar Noam
Chomsky would refer to as "manufacturing consent", a dangerous
propensity which dangerously influences the perceptions of individual
citizens by continually immersing the populace in an electronic stream
of messages, both blatant and subliminal, that serves to condition them
to a particular way of experiencing, participating, and perceiving the
world around them. We find ourselves constantly bombarded by powerful
and suggestive images, message-laden icons which deliver consistent
themes regarding the nature of the environment we are living in, one we
come to employ more and more exclusively as our preferred method of
interacting in both the civil and legal aspects of contemporary
society. As Professor Gross so prophetically forecasted, the mergers of
all commercial news sources, both electronic and other, have come under
the ownership and control of corporate America, one of the leading
edges of the power elite.... Lost in our petty diversions and
self-absorbed in a pool of trivial pursuits, we become increasingly
more vulnerable to the solid wall of subliminal and other messages all
conveying a message regarding he nature of the world and our social,
economic, and political place in it.

http://tinyurl.com/d2opt

[[email protected]]

James Annan wrote:

>
> I find it unsurprising that such a high proportion of USAians approve of
> torture, given such an unremittingly positive portrayal of it. But it is
> nevertheless disappointing that their attitudes may be so strongly
> determined by TV fiction.
>

But TV shows, films and so on certainly do play a central part in the
brainwashing process, and an especially effective one given that so
many in the USA have been rendered incapable of complex, rational
thought by a lifetime diet of mindless TV shows.

No one is the UK seems overly bothered about this but at least the
French are alert to how the American 'entertainment' industry is
probably as an important means of achieving American domination as its
huge military machine. This is why they take some pains to try to
protect their own culture. It is also no surprise that such
'resistance' of the France to American hegemony results in them being
targeted, witness all that anti-French hate propaganda about 'Freedom
fries' and websites such as righwingstuff.com selling T-shirts with
logos reading 'Bush's to do list: 1) Bomb Iraq (crossed out) 2) Bomb
Iran 3) Bomb France. Most of all the right in the USA are terrified of
the ideology of 'Egality, Liberty and Fraternity', especially the bit
about egality...

A review on Amazon of the book I mentioned earlier 'Friendly Fascism :
The New Face of Power in America' covers similar points saying:

'...for Americans used to the association between the term `fascism'
and the image of angry totalitarian states such as Nazi Germany and the
Italy of the same period of time, it is perhaps difficult to associate
with the notion that clever and systematic manipulation of the general
population through use of the mass media is a form of fascistic
influence. Yet, as Gross argues so persuasively, that is exactly what
it is.

The term that pops to mind is that process that M.I.T. scholar Noam
Chomsky would refer to as "manufacturing consent", a dangerous
propensity which dangerously influences the perceptions of individual
citizens by continually immersing the populace in an electronic stream
of messages, both blatant and subliminal, that serves to condition them
to a particular way of experiencing, participating, and perceiving the
world around them. We find ourselves constantly bombarded by powerful
and suggestive images, message-laden icons which deliver consistent
themes regarding the nature of the environment we are living in, one we
come to employ more and more exclusively as our preferred method of
interacting in both the civil and legal aspects of contemporary
society. As Professor Gross so prophetically forecasted, the mergers of
all commercial news sources, both electronic and other, have come under
the ownership and control of corporate America, one of the leading
edges of the power elite.... Lost in our petty diversions and
self-absorbed in a pool of trivial pursuits, we become increasingly
more vulnerable to the solid wall of subliminal and other messages all
conveying a message regarding he nature of the world and our social,
economic, and political place in it.

http://tinyurl.com/d2opt

[[email protected]]

James Annan wrote:

>
> I find it unsurprising that such a high proportion of USAians approve of
> torture, given such an unremittingly positive portrayal of it. But it is
> nevertheless disappointing that their attitudes may be so strongly
> determined by TV fiction.
>

But TV shows, films and so on certainly do play a central part in the
brainwashing process, and an especially effective one given that so
many in the USA give every appearance of having been rendered incapable
of complex, rational thought by a lifetime diet of mindless TV shows.

No one is the UK seems overly bothered about this but at least the
French are alert to how the American 'entertainment' industry is
probably as an important means of achieving American domination as its
huge military machine. This is why they take some pains to try to
protect their own culture. It is also no surprise that such
'resistance' of the France to American hegemony results in them being
targeted, witness all that anti-French hate propaganda about 'Freedom
fries' and websites such as righwingstuff.com selling T-shirts with
logos reading 'Bush's to do list: 1) Bomb Iraq (crossed out) 2) Bomb
Iran 3) Bomb France. Most of all the right in the USA are terrified of
the ideology of 'Egality, Liberty and Fraternity', especially the bit
about egality...

A review on Amazon of the book I mentioned earlier 'Friendly Fascism :
The New Face of Power in America' covers similar points saying:

'...for Americans used to the association between the term `fascism'
and the image of angry totalitarian states such as Nazi Germany and the
Italy of the same period of time, it is perhaps difficult to associate
with the notion that clever and systematic manipulation of the general
population through use of the mass media is a form of fascistic
influence. Yet, as Gross argues so persuasively, that is exactly what
it is.

The term that pops to mind is that process that M.I.T. scholar Noam
Chomsky would refer to as "manufacturing consent", a dangerous
propensity which dangerously influences the perceptions of individual
citizens by continually immersing the populace in an electronic stream
of messages, both blatant and subliminal, that serves to condition them
to a particular way of experiencing, participating, and perceiving the
world around them. We find ourselves constantly bombarded by powerful
and suggestive images, message-laden icons which deliver consistent
themes regarding the nature of the environment we are living in, one we
come to employ more and more exclusively as our preferred method of
interacting in both the civil and legal aspects of contemporary
society. As Professor Gross so prophetically forecasted, the mergers of
all commercial news sources, both electronic and other, have come under
the ownership and control of corporate America, one of the leading
edges of the power elite.... Lost in our petty diversions and
self-absorbed in a pool of trivial pursuits, we become increasingly
more vulnerable to the solid wall of subliminal and other messages all
conveying a message regarding he nature of the world and our social,
economic, and political place in it.

http://tinyurl.com/d2opt

[[email protected]]

More food for thought for those who are still capable of thinking...

http://www.americanfundamentalists.com/movement.html


And for those who have never heard of Bill Hicks...

http://www.billhicks.com/

http://www.gavinsblog.com/revelations.htm

[[email protected]]

More food for thought for those who are still capable of thinking...

http://www.americanfundamentalists.com/movement.html

And for those who have never heard of Bill Hicks...

http://www.billhicks.com/

http://www.gavinsblog.com/hicks.htm

[Roger Houston]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>>
>
> But TV shows, films and so on
>.....
[and on...]

Propaganda is, of course, most effective if it is posted repeatedly.
Propaganda is, of course, most effective if it is posted repeatedly.
Propaganda is, of course, most effective if it is posted repeatedly.

[Elisa Francesca Roselli]

Peter Cole a écrit :

> I think you misrepresent the main thrust of the article. It was about
> police undercover infiltration of groups (with no apparent danger to
> public safety) and even engaging in provocative behavior -- although I'm
> willing to accept that may have been individual overzealousness. We've
> been down this road before and it doesn't go anywhere good...

Myself, I was struck by the association made between cycling and
sedition. There are other countries such as Poland, just as repressive
and right-wing as the USA, where this connection would seem absurd. It
is a tacit admission that shameless overconsumption of fossil fuels is
part of the American Way, and that mere symbols of ecological
consciousness can be conflated with terrorism as threats to it.

EFR
Ile de France

[[email protected]]

Roger Houston wrote:
>
> Propaganda is, of course, most effective if it is posted repeatedly.

I don't see much repetition. A suggestion at the complexity of the real
world perhaps. (Complexities which are systematically obscured by the
black and white simplicities propagated by the American propaganda
machine).

[[email protected]]

Bill Sornson wrote:
\
> Read: more liberals think that "people
> are fundamentally stupid and sheep-like and largely complicit in their own
> repression and ignorance" than do conservatives.

Bill, ISTM that if you were forbidden to simplistically divide people
into "liberals" and "conservatives," your mental machinery would grind
to a halt.

Try to consider that, for the bulk of the population, those labels are
no more accurate than cartoons.

- Frank Krygowski

[[email protected]]

Elisa Francesca Roselli wrote:

>
> Myself, I was struck by the association made between cycling and
> sedition. There are other countries such as Poland, just as repressive
> and right-wing as the USA, where this connection would seem absurd. It
> is a tacit admission that shameless overconsumption of fossil fuels is
> part of the American Way, and that mere symbols of ecological
> consciousness can be conflated with terrorism as threats to it.
>

Quite so, but I also think that the current repression of cyclists in
New York is largely a reaction to the anti-Bush demonstrations which
cyclists played a central part in. That said the bicycle has long been
associated with subversion and as being a challenge to the 'social
norm' in the UK too. For example, due to the close associations
between cycling and the women's emancipation movement, between cycling
and the early socialist movement (via the 'Clarion' organisation * )
and because cyclists out on their Sunday club runs were regarded as
'working on the Sabbath'. Cycling has also long been regarded as
'proletarian' and egalitarian in nature and as such stands as a
challenge to the status-orientated elitism and competitive
aspirationalism which are so central to the way the motor car is
'sold'.

* See
http://www.thebikezone.org.uk/thebikezone/thinkingcyclist/clarion/clarion.html

[[email protected]]

P.s Of course, even in the USA the bicycle is still seen as having it's
uses. For example, as a child's toy or as a means of keeping fit. (Even
if over 64% of the American population are now either overweight or
clinically obese!). After all loading up one's SUV with bicycles and
driving half the day in order to find somwhere safe enough to cycle is
hardly seen as being a threat to the car-culture!

[[email protected]]

Elisa Francesca Roselli wrote:

> Myself, I was struck by the association made between cycling and
> sedition. There are other countries such as Poland, just as repressive
> and right-wing as the USA, where this connection would seem absurd. It
> is a tacit admission that shameless overconsumption of fossil fuels is
> part of the American Way, and that mere symbols of ecological
> consciousness can be conflated with terrorism as threats to it.
>

There may be an element of this but I think that the current repression
of cyclists in New York is largely a reaction to the anti-Bush
demonstrations which cyclists played a central part in.

Whilst the US has a different history the bicycle has certainly long
been associated with 'subversion' in the UK. For example, because of
the close associations between cycling and the women's emancipation
movement, between cycling and the early socialist movement (via the
'Clarion' organisation * ) and because cyclists out on their Sunday
club runs were regarded as 'working on the Sabbath'.

In the UK the bicycle has also long been regarded as 'proletarian' and
egalitarian in nature and as such as posing an ideological challenge to
the status-orientated elitism which has been so central to the way the
motor car has been 'sold'. As car ownership has grown the bicycle has
also come to be seen as posing a potential threat to the 'social norm'.
However, in the UK a lot of this stems from the strength of the British
class system and the fact that the early motorists were drawn from the
'social elite'. Things may be a little different in the US where having
a car seems to be so much part of the culture that it is perhaps not so
much a measure of 'status' as it is in the UK. (This is something I
will have to do more research on but I do recall reading someone who
was arguing that to not drive a car was in some way 'Un-American').

Even in the USA the bicycle is still seen as having its uses. For
example, as a child's toy or as a means of keeping fit. (Even if over
64% of the American population are now either overweight or clinically
obese!).

* See
http://www.thebikezone.org.uk/thebikezone/thinkingcyclist/clarion/clarion.html

[[email protected]]

That article I was thinking of...

A COOL AND LOGICAL ANALYSIS OF THE BICYCLE MENACE

And an Examination of the Actions Necessary to License, Regulate, or
Abolish Entirely This Dreadful Peril on our Roads

by P.J. O'Rourke

[From "Republican Party Reptile", The Atlantic Monthly Press, New York,
1987. It originally appeared in "Car and Driver" magazine in June 1984
]

Our nation is afflicted with a plague of bicycles. Everywhere the
public right-of-way is glutted with whirring, unbalanced contraptions
of rubber, wire, and cheap steel pipe. Riders of these flimsy
appliances pay no heed to stop signs or red lights. They dart from
between parked cars, dash along double yellow lines, and whiz through
crosswalks right over the toes of law-abiding citizens like me.

In the cities, every lamppost, tree, and street sign is disfigured by a
bicycle slathered in chains and locks. And elevators must be shared
with the cycling faddist so attached to his "moron's bath-chair" that
he has to take it with him everywhere he goes.

In the country, one cannot drive around a curve or over the crest of a
hill without encountering a gaggle of huffing bicyclers spread across
the road in suicidal phalanx.

Even the wilderness is not safe from infestation, as there is now such
a thing as an off-road bicycle and a horrible sport called
"bicycle-cross."

The ungainly geometry and primitive mechanicals of the bicycle are an
offense to the eye. The grimy and perspiring riders of the bicycle are
an offense to the nose. And the very existence of the bicycle is an
offense to reason and wisdom.

PRINCIPAL ARGUMENTS WHICH MAY BE MARSHALED AGAINST BICYCLES

1. BICYCLES ARE CHILDISH.

Bicycles have their proper place, and that place is under small boys
delivering evening papers. Insofar as children are too short to see
over the dashboards of cars and too small to keep motorcycles upright
at intersections, bicycles are suitable vehicles for them. But what are
we to make of an adult in a suit and tie pedaling his way to work? Are
we to assume he still delivers newspapers for a living? If not, do we
want a doctor, lawyer, or business executive who plays with toys? St.
Paul, in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, 13:11, said, "When I
became a man, I put away childish things." He did not say, "When I
became a man, I put away childish things and got more elaborate and
expensive childish things from France and Japan."

Considering the image projected, bicycling commuters might as well
propel themselves to the office with one knee in a red Radio Flyer
wagon.

2. BICYCLES ARE UNDIGNIFIED.

A certain childishness is, no doubt, excusable. But going about in
public with one's head between one's knees and one's rump protruding in
the air is nobody's idea of acceptable behavior.

It is impossible for an adult to sit on a bicycle without looking the
fool. There is a type of woman, in particular, who should never assume
the bicycling posture. This is the woman of ample proportions. Standing
on her own feet she is a figure to admire-classical in her beauty and a
symbol, throughout history, of sensuality, maternal virtue, and plenty.
Mounted on a bicycle, she is a laughingstock.

In a world where loss of human dignity is such a grave and
all-pervading issue, what can we say about people who voluntarily
relinquish all of theirs and go around looking at best like Quixote on
Rosinante and more often like something in the Macy's Thanksgiving Day
parade? Can such people be trusted? Is a person with so little
self-respect likely to have any respect for you?

3. BICYCLES ARE UNSAFE.

Bicycles are top-heavy, have poor brakes, and provide no protection to
their riders. Bicycles are also made up of many hard and sharp
components which, in collision, can do grave damage to people and the
paint finish on automobiles. Bicycles are dangerous things.

Of course, there's nothing wrong, per se, with dangerous things.
Speedboats, racecars, fine shotguns, whiskey, and love are all very
dangerous. Bicycles, however, are dangerous without being any fun. You
can't shoot pheasants with a bicycle or water-ski behind it or go 150
miles an hour or even mix it with soda and ice. And the idea of getting
romantic on top of a bicycle is alarming. All you can do with one of
these ten-speed sink traps is grow tired and sore and fall off it.

Being dangerous without being fun puts bicycles in a category with
open-heart surgery, the war in Vietnam, the South Bronx, and divorce.
Sensible people do all that they can to avoid such things as these.

4. BICYCLES ARE UN-AMERICAN.

We are a nation that worships speed and power. And for good reason.
Without power we would still be part of England and everybody would be
out of work. And if it weren't for speed, it would take us all months
to fly to L.A., get involved in the movie business, and become rich and
famous.

Bicycles are too slow and impuissant for a country like ours. They
belong in Czechoslovakia..."

5. I DON'T LIKE THE KIND OF PEOPLE WHO RIDE BICYCLES.

At least I think I don't. I don't actually know anyone who rides a
bicycle. But the people I see on bicycles look like organic-gardening
zealots who advocate federal regulation of bedtime and want American
foreign policy to be dictated by UNICEF. These people should be
confined.

I apologize if I have the wrong impression. It may be that bicycle
riders are all members of the New York Stock Exchange, Methodist
bishops, retired Marine Corps drill instructors, and other solid
citizens. However, the fact that they cycle around in broad daylight
making themselves look like idiots indicates that they're crazy anyway
and should be confined just the same.

6. BICYCLES ARE UNFAIR.

Bicycles use the same roads as cars and trucks yet they pay no gasoline
tax, carry no license plates, are not required to have insurance, and
are not subject to DOT, CAFE, or NHTSA regulations. Furthermore,
bicyclists do not have to take driver's examinations, have eye tests
when they're over sixty-five, carry registration papers with them, or
submit to breathalyzer tests under the threat of law. And they never
get caught in radar traps.

The fact (see No. 5, above) that bicycles are ridden by the very people
who most favor government interference in life makes the bicycle's
special status not only unfair but an outright incitement to riot.

Equality before the law is the cornerstone of democracy. Bicycles
should be made to carry twenty-gallon tanks of gasoline. They should be
equipped with twelve-volt batteries and a full complement of
taillights, headlamps, and turn signals. They should have seat belts,
air bags, and safety-glass windows too. And every bicycle rider should
be inspected once a year for hazardous defects and be made to wear a
number plate hanging around his neck and another on the seat of his
pants.

7. BICYCLES ARE GOOD EXERCISE.

And so is swinging through trees on your tail. Mankind has invested
more than four million years of evolution in the attempt to avoid
physical exertion. Now a group of backward-thinking atavists mounted on
foot-powered pairs of Hula-Hoops would have us pumping our legs,
gritting our teeth, and searing our lungs as though we were being
chased across the Pleistocene savanna by saber-toothed tigers. Think of
the hopes, the dreams, the effort, the brilliance, the pure force of
will that, over the eons, has gone into the creation of the Cadillac
Coupe de Ville. Bicycle riders would have us throw all this on the ash
heap of history.

WHAT MUST BE DONE ABOUT THE BICYCLE THREAT?

Fortunately, nothing. Frustrated truck drivers and irate cabbies make a
point of running bicycles off the road. Terrified old ladies jam
umbrella ferrules into wheel spokes as bicycles rush by them on
sidewalks. And all of us have occasion to back over bicycles that are
haplessly parked.

Bicycles are quiet and slight, difficult for normal motorized humans to
see and hear. People pull out in front of bicycles, open car doors in
their path, and drive through intersections filled with the things. The
insubstantial bicycle and its unshielded rider are defenseless against
these actions. It's a simple matter of natural selection. The bicycle
will be extinct within the decade. And what a relief that will be.

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> That article I was thinking of...
>
> A COOL AND LOGICAL ANALYSIS OF THE BICYCLE MENACE
>
> And an Examination of the Actions Necessary to License, Regulate, or
> Abolish Entirely This Dreadful Peril on our Roads

Ermm, I think that's satire. At least I hope that' s satire.

[[email protected]]

wrote:

> Ermm, I think that's satire. At least I hope that' s satire.

Several things suggest that there is serious intent here, even if it is
presented as satire:

1) It was first published in a car magazine.

2) Many of the 'arguments' put forward are actually common currency
amongst anti-cyclists.

3) 'Americans don't do irony', or so I have heard.

[Tony Raven]

wrote:
> That article I was thinking of...
>
> A COOL AND LOGICAL ANALYSIS OF THE BICYCLE MENACE
>
> And an Examination of the Actions Necessary to License, Regulate, or
> Abolish Entirely This Dreadful Peril on our Roads
>
> by P.J. O'Rourke
>

Ermmm. You do know that P J O'Rourke is a famous satirist, formerly of
National Lampoon and Rolling Stone, don't you.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

[[email protected]]

Tony Raven wrote:
>
> Ermmm. You do know that P J O'Rourke is a famous satirist, formerly of
> National Lampoon and Rolling Stone, don't you.
>
>

Yes, of course. But reading it much of the humour seems about as thin
as that of Jeremy Clarkson when he 'jokes' about cyclists being 'lefty
museli munchers' or how he will run cyclists down 'for fun' if the get
in his way at traffic lights. Unfortunately, it is rather too easy to
pass of prejudice as 'humour': people like Jim Davidson and Bernard
Manning made careers out of doing so. The fact that the article was
first published in a car magazine suggests the 'humour' in this case
was expressly designed to appeal to the prejudices of the prospective
reader.

[Bill Sornson]

wrote:
> wrote:
>
>> Torture and abuse are subjective terms, and people disagree on where
>> the limits are.
>
> And it seems the US government sets the limits rather higher than most
> in the civilised world...

Wow, it's written right here on Usenet, so it MUST be true.

>> As a matter of fact most Iraqiis DO think they are better off. The
>> number of people who have mobile phones, cars, and satellite dishes
>> is a materialsitic way of quantifying that.
>
> How VERY American, happiness and fulfillment equals owning a car and a
> mobile phone...

Of course he didn't say that; and yes, people who are miserable and fearful
don't tend to buy toys.

>> The figure of 500,000 is completely bogus.
>
> Personally, given that these figures were researched by the likes of
> the World Health Organization and UNICEF I trust them a whole lot more
> than any cooked up by the US government.

Shocking.

>> Support of dictatorships around the world during the Cold War was a
>> complicated issue, with in some cases very unfortunate consequences.
>
> Your touching defence of some of the worst excesses of US foreign
> policy marks you out as being a true 'Good American'. I don't think
> you need have any fear of being snatched by the CIA and flown off to
> some secret prison where a corrupt regime keen to curry favour with
> the USA will torture you... However, even though the 'cold war' might
> be over, nothing has really changed in that the US will still do
> whatever it thinks will serve its own political and economic ends.
> (Including trying to scupper any attempts to tackle global warming.
> Despite Blair supporting Bush over Iraq it made me laugh to see Bush
> refuse to support Blair over global warming saying no 'quid pro quo'
> existed. Still, the US has a habit of ignoring international treaties
> in any case, whether they relate to global warming or the use
> chemical and biological weapons).
>
> The invasion of Iraq is just one example of how the US continues to do
> anything which suits its own ends and as I am sure even you must be
> aware all the lies spun about there been links between Iraq and the
> events of '9/11' and about Saddam having weapons of mass destruction
> were simply an excuse to put into action a plan hatched much earlier.
> ( A plan which had a lot more to do with securing future oil supplies
> and ensuring that the worlds supply of oil continues to be traded
> primarily in Dollars than any desire to bring 'freedom' to the people
> of Iraq).

People also said Bush attacked Iraq for "political gain". Hell, it nearly
cost him the election (and DID put his approval ratings in the toilet for a
month or so; now it's back above 50%). Yeah, liberating millions of people
and losing 2200+ solidiers and spending ga-jillions of dollars was just such
a SELFISH ACT! Bad USA!

[Bill Sornson]

wrote:
> Roger Houston wrote:
>>
>> Propaganda is, of course, most effective if it is posted repeatedly.
>
> I don't see much repetition. A suggestion at the complexity of the
> real world perhaps. (Complexities which are systematically obscured
> by the black and white simplicities propagated by the American
> propaganda machine).

Whoosh.

(Hint: you're double and triple posting -- repeatedly -- today.)

Bill "almost as bad as replying to yourself up to 4 times" S.

[Bill Sornson]

wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
> \
>> Read: more liberals think that "people
>> are fundamentally stupid and sheep-like and largely complicit in
>> their own repression and ignorance" than do conservatives.
>
> Bill, ISTM that if you were forbidden to simplistically divide people
> into "liberals" and "conservatives," your mental machinery would grind
> to a halt.
>
> Try to consider that, for the bulk of the population, those labels are
> no more accurate than cartoons.

Read the thread, Frank. Whatshisname made the blanket statement I quoted
above ("people are fundamentally stupid and sheep-like and largely complicit
in their own repression and ignorance"). I replied that more elitist,
too-smart-in-their-own-view liberals think that way than do (insert
derogatory terms here) conservatives.

I agree that the vast majority of people don't fit either category, so I
don't need to "try to consider it" TYVM.

Now if you don't consider Chomsky a liberal, then, well... never mind.

BS

[Bill Sornson]

Peter Cole wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>
>>
>> But you apparently think that "people are fundamentally stupid and
>> sheep-like and largely complicit in their own repression and
>> ignorance", so Chomsky changes their very nature?!?
>>
>> Typical elitist left-wing arrogance.
>>
>> Bill "by the way, he's not alone in that inability to control
>> emotions (primarily anger) thing" S.
>>
>>
> From the Wikipedia article:
>
> In Chomsky's view there is little reason to believe that academics are
> more inclined to engage in profound thought than other members of
> society and that the designation "intellectual" obscures the truth of
> the intellectual division of labour: "These are funny words actually,
> I mean being an 'intellectual' has almost nothing to do with working
> with your mind; these are two different things. My suspicion is that
> plenty of people in the crafts, auto mechanics and so on, probably do
> as much or more intellectual work as people in the universities.
> There are plenty of areas in academia where what's called 'scholarly'
> work is just clerical work, and I don't think clerical work's more
> challenging than fixing an automobile engine—in fact, I think the
> opposite... So if by 'intellectual' you mean people who are using
> their minds, then it's all over society." (Understanding Power, p. 96)

Tell it to r15704274518... (The quote was HIS, not Chomsky's.)

[Bill Sornson]

max wrote:
> In article . com>,
> wrote:
>
> [oy!]
>
> did you breathe while you wrote that, or are you a rilly fast typist?

Boilerplate.

[Mike Kruger]

"SB" > wrote in message
ldomain...
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 00:52:11 +0000, Mike Kruger wrote:
>
>>>
>> In linguistics, Chomsky is a bona-finbe genius. Genius isn't all that
>> transferrable, however. Just because you have achieved brilliance in an
>> academic field does not mean you are brilliant in all fields, or even
>> more
>> than one. In politics, Chomsky is on the far, far fringe.
>
> No, he's not. He's right on. He seems on the fringe because
> the rest of the western world is disgustingly to the right. Peace, love
> and understanding are only for songs and peoples' personal inner circles
> in our current corporate dominated society where ignorance and selfishness
> prevails.
>
I said Chomsky is far from the mainstream of political thought.
You said Chomsky is far from the mainstream of political thought.
We seem to be in agreement.
A Merry Christmas (or other Holiday as appropriate) to you, me, and Chomsky.

[Mike Kruger]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> ... his writings contain much
> more detail and fact-based scholarship than is typical, and this is
> useful scholarship that unfortunately is obscured by the 'message.' ...

Didn't agree with all of it, but enjoyed your post -- particularly this
point.

[Mike Kruger]

"Bill Sornson" > wrote in message
news:uPWqf.7510
>
> Now if you don't consider Chomsky a liberal, then, well... never mind.
>
Personally, I wouldn't say Chomsky is a liberal.

I wouldn't say Hitler was a conservative, or Stalin was a liberal, either.

There are many colors of the political spectrum besides "conservative" and
"liberal".

[Mike Kruger]

"Paul Turner" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Mike Kruker wrote:
>
>> In linguistics, Chomsky is a bona-finbe genius. Genius isn't all that
>> transferrable, however.
>
> Yeah, I suppose you could say William Shockley was a genius at physics,
> but that doesn't mean there was any wisdom in his social and political
> views.
>
Exactly! Thanks for the example.

[Mike Kruger]

"Tony Raven" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>> That article I was thinking of...
>>
>> A COOL AND LOGICAL ANALYSIS OF THE BICYCLE MENACE
>>
>> And an Examination of the Actions Necessary to License, Regulate, or
>> Abolish Entirely This Dreadful Peril on our Roads
>>
>> by P.J. O'Rourke
>>
>
> Ermmm. You do know that P J O'Rourke is a famous satirist, formerly of
> National Lampoon and Rolling Stone, don't you.
>
This reminds me of a story from a few years ago, that a Chinese
"intelligence" agent in the US had picked up a copy of the Onion (a
midwestery satire newspaper) and reported its military speculations as fact.
This led to a minor diplomatic tiff between China and the U.S., until the
source of the "intelligence" was discovered.

[Mike Kruger]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
>
> 3) 'Americans don't do irony', or so I have heard.
>
You heard wrong.

<http://www.investor.reuters.com/business/IndustryOverview.aspx?industry=ISTEEL&target=%2Fbusiness%2Fbussecindustry%2Fbussecindfak e%2Fbussecindoverview>
"The US is the worlds third largest producer of crude steel, after China and
Japan, manufacturing over 9% of total global output in 2004. However, steel
consumption in the US far outweighs production, meaning that the US is a net
steel importer."

So, we don't do enough irony, and have to import some from the U.K. (where
irony is always in surplus, or so I have heard). But we produce quite a
lot.

[[email protected]]

Bill Sornson wrote:

> people who are miserable and fearful don't tend to buy toys.

>From what I have read the opposite is very often true, mnay people buy
consumer good because they are unhappy and have empty meaningless
lives. 'Retail therapy' and all that.


> People also said Bush attacked Iraq for "political gain". Hell, it nearly
> cost him the election...

OK, to be more accurate it was in the interests of those who have the
real power for the American military machine to invade Iraq and so Bush
helped them to make this possible. After all this is all part of 'the
deal'. I.e. 'We get a bozo like you into the Whitehouse, but in return
once you are there you will dance to our tune.' People like Bush are
expendable and the corporate machine will simply fund the election of
another puppet next time round if his popularity ratings get too low.
Hell, to make doubly sure they fund both 'parties' so they can't lose
as whoever wins will be beholding to them once in 'power'...

[[email protected]]

Mike Kruger wrote:

> > 3) 'Americans don't do irony', or so I have heard.
> >
> You heard wrong.
>
> "The US is the worlds third largest producer of crude steel, after China and
> Japan, manufacturing over 9% of total global output in 2004. However, steel
> consumption in the US far outweighs production, meaning that the US is a net
> steel importer."
>
> So, we don't do enough irony, and have to import some from the U.K. (where
> irony is always in surplus, or so I have heard). But we produce quite a
> lot.

Ha ha ha ha. Good one!

That said, it is ironic that you should bring up the subject of irony,
sorry iron, given that Bush imposed illegal tariffs on steel imports
(including British steel) back in 2002. Yet another example of the USA
ignoring international agreements when it suits it...

Daily Telegraph 05/03/2002
Bush risks trade war with tariffs on steel
By Toby Harnden in Washington, Sarah Womack and Sophie Barker

PRESIDENT BUSH risked provoking a trade war with Europe last night when
he imposed tariffs of up to 30 per cent on steel imports despite a
last-minute appeal by Tony Blair not to damage British interests. The
tariffs, ranging from eight per cent to 30 per cent, take effect on
March 20 and cover flat-rolled steel and other steel product imports
from Europe and around the world. Mr Blair's spokesman said: "We
recognise the US steel industry has to restructure, but we do not
believe it is in the interests of the world economy that it should
impose tariffs."

....Under Mr Bush's plan, steel imported from Canada and Mexico will be
exempt from the duties, as will imports from developing countries such
as Argentina, Thailand and Turkey. Corus, created from the merger of
British Steel with the Dutch Hoogovens, will be more affected than its
European rivals by American steel tariffs or quotas.

America is the second largest export market for Corus after Europe. The
company sends 740,000 tonnes of steel there a year, four per cent of
its total annual production...

EU officials have indicated that tariffs could result in Europe
imposing its own restrictions on imports from the US. Any levy is
expected to be challenged at the World Trade Organisation.Digby Jones,
the CBI director general, warned that imposing tariffs in the US would
put British jobs at risk and could lead to foreign steel firms selling
products to countries other than America, including the UK.

"The US should be setting an example to the world about what free trade
really means," he said. "It means global free trade, not American free
trade."

[[email protected]]

Mike Kruger wrote:
>
> This reminds me of a story from a few years ago, that a Chinese
> "intelligence" agent in the US had picked up a copy of the Onion (a
> midwestery satire newspaper) and reported its military speculations as fact.
> This led to a minor diplomatic tiff between China and the U.S., until the
> source of the "intelligence" was discovered.

So, as a cyclist do you think passages such as the following are
genuinely funny or do they perhaps risk validating what many people who
are hostle to cyclists already think...

'Bicycles have their proper place, and that place is under small boys
delivering evening papers.'

'the people I see on bicycles look like organic-gardening zealots who
advocate federal regulation of bedtime and want American foreign policy
to be dictated by UNICEF.'

'Bicycles are quiet and slight, difficult for normal motorized humans
to see and hear. People pull out in front of bicycles, open car doors
in their path, and drive through intersections filled with the things.
The insubstantial bicycle and its unshielded rider are defenseless
against these actions. It's a simple matter of natural selection...'

[[email protected]]

wrote in part:
> ...The money from
> the sale of Iraqii oil goes into a trust fund that is the property of
> the Iraqii people. Several plans are being evaluated, and one llikely
> one involves each citizen getting a yearly check from the proceeds.
> Hardly theft on the grand scale you imagine.

Ha! Where's MY check? Before the invasion this
administration claimed over and over that the entire
debacle would be paid for by Iraqi oil. WHOOPS.

> Support of dictatorships around the world during the Cold War was a
> complicated issue, with in some cases very unfortunate consequences. At
> the time the options were limited, with the destruction of the world
> the result of a wrong move. Now that the Cold War is over, and the
> dynamic has changed, the situation no longer limits the US to having to
> suppport such dictators.

Then why do we still do it?

> Which is a good thing. The only long-term
> solution to peace in the world is the elimination of repressive,
> non-democratic regimes. Free societies do not attack each other. As
> outlined in the Bush Doctrine, the pursuit of this goal is the policy
> of the US.

What a joke. Open your eyes. US policy involves support for
non-democratic regimes in the Middle East, Central Asia, the Far
East and Africa.

> It is clear I am not going to change your mind, and you are not
going
to change mine.

You might change your mind after doing some research.

Robert

[Bill Sornson]

wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>
>> people who are miserable and fearful don't tend to buy toys.

>> From what I have read the opposite is very often true, mnay people
>> buy
> consumer good because they are unhappy and have empty meaningless
> lives. 'Retail therapy' and all that.

I think you're confusing depressed with oppressed.


>> People also said Bush attacked Iraq for "political gain". Hell, it
>> nearly cost him the election...

> OK, to be more accurate it was in the interests of those who have the
> real power for the American military machine to invade Iraq and so
> Bush helped them to make this possible. After all this is all part of
> 'the deal'. I.e. 'We get a bozo like you into the Whitehouse, but in
> return once you are there you will dance to our tune.' People like
> Bush are expendable and the corporate machine will simply fund the
> election of another puppet next time round if his popularity ratings
> get too low. Hell, to make doubly sure they fund both 'parties' so
> they can't lose as whoever wins will be beholding to them once in
> 'power'...

Cue the Snidly Whiplash theme and twirl that pointy mustache!

Bill "bwa-ha-ha (evil laugh representation)" S.

[Tom Keats]

In article . com>,
writes:

> So, as a cyclist do you think passages such as the following are
> genuinely funny or do they perhaps risk validating what many people who
> are hostle to cyclists already think...

The P.J. O'Rourke article pretty much follows the
rec.autos.driving party line. It's all very
unoriginal stuff, oft-repeated over the last
century and well into this one. So the validating
is already done. We've been stuck with these attitudes
probably since bicycles were invented.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[[email protected]]

Tom Keats wrote:

> The P.J. O'Rourke article pretty much follows the rec.autos.driving party line...

Exactly! But the question remains, is it genuine satire or is its
intention, at best, just to give the car-centric a cheap laugh by
playing up to their prejudices?

[Bill Sornson]

wrote:
> wrote in part:
>> ...The money from
>> the sale of Iraqii oil goes into a trust fund that is the property of
>> the Iraqii people. Several plans are being evaluated, and one llikely
>> one involves each citizen getting a yearly check from the proceeds.
>> Hardly theft on the grand scale you imagine.
>
> Ha! Where's MY check? Before the invasion this
> administration claimed over and over that the entire
> debacle would be paid for by Iraqi oil. WHOOPS.

And if it did (or eventually does), you'll say we stole from the Iraqi
people. Convenient no-win.

Bill "ride time" S.

[Tony Raven]

Tom Keats wrote:
>
> The P.J. O'Rourke article pretty much follows the
> rec.autos.driving party line. It's all very
> unoriginal stuff, oft-repeated over the last
> century and well into this one. So the validating
> is already done. We've been stuck with these attitudes
> probably since bicycles were invented.
>
>

ITYM since cars were invented ;-)

"Toad the terror, the traffic-queller, the Lord of the lone
trail, before whom all must give way or be smitten into nothingness
and everlasting night."
Wind in the Willows, Kenneth Graham

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

[[email protected]]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> wrote:
> > Ha! Where's MY check? Before the invasion this
> > administration claimed over and over that the entire
> > debacle would be paid for by Iraqi oil. WHOOPS.
>
> And if it did (or eventually does), you'll say we stole from the Iraqi
> people. Convenient no-win.

Ah yes. 'No-win.' That's a good way to describe
this war as it was conceived by the civilian
ideologues who took us there. But what Americans
will be held accountable, other than soldiers I mean?

Robert

[di]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Tom Keats wrote:
>
>> The P.J. O'Rourke article pretty much follows the rec.autos.driving party
>> line...
>
> Exactly! But the question remains, is it genuine satire or is its
> intention, at best, just to give the car-centric a cheap laugh by
> playing up to their prejudices?
>


Is anyone else tired of this fruitcake?

[Bill Sornson]

wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> Ha! Where's MY check? Before the invasion this
>>> administration claimed over and over that the entire
>>> debacle would be paid for by Iraqi oil. WHOOPS.
>>
>> And if it did (or eventually does), you'll say we stole from the
>> Iraqi people. Convenient no-win.
>
> Ah yes. 'No-win.' That's a good way to describe
> this war as it was conceived by the civilian
> ideologues who took us there. But what Americans
> will be held accountable, other than soldiers I mean?

Wait for it.

Bill "now it's REALLY ride time" S.

[Tony Raven]

wrote:
> Tony Raven wrote:
>> Ermmm. You do know that P J O'Rourke is a famous satirist, formerly of
>> National Lampoon and Rolling Stone, don't you.
>>
>>
>
> Yes, of course. But reading it much of the humour seems about as thin
> as that of Jeremy Clarkson when he 'jokes' about cyclists being 'lefty
> museli munchers' or how he will run cyclists down 'for fun' if the get
> in his way at traffic lights.
>

You won't enjoy his proposals for Public Transport in the WSJ then.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006428


--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
Tony Raven > writes:
> Tom Keats wrote:
>>
>> The P.J. O'Rourke article pretty much follows the
>> rec.autos.driving party line. It's all very
>> unoriginal stuff, oft-repeated over the last
>> century and well into this one. So the validating
>> is already done. We've been stuck with these attitudes
>> probably since bicycles were invented.
>>
>>
>
> ITYM since cars were invented ;-)

I figure they're roughly contemporaneous. At least, the
initial popularity & availability of both the safety bicycle,
and of the motor car.

But I wouldn't be surprised if equitators in the past also
harboured antipathy toward bicycles and cyclists.
Those damn horsie people :-) :-)


cheers, & actually I like horsies too,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Tom Keats]

In article om>,
writes:
>
> Tom Keats wrote:
>
>> The P.J. O'Rourke article pretty much follows the rec.autos.driving party line...
>
> Exactly! But the question remains, is it genuine satire or is its
> intention, at best, just to give the car-centric a cheap laugh by
> playing up to their prejudices?

The old "funny because it's 'so true'"?

Yes, the latter (playing up to their prejudices.)

Dogs have fleas, gardens have weeds, and cyclists
have prejudiced drivers.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Marc Brett]

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 17:39:56 GMT, "Bill Sornson" >
wrote:

> Yeah, liberating millions of people
>and losing 2200+ solidiers and spending ga-jillions of dollars was just such
>a SELFISH ACT! Bad USA!

The ones who voted to go to war don't have their OWN kids over there -- they're
not that crazy. The ga-jillions of dollars being spent (and misspent) are the
same ga-jillions *not* being spent on medicare, schools, and food stamps. The
poor grunts and poor civvies are the ones being generous. As usual.

Put the Bush children into baggy green jump suits, give them a rifle and a
parachute and send them into the desert. That'll convince me a lot more than
WMD! Nookular bombs! Look, another terrarist behind you!

[[email protected]]

To return to the original post, I am surprised that no one has yet
brought up the fact that there is evidence that the NY police has also
tried to manipulate evidence and video tapes in order to try to get
convictions against those attending anti-Republican rallies. (And after
all it is the involvement of cyclists in such rallies which seems to
have led to the current activity by the police). See:

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2005/Dennis-Kyne-Vindicated12apr05.htm

http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2004/Kyne-Charges-Dismissed18dec04.htm

Also:

New York Times
April 12, 2005
Videos Challenge Accounts of Convention Unrest
By JIM DWYER

Dennis Kyne put up such a fight at a political protest last summer, the
arresting officer recalled, it took four police officers to haul him
down the steps of the New York Public Library and across Fifth Avenue.

"We picked him up and we carried him while he squirmed and screamed,"
the officer, Matthew Wohl, testified in December. "I had one of his
legs because he was kicking and refusing to walk on his own."

Accused of inciting a riot and resisting arrest, Mr. Kyne was the first
of the 1,806 people arrested in New York last summer during the
Republican National Convention to take his case to a jury. But one day
after Officer Wohl testified, and before the defense called a single
witness, the prosecutor abruptly dropped all charges.

During a recess, the defense had brought new information to the
prosecutor. A videotape shot by a documentary filmmaker showed Mr. Kyne
agitated but plainly walking under his own power down the library
steps, contradicting the vivid account of Officer Wohl, who was nowhere
to be seen in the pictures. Nor was the officer seen taking part in the
arrests of four other people at the library against whom he signed
complaints.

A sprawling body of visual evidence, made possible by inexpensive,
lightweight cameras in the hands of private citizens, volunteer
observers and the police themselves, has shifted the debate over
precisely what happened on the streets during the week of the
convention.

For Mr. Kyne and 400 others arrested that week, video recordings
provided evidence that they had not committed a crime or that the
charges against them could not be proved, according to defense lawyers
and prosecutors.

Among them was Alexander Dunlop, who said he was arrested while going
to pick up sushi.

Last week, he discovered that there were two versions of the same
police tape: the one that was to be used as evidence in his trial had
been edited at two spots, removing images that showed Mr. Dunlop
behaving peacefully. When a volunteer film archivist found a more
complete version of the tape and gave it to Mr. Dunlop's lawyer,
prosecutors immediately dropped the charges and said that a technician
had cut the material by mistake.

Seven months after the convention at Madison Square Garden, criminal
charges have fallen against all but a handful of people arrested that
week. Of the 1,670 cases that have run their full course, 91 percent
ended with the charges dismissed or with a verdict of not guilty after
trial. Many were dropped without any finding of wrongdoing, but also
without any serious inquiry into the circumstances of the arrests, with
the Manhattan district attorney's office agreeing that the cases should
be "adjourned in contemplation of dismissal."

Also of interest...

Guardian
Monday October 18, 2004
Any means necessary

In the 60s, police dogs and billy clubs kept black Americans from the
polls. Today's methods are more refined.

There is nothing George Bush likes more than extolling the virtues of
democracy in faraway places...Back in the US, however, the Almighty
seems far less generous. Bush's enthusiasm to export democracy is not
matched by his desire to defend it at home. With just a fortnight to go
to the presidential election, efforts to obstruct and deny the vote,
particularly to black and Latino voters, are intensifying. Forty years
after the civil rights act enshrined the franchise in the constitution
for African-Americans, freedom is being crippled.

The group most likely to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan, where they are
ostensibly extending democracy and freedom - African-Americans - is
most likely to be denied those rights in the US. There is nothing new
in this contradiction. In the cold war, when the US lectured the
eastern bloc on the delights of democracy, black Americans couldn't
vote...

African-Americans, however, remain the principal target of the
Republican campaign to block the vote. Unlike the 60s, when black
Americans were barred from the polls by police dogs, water cannon and
billy clubs, the means today are more refined...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5041498-103390,00.html

'Land of the free?' What a joke!

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
Elisa Francesca Roselli > quotes:

> "Ryan Kuonen, 32, who took part in a "ride of silence" in memory of a
> dead cyclist, said that two undercover officers - one with a camera -
> subverted the event. "They were just in your face," she said. "It made
> what was a really solemn event into something that seemed wrong. It made
> you feel like you were a criminal. It was grotesque.""

Reminds me of back in the '60s and '70s, when the narcs would
try to blend in with the crowd at rock concerts.

Anyway, I think this "radical cyclists" bugaboo hails from well
before 9/11. Maybe even before the Seattle WTO convention, which
certainly instilled paranoid ideas about the Great Unwashed into
the corporate mammon worshipers. Or maybe it just brought their
latent paranoid notions to the surface.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Mike Kruger]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Mike Kruger wrote:
>
>> >
>> Can't you do better than Noam Chomsky and some comedian I've never heard
>> of?
>>
>
> Assuming you are an American,
Correct.
> the fact that you have never heard of
> Bill Hicks reinforces much of what I was saying. Americans talk about
> 'freedom' but being 'free' to think what you want counts for little
<some ranting omitted>
> Bush, as Bill Hicks would have said, 'Sucks the dick of Satan.'
>
I'm lost. Completely lost. According to
http://www.billhicks.com/
Bill Hicks died in 1994. I'm not sure GW Bush was sober yet in 1994, and
certainly wasn't president.
There are millions of people who would agree with the statement "Bush sucks
the dick of Satan", or something reasonably close to that.

I would agree myself, although I would phrase it more politely and less
theologically.

Why bring a dead comedian into it?

If I had heard of Bill Hicks, how would that mean that I was "'free' to
think what I want"?

[Mike Kruger]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> I have a feeling that most US readers of this thread will not have
> heard a word about any of the above.

You covered so many points that most of us have heard many of them, and some
of what you present as fact is, to put it mildly, controversial.

US readers of this thread, to judge from the posters on this thread, are an
eclectic lot but most seem to have sources for information beyond Fox News
(Rupert Murdoch's news channel).

[Mike Kruger]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> James Annan wrote:
>>
>> I find it unsurprising that such a high proportion of USAians approve of
>> torture, given such an unremittingly positive portrayal of it. But it is
>> nevertheless disappointing that their attitudes may be so strongly
>> determined by TV fiction.
>>
I'll concede that there is certainly a strain of thought among some
Americans that torture is OK if we do it because we're good.

>...websites such as righwingstuff.com selling T-shirts with
> logos reading 'Bush's to do list: 1) Bong Iraq (crossed out) 2) Bomb
> Iran 3) Bomb France.

Heck, we'll put anyting on a t-shirt. There are even sites that promote both
sides simultaneously.
http://www.cafepress.com/shop/politics/

> Most of all the right in the USA are terrified of
> the ideology of 'Egality, Liberty and Fraternity', especially the bit
> about egality...
>
One thing I'm sure of. Americans aren't terrified of French political
thought.

[Roger Houston]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> 3) 'Americans don't do irony', or so I have heard.

Whoever told you that was being satirical.

[Mike Kruger]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Mike Kruger wrote:
>>
>> This reminds me of a story from a few years ago, that a Chinese
>> "intelligence" agent in the US had picked up a copy of the Onion (a
>> midwestery satire newspaper) and reported its military speculations as
>> fact.
>> This led to a minor diplomatic tiff between China and the U.S., until the
>> source of the "intelligence" was discovered.
>
> So, as a cyclist do you think passages such as the following are
> genuinely funny or do they perhaps risk validating what many people who
> are hostle to cyclists already think...
>
I wouldn't say these passages are great humor; I'm not a great fan of
O'Rourke. But they are humor, and I think you are taking them too seriously.

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
"Mike Kruger" > writes:

> One thing I'm sure of. Americans aren't terrified of French political
> thought.

Wait'll you get wind of Canadian political thought.
We just redefined "decency". Anything is okay as
long as nobody profits, and nobody gets hurt. And
gross stuff isn't done in public (except American
television shows about people getting shot, blown
up, pushed out of aircraft, or otherwise dispatched.)

Anyways, my prime directive of Life has always been:
never run out of toilet paper.

My secondary directive is now:
never eat while watching TV.

'cuz fer sher they'll show something that'll kill your
appetite, like a prostate operation, or Martha Stewart.


cheers,
Tom


--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Mike Kruger]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
> That said, it is ironic that you should bring up the subject of irony,
> sorry iron, given that Bush imposed illegal tariffs on steel imports
> (including British steel) back in 2002. Yet another example of the USA
> ignoring international agreements when it suits it...
>
Indeed he did. The Bush administration eventually had to un-impose the
tariffs in response to heavy foreign pressure and they are no longer in
force.

[Tom Keats]

In article . com>,
writes:

[snip]

> Also:
>
> New York Times
> April 12, 2005
> Videos Challenge Accounts of Convention Unrest
> By JIM DWYER

Good ol' Jym. We haven't heard from him in donkey's years.
I hope he's doing okay. Best wishes of the season (and
beyond) to ya, Jym!


cheers,
TOm

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
"Mike Kruger" > writes:

> I wouldn't say these passages are great humor; I'm not a great fan of
> O'Rourke. But they are humor, and I think you are taking them too seriously.

I guess the weather in the UK isn't conducive to riding right now :-)


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Tony Raven]

Tom Keats wrote:

>
> I guess the weather in the UK isn't conducive to riding right now :-)
>
>

Also the fact that its midnight ;-)

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

[The Wogster]

Tom Keats wrote:
> In article >,
> "Mike Kruger" > writes:
>
>
>>One thing I'm sure of. Americans aren't terrified of French political
>>thought.
>
>
> Wait'll you get wind of Canadian political thought.
> We just redefined "decency". Anything is okay as
> long as nobody profits, and nobody gets hurt. And
> gross stuff isn't done in public (except American
> television shows about people getting shot, blown
> up, pushed out of aircraft, or otherwise dispatched.)

Correction, our courts decided to redefine decency, I for one disagree
with their new definition, but then I don't agree with their "new and
improved" definition of marriage either......

I for one, am thinking of voting for the green party or the marijuana
party, since the rhinoceros party folded, it's hard to find a "joke"
party to vote for...... One thing, the Liberals are definitely not is
funny....

>
> Anyways, my prime directive of Life has always been:
> never run out of toilet paper.
>
> My secondary directive is now:
> never eat while watching TV.
>
> 'cuz fer sher they'll show something that'll kill your
> appetite, like a prostate operation, or Martha Stewart.
>

Every time I hear what kinda crap passes for TV these days, it makes me
glad that I canceled cable.....

W

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
The Wogster > writes:

> One thing, the Liberals are definitely not is
> funny....

Meanwhile the foul, rancid taste of the Mulroney Conservatives
still mercilessly lingers ...

The current crop of Reformatives should emigrate to Montana where
they belong.

I guess we get to choose between Tweedle-Dweeb and Tweedle-Dumb.
And the guy who looks like a greasy used car salesman.

If Tooker Gomberg was still around, I'd say force /him/ to be
Fearless Leader. I've heard it said the best politicians are
the ones who'd have to be dragged kickin' & screamin' to office.
I believe it.



cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
The Wogster > writes:

> Every time I hear what kinda crap passes for TV these days, it makes me
> glad that I canceled cable.....

Actually, there is some good viewing fare, if one is selective about it.
I rather enjoy some of the PBS offerings such as American Experience
and Nova.

And a local, home-grown travelogue on community cable, called "Wings
Over Canada". It's about a guy who goes around exploring the
hard-to-get-to niches of the country via bush plane.

I'll also confess to a certain fondness for Myth Busters
(Kari has such a charming and heartwarming smile.)


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[The Wogster]

Tom Keats wrote:
> In article >,
> The Wogster > writes:
>
>
>>One thing, the Liberals are definitely not is
>>funny....
>
>
> Meanwhile the foul, rancid taste of the Mulroney Conservatives
> still mercilessly lingers ...
>
> The current crop of Reformatives should emigrate to Montana where
> they belong.
>
> I guess we get to choose between Tweedle-Dweeb and Tweedle-Dumb.
> And the guy who looks like a greasy used car salesman.

We have Paul Martin, the old guard status quo Liberals.

You know the Conservatives should have milked that one, in the last
election, pick the nice young fresh faced leader of a new party, or the
old mouldy Trudeau era Liberal dimwits.

If Jack Layton were to actually win enough seats to win a minority even,
I would hop on a plane to a third world country, and claim refugee status.

W

[Bob]

Peter Cole wrote:
> Bob wrote:
> > Elisa Francesca Roselli wrote:
> >
> >>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/22/nyregion/22police.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=10dca8926beae1ec&hp&ex=1135314000&partner=homepage
> >
> >
> > Oh my god, the police are WATCHING people in public places! How awful!
> > <yawn>
>
> I think you misrepresent the main thrust of the article. It was about
> police undercover infiltration of groups (with no apparent danger to
> public safety) and even engaging in provocative behavior -- although I'm
> willing to accept that may have been individual overzealousness. We've
> been down this road before and it doesn't go anywhere good...
>
> I find it troubling that you, a law enforcement officer I believe, would
> dismiss this so easily.

You find it troubling that I, a law enforcement officer, would dismiss
the *inferences* some would draw from the article so easily. I find it
troubling that you, someone I have never met face to face but have come
to respect as an intelligent person through your posts here, is so
troubled by the police taking reasonable steps to prevent violence.
Read the article again and watch the videos. Every instance cited had
to do, not with true infiltration of groups but, with efforts to
maintain *low profile* surveillance of public gatherings that past
experience has shown can go from peaceful to rowdy to destructive and
dangerous in a very short time. Let's be realistic. What if instead of
using an appropriate number of undercover officers to observe a protest
march that has the potential for violence, the police response is to
line the protest route with hundreds of police in riot gear? Wouldn't
*that* be denounced as police provocation? What if the police don't
take *any* steps to monitor the situation and instead fall back into a
purely reactive stance? What happened in Seattle with the WTO
protestors or more recently in Hong Kong with the farmers or in Paris
with the unemployed (acts of mob violence aren't confined to the US)
are sterling examples of how well a purely reactive stance can work.

IMO, there is a very important distinction between watching what is by
any definition a public event- antiwar marches, white supremacist
rallies, anti-multinational corporation protests, anti-gang violence
vigils, or gay pride parades- and the "infiltration of groups". All of
the supposedly troubling instances of police "infiltration" of groups
the article cites were nothing more than police monitoring a *public*
event on *public* streets. I've been an undercover officer at all of
the events I've listed above and I have never infiltrated any group or
incited any violence. I observed and reported any criminal activity or
threat to the public peace. When I've been in a crowd at KKK rallies,
I've carried "Klan Go Home" signs. I've chanted, "No blood for oil",
with the rest of the crowd at antiwar rallies, carried a candle in
anti-gang violence vigils, and worn a rainbow armband at gay pride
parades. That is not infiltration. It's simply blending into a crowd.
What specific horrible acts are alleged here? I see very few specific
allegations even though the videotapes that are the inspiration for the
article allegedly number in the hundreds. One specific allegation that
is made is that on one occasion there was an arrest of an undercover
police officer (UC) acting as a protestor that sparked resistance from
the real protestors present. In that instance was there *any*
allegation that the UC tried to incite or inflame the crowd to 'rescue'
him from arrest? No. Indeed, the video makes it quite clear that he
calmly submitted to the arrest and one look at the videotape itself
(and maybe a hint) is enough for most people to understand why the
arrest took place. Look at the crowd. Look at their signs. Now look at
the sign the UC was carrying. Signs elevated in the crowd are
conspicuously absent, aren't they? The UC's sign appears to be mounted
on a pipe more suited for displaying a "No Parking" sign than a
handlettered "No justice- No peace" sign. It's a potential *weapon*,
for crissakes! The UC apparently paid little or no attention at the
inevitable pre-staging briefing where I would bet my last dollar every
officer was told to immediately detain anyone carrying anything like
the sign the UC was holding. (That has been part of every such briefing
I've ever attended. You've seen news footage of KKK rallies, I'm sure.
Why do you think the white robed idiots are always shown carrying their
standard like a high school marching band instead of on flagstaffs?)
The two (or more- the article is heavy on opinion and commentary but
just a little light on actual facts) people that tried to thwart the
arrest were themselves arrested and now apparently wish to claim that
it was a "sham arrest" designed to provoke an illegal response.
Bull****. If you were that undercover officer and wanted to incite the
crowd to violence, would you have submitted as quietly and peacefully
as he did on the video? He knew as soon as he was grabbed that he'd
screwed up. He also happens to be involved in the only allegation made
in the article that has any real bite. From the article:

"The same man was videotaped a day earlier, observing the actress
Rosario Dawson as she and others were arrested on 35th Street and
Eighth Avenue as they filmed "This Revolution," a movie that used
actual street demonstrations as a backdrop. At one point, the
blond-haired man seemed to try to rile bystanders. After Ms. Dawson and
another actress were placed into a police van, the blond-haired man can
be seen peering in the window. According to Charles Maol, who was
working on the film, the blond-haired man is the source of a voice that
is heard calling: "Hey, that's my brother in there. What do you got my
brother in there for?"

Maybe he *did* shout that. I don't know but I tend to think he did
because based on the sign incident I'm inclined to think he's not
qualified to work in a UC capacity in that type of setting. That *one*
cop screwed up or is not suited for that type of duty though doesn't
change my opinion that there is nothing at all wrong with the police
monitoring people at public events to safeguard the general welfare.
The events are, after all, PUBLIC and safeguarding the public's lives
and property is not only an acceptable police function in our society,
it is the *primary* function of police.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Claire Petersky]

"Tom Keats" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> The Wogster > writes:

> The current crop of Reformatives should emigrate to Montana where
> they belong.


I'm actually rather enamored with the Governor of Montana.

--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at:
http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

[Bob]

Tom Keats wrote:
> In article >,
> Elisa Francesca Roselli > quotes:
>
> > "Ryan Kuonen, 32, who took part in a "ride of silence" in memory of a
> > dead cyclist, said that two undercover officers - one with a camera -
> > subverted the event. "They were just in your face," she said. "It made
> > what was a really solemn event into something that seemed wrong. It made
> > you feel like you were a criminal. It was grotesque.""
>
> Reminds me of back in the '60s and '70s, when the narcs would
> try to blend in with the crowd at rock concerts.
>
> Anyway, I think this "radical cyclists" bugaboo hails from well
> before 9/11. Maybe even before the Seattle WTO convention, which
> certainly instilled paranoid ideas about the Great Unwashed into
> the corporate mammon worshipers. Or maybe it just brought their
> latent paranoid notions to the surface.
>
>
> cheers,
> Tom

I don't blame the "radical cyclist" image on paranoia. IMO blame for
that image rests squarely on the shoulders of those very few that in
their public statements intentionally politicize what is in no way a
political act, i.e., riding a bicycle. Those statements (and actions)
are simple minded throwbacks to the philosophy of the mid-60s radical
Left when everything was viewed through the lens of "The Movement".

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Elisa Francesca Roselli]

wrote:
> That article I was thinking of...
>
> A COOL AND LOGICAL ANALYSIS OF THE BICYCLE MENACE
>
> And an Examination of the Actions Necessary to License, Regulate, or
> Abolish Entirely This Dreadful Peril on our Roads
>
> by P.J. O'Rourke
>
> [From "Republican Party Reptile", The Atlantic Monthly Press, New York,
> 1987. It originally appeared in "Car and Driver" magazine in June 1984
> ]


That's hilarious. Thanks for posting!

EFR
Ile de France

[Bob]

Elisa Francesca Roselli wrote:

> EFR
> Glad to be in Ile de France

It wasn't that long ago that you were wishing that the French police
were doing more to curb the so-called "student riots" in Paris and
writing posts about how you feared for your safety in your own
neighborhood. I guess that your opinion of what are
acceptable/unacceptable police actions in monitoring crowds depends to
a great extent on your proximity to those crowds. That's a fairly
common and very human trait. It's hypocritical but understandable.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Mike Kruger]

"Bob" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Elisa Francesca Roselli wrote:
>
>> EFR
>> Glad to be in Ile de France
>
> It wasn't that long ago that you were wishing that the French police
> were doing more to curb the so-called "student riots" in Paris and
> writing posts about how you feared for your safety in your own
> neighborhood. I guess that your opinion of what are
> acceptable/unacceptable police actions in monitoring crowds depends to
> a great extent on your proximity to those crowds. That's a fairly
> common and very human trait. It's hypocritical but understandable.
>
We EXPECT the government to monitor and infiltrate "bad" groups.

If there were terrorists holding parades and the police were somehow NOT
videotaping, even the NYT would criticize, I would think.

The problem comes in defining "bad", and in avoiding over-surveillance where
it's inappropriate but easy.

In Michael Moore's 9/11 movie, there's a section about police infiltration
of a "peace" group composed mostly of grandparents, and he makes the
predictable criticisms. (Also, by cinematically focusing on the fact that
these people are white and innocent, he comes close to implying a racial
statement. People seem to have forgotten that the Oklahoma City bombings
were done by middle aged white people.) To me, the problem isn't that they
infiltrated this group but that the police kept after it so long, long
beyond when you would have thought they would have given up as an
unproductive use of resources. [And, before somebody pulls up old posts of
mine, I liked and recommended the movie. That doesn't mean I had to like
everything about it.]

It's also the case that there are usually a massive number of digital photos
of these events posted on the internet by people who were there. Nobody
seems concerned that I'm shown with "helmet hair" and a bad bald spot in
these photos.

The question in my mind isn't so much the raw material -- like videos taken
by embedded police -- it's whether it is used inappropriately or whether the
whole program is operated outside the oversight mechanisms that provide
checks and balances in democratic systems.

[Pinky]

Cross posting is a total pain. Bah Humbug to all cross posters on both sides
of the pond!

--
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom.
Remove PSANTISPAM to reply
"Elisa Francesca Roselli" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/22/nyregion/22police.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=10dca8926beae1ec&hp&ex=1135314000&partner=homepage
>
> Some extracts:
>
> "Undercover New York City police officers have conducted covert
> surveillance in the last 16 months of people protesting the Iraq war,
> bicycle riders taking part in mass rallies and even mourners at a street
> vigil for a cyclist killed in an accident, a series of videotapes show."
>
>
> "Provided with images from the tape, the Police Department's chief
> spokesman, Paul J. Browne, did not dispute that they showed officers at
> work but said that disguised officers had always attended such
> gatherings - not to investigate political activities but to keep order and
> protect free speech. Activists, however, say that police officers
> masquerading as protesters and bicycle riders distort their messages and
> provoke trouble."
>
>
> "After the 2001 terrorist attacks, officials at all levels of government
> considered major changes in various police powers. President Bush
> acknowledged last Saturday that he has secretly permitted the National
> Security Agency to eavesdrop without a warrant on international telephone
> calls and e-mail messages in terror investigations.
>
> In New York, the administration of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg persuaded a
> federal judge in 2003 to enlarge the Police Department's authority to
> conduct investigations of political, social and religious groups. "We live
> in a more dangerous, constantly changing world," Police Commissioner
> Raymond W. Kelly said."
>
>
> "Ryan Kuonen, 32, who took part in a "ride of silence" in memory of a dead
> cyclist, said that two undercover officers - one with a camera - subverted
> the event. "They were just in your face," she said. "It made what was a
> really solemn event into something that seemed wrong. It made you feel
> like you were a criminal. It was grotesque.""
>
>
> EFR
> Glad to be in Ile de France
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Bill Sornson]

Pinky top-posted, cross-posted, AND didn't snip unneeded content:

> Cross posting is a total pain. Bah Humbug to all cross posters on
> both sides of the pond!

Brilliant!

<eg>

[Peter Cole]

Bob wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>
>>Bob wrote:
>
>>
>>I find it troubling that you, a law enforcement officer I believe, would
>>dismiss this so easily.

>
> Maybe he *did* shout that. I don't know but I tend to think he did
> because based on the sign incident I'm inclined to think he's not
> qualified to work in a UC capacity in that type of setting. That *one*
> cop screwed up or is not suited for that type of duty though doesn't
> change my opinion that there is nothing at all wrong with the police
> monitoring people at public events to safeguard the general welfare.
> The events are, after all, PUBLIC and safeguarding the public's lives
> and property is not only an acceptable police function in our society,
> it is the *primary* function of police.

Thanks for taking the time to express your position so thoroughly.

I think we have different ideas about what comprises necessary
undercover police work. That's OK in a free society. We'll have to agree
to disagree. Whatever one's position, I think it's a subject worthy of
constant scrutiny and debate. Power is too easily abused.

[Pinky]

It is done to illustrate your total idiocy in maintenance this stupid and
irrelevant cross posting -- and I am no troll you total w*nker

--
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom.
Remove PSANTISPAM to reply
"Bill Sornson" > wrote in message
...
> Pinky top-posted, cross-posted, AND didn't snip unneeded content:
>
>> Cross posting is a total pain. Bah Humbug to all cross posters on
>> both sides of the pond!
>
> Brilliant!
>
> <eg>
>

[Bill Sornson]

Pinky wrote:
>> Pinky top-posted, cross-posted, AND didn't snip unneeded content:
>>
>>> Cross posting is a total pain. Bah Humbug to all cross posters on
>>> both sides of the pond!
>>
>> Brilliant!
>>
>> <eg>

> It is done to illustrate your total idiocy in maintenance this stupid
> and irrelevant cross posting -- and I am no troll you total w*nker

Now THAT hurt.

BWAHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHA!

[Bob]

Mike Kruger wrote:
> "Bob" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Elisa Francesca Roselli wrote:
> >
> >> EFR
> >> Glad to be in Ile de France
> >
> > It wasn't that long ago that you were wishing that the French police
> > were doing more to curb the so-called "student riots" in Paris and
> > writing posts about how you feared for your safety in your own
> > neighborhood. I guess that your opinion of what are
> > acceptable/unacceptable police actions in monitoring crowds depends to
> > a great extent on your proximity to those crowds. That's a fairly
> > common and very human trait. It's hypocritical but understandable.
> >
> We EXPECT the government to monitor and infiltrate "bad" groups.
>
> If there were terrorists holding parades and the police were somehow NOT
> videotaping, even the NYT would criticize, I would think.
>
> The problem comes in defining "bad", and in avoiding over-surveillance where
> it's inappropriate but easy.
>
> In Michael Moore's 9/11 movie, there's a section about police infiltration
> of a "peace" group composed mostly of grandparents, and he makes the
> predictable criticisms. (Also, by cinematically focusing on the fact that
> these people are white and innocent, he comes close to implying a racial
> statement. People seem to have forgotten that the Oklahoma City bombings
> were done by middle aged white people.) To me, the problem isn't that they
> infiltrated this group but that the police kept after it so long, long
> beyond when you would have thought they would have given up as an
> unproductive use of resources. [And, before somebody pulls up old posts of
> mine, I liked and recommended the movie. That doesn't mean I had to like
> everything about it.]
>
> It's also the case that there are usually a massive number of digital photos
> of these events posted on the internet by people who were there. Nobody
> seems concerned that I'm shown with "helmet hair" and a bad bald spot in
> these photos.
>
> The question in my mind isn't so much the raw material -- like videos taken
> by embedded police -- it's whether it is used inappropriately or whether the
> whole program is operated outside the oversight mechanisms that provide
> checks and balances in democratic systems.

Leaving aside the issue of how to determine what groups are "bad",
i.e., pose a significant credible threat to the public good, without
any research/intelligence gathering, I'm curious- what "inappropriate
use" of videotapes of public events do you think possible? Again, the
videotaping we are discussing is being done at PUBLIC events that take
place on PUBLIC streets. If you or I choose to appear at a public event
we don't have any reasonable expectation of privacy in regard to our
physical appearance. The types of rallies and protests we're discussing
are designed as physical demonstrations of support for whatever
viewpoint the participants hold so if we attend a public rally in
support of a particular cause we not only give up that particular right
to privacy we INVITE publicity.
The question that remains then is what inappropriate use could such
images be put to by the police? Since we don't "disappear" political
dissidents in the US and US police actions are *all* subject to
oversight in the form of the courts, I'm at a loss to even imagine what
inappropriate use you envision.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Tom Keats]

In article et>,
"Claire Petersky" > writes:

>> The current crop of Reformatives should emigrate to Montana where
>> they belong.
>
>
> I'm actually rather enamored with the Governor of Montana.

I'm rather enamoured with Kari, of MythBusters. Well, I wouldn't
wanna get, you know, involved with her, but I'd buy her brunch
and listen to her for a while. I have the impression she could,
as the Hawaiians say: "talk story" very fascinatingly.
/And/ talk shop.

I guess there are nice people in all kinds of places.
Even TV.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Mike Kruger]

"Bob" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Mike Kruger wrote:
>>
>> The question in my mind isn't so much the raw material -- like videos
>> taken
>> by embedded police -- it's whether it is used inappropriately or whether
>> the
>> whole program is operated outside the oversight mechanisms that provide
>> checks and balances in democratic systems.
>
> Leaving aside the issue of how to determine what groups are "bad",
> i.e., pose a significant credible threat to the public good, without
> any research/intelligence gathering, I'm curious- what "inappropriate
> use" of videotapes of public events do you think possible? Again, the
> videotaping we are discussing is being done at PUBLIC events that take
> place on PUBLIC streets. If you or I choose to appear at a public event
> we don't have any reasonable expectation of privacy in regard to our
> physical appearance. The types of rallies and protests we're discussing
> are designed as physical demonstrations of support for whatever
> viewpoint the participants hold so if we attend a public rally in
> support of a particular cause we not only give up that particular right
> to privacy we INVITE publicity.
> The question that remains then is what inappropriate use could such
> images be put to by the police? Since we don't "disappear" political
> dissidents in the US and US police actions are *all* subject to
> oversight in the form of the courts, I'm at a loss to even imagine what
> inappropriate use you envision.
>
Bob, you are setting up a situation in which information is collected in
PUBLIC situations and where "police actions are *all* subject to oversight
in the form of the courts"

In order to answer your question about inappropriate use, I have to engage
in what I hope is paranoia -- i.e. I hope I am expressing irrational fears
about

1. Police informing my employer about certain suggestive political ideas I
seem to hold.

(in my case, my boss frankly couldn't care less, but ...)

2. Using this information as a way to create entries to other, less savory
activities -- e.g. mining this information for leads to other activities
that are questionable. Specifically, the fact that Bush seems to be stating
he needs no court oversight for the NSA surveillance is very disturbing.
And yes, I would feel the same way if Clinton had made the same claim.

I'm aware the NSA isn't a local police agency. For your side of the fence,
you can more easily make distinctions between the various roles of various
policing bodies. They tend to blend together for us ordinary citizens.

[Bob]

Mike Kruger wrote:
> "Bob" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Mike Kruger wrote:
> >>
> >> The question in my mind isn't so much the raw material -- like videos
> >> taken
> >> by embedded police -- it's whether it is used inappropriately or whether
> >> the
> >> whole program is operated outside the oversight mechanisms that provide
> >> checks and balances in democratic systems.
> >
> > Leaving aside the issue of how to determine what groups are "bad",
> > i.e., pose a significant credible threat to the public good, without
> > any research/intelligence gathering, I'm curious- what "inappropriate
> > use" of videotapes of public events do you think possible? Again, the
> > videotaping we are discussing is being done at PUBLIC events that take
> > place on PUBLIC streets. If you or I choose to appear at a public event
> > we don't have any reasonable expectation of privacy in regard to our
> > physical appearance. The types of rallies and protests we're discussing
> > are designed as physical demonstrations of support for whatever
> > viewpoint the participants hold so if we attend a public rally in
> > support of a particular cause we not only give up that particular right
> > to privacy we INVITE publicity.
> > The question that remains then is what inappropriate use could such
> > images be put to by the police? Since we don't "disappear" political
> > dissidents in the US and US police actions are *all* subject to
> > oversight in the form of the courts, I'm at a loss to even imagine what
> > inappropriate use you envision.
> >
> Bob, you are setting up a situation in which information is collected in
> PUBLIC situations and where "police actions are *all* subject to oversight
> in the form of the courts"
>
> In order to answer your question about inappropriate use, I have to engage
> in what I hope is paranoia -- i.e. I hope I am expressing irrational fears
> about
>
> 1. Police informing my employer about certain suggestive political ideas I
> seem to hold.
>
> (in my case, my boss frankly couldn't care less, but ...)
>
> 2. Using this information as a way to create entries to other, less savory
> activities -- e.g. mining this information for leads to other activities
> that are questionable. Specifically, the fact that Bush seems to be stating
> he needs no court oversight for the NSA surveillance is very disturbing.
> And yes, I would feel the same way if Clinton had made the same claim.
>
> I'm aware the NSA isn't a local police agency. For your side of the fence,
> you can more easily make distinctions between the various roles of various
> policing bodies. They tend to blend together for us ordinary citizens.

Before I address your post I'd like to say thanks for keeping this
discussion on a civil level, Mike. After reading your posts here over
the years I expected no less of you but frankly, I'm often sadly amused
at how some of the people that accuse police of being jackbooted
fascists (not you) are unable to express themselves rationally but
instead resort to namecalling as if namecalling was a form of
persuasion.
Anyway, on to your post...
When I wrote that, "US police actions are *all* subject to oversight in
the form of the courts", I wasn't setting up a situation or creating a
hypothetical instance. That is the reality. Can I or any police officer
intentionally make a bad arrest, violate a person's constitutional
rights, or otherwise disregard the limitations placed upon us? Of
course. Do those things ever occur? Only a fool would argue that they
don't. That's why we have oversight in the form of courts. The judge
hearing the case can throw out a bad arrest. A federal prosecutor can
charge me with a crime if I violate someone's rights. A civil court can
award damages if I overstep my authority.
As to your specific concerns:
> 1. Police informing my employer about certain suggestive political ideas I
> seem to hold.
First, we're talking about police monitoring public actions on public
streets. Your boss is more likely to see you at that
rally/protest/whatever in a newspaper photo or on the 10:00 news than
he is to get a phone call from the police informing him that you're a
dangerous anti-American subversive. No faith in the good will of the
police is necessary to accept this. It's a matter of practicality. Even
if we had the inclination to inform your employer, why would we? To
leak information is in many cases a crime and in almost all cases an
actionable cause civilly so why would I or any cop risk my job, my
freedom, and my life savings to tell your boss, "Mike is a lefty?" That
leads us right back to the far more likely situation that someone's
boss will see them in the paper or on the television. Shall we then ban
all cameras from such events? I can hear the howls of the civil
libertarians at the mere suggestion of such an idea. Heck, I'd be
howling right along with them and I don't *like* the media; I view them
much the same as many view the police- often incompetent but a
necessary evil. (I think we are more necessary but others may disagree.
I also think we are more competent at our job than the media is at
their job but IMO that's not saying a whole lot. <g>)
> 2. Using this information as a way to create entries to other, less savory
> activities -- e.g. mining this information for leads to other activities
> that are questionable.
Do you mean that you fear being videotaped at a public event will lead
to an intensive investigation into your life? While that may happen in
novels, movies, and television it doesn't occur in real life. An
example- the Secret Service has been investigating possible threats to
US presidents for years. Being videotaped at certain types of events
will land you in a database as will checking certain books out of the
public library. What happens when you land in that database? Not much.
No agent is assigned to black bag your house, interview your neighbors,
audit your taxes, or follow you unless you keep popping up
spontaneously in that database. About all you could expect then would
be a visit by an agent from the local Secret Service field office. If
you don't foam at the mouth when you speak to him or her, that's it.
Why not? Mostly because even if the inclination to pursue it further
were there, the manpower is not and never will be. A background
investigation into even a bland, middle of the road, not a darned
unusual thing about him, individual takes on average 30 to 40 man
hours. Multiply that by one million- a ridiculously understated figure
of those that have protested against the war in Iraq, for instance- and
you'll begin to see why such fears are baseless.
> Specifically, the fact that Bush seems to be stating
> he needs no court oversight for the NSA surveillance is very disturbing.
> And yes, I would feel the same way if Clinton had made the same claim.
I believe that the claim being made by the Administration is that they
don't need *prior* approval in the form of search warrants for the
surveillance. As long as their activities remain in the public arena-
monitoring the Internet, for instance- they are on solid legal ground
but like any other exercise of police power, those activities are
*still* subject to oversight after the fact through the courts. The
biggest problem I see is that society is having difficulty keeping up
with technology where the law is concerned.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[[email protected]]

Bob wrote in part:

> I believe that the claim being made by the Administration is that they
> don't need *prior* approval in the form of search warrants for the
> surveillance.

Actually their claim is that they don't need *any* approval
in the form of search warrants. The FISA procedure allows
the govt. to eavesdrop *before* a search warrant is granted,
then get the warrant later. (Furthermore, the FISA court
almost never turns down a warrant request--5 rejections
in approximately 19,000 requests or about .025 %
rejection rate.) The question is...WHY in heck would
the administration feel the need to bypass the FISA
court. None of the 'explanations' given so far makes
a damn bit of sense.

Robert

[[email protected]]

wrote:
<snip>
> rejection rate.) The question is...WHY in heck would
> the administration feel the need to bypass the FISA
> court. None of the 'explanations' given so far makes
> a damn bit of sense.

Neither did spying on actors, musicians, and civil rights leaders back
in the '60's and early '70's, but Johnson, Nixon, and Hoover did it.


Bill


--------------------------------------------------
| Tyrants have always some slight shade of virtue; |
| they support the laws before destroying them. |
| --Voltaire |
--------------------------------------------------

[Bob]

wrote:
> Bob wrote in part:
>
> > I believe that the claim being made by the Administration is that they
> > don't need *prior* approval in the form of search warrants for the
> > surveillance.
>
> Actually their claim is that they don't need *any* approval
> in the form of search warrants. The FISA procedure allows
> the govt. to eavesdrop *before* a search warrant is granted,
> then get the warrant later. (Furthermore, the FISA court
> almost never turns down a warrant request--5 rejections
> in approximately 19,000 requests or about .025 %
> rejection rate.) The question is...WHY in heck would
> the administration feel the need to bypass the FISA
> court. None of the 'explanations' given so far makes
> a damn bit of sense.
>
> Robert

Search warrants are by definition prior approval for a search granted
by an independent magistrate/court. The FISA procedure you mention
simply allows a search to proceed after the warrant has been applied
for but prior to its actual issuance. If upon receipt of the actual
affidavit and warrant the court decides to not approve the warrant,
nothing resulting from that search may be used or retained. In that
respect it's not that unlike a telephonic warrant. In a telephonic
warrant, I call the judge (usually at 2 AM or so) and read him my
affidavit for the warrant and he approves the immediate search. I must
still deliver the physical affidavit in person and swear to its
accuracy without delay. Nothing I may have discovered in my search can
be included in that affidavit. (God help me if the judge then
disapproves the warrant!)
I think you missed the points I was trying to make though, Robert.
First, warrants are required only if the government is proposing to
intrude somewhere that a reasonable expectation of privacy exists and
in this thread we're discussing an area where there is no such
expectation, i.e., public streets. Absent restraining orders of the
type imposed on stalkers, anyone may watch anyone else in public. You,
I, the government- none of us need a court's permission. I doubt anyone
that has thought it through wants to change that.
Second, while I don't agree with all of the Administration's proposals
I thought it important to point out that the procedures you are talking
about *are* being subjected to judicial oversight and scrutiny. The
Administration is in court defending them, aren't they? What those
court battles are all about is to what extent and under what
circumstances the Administration's actions require *prior* approval,
not whether or not the need for national security supersedes the
Constitution.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Bob]

wrote:
> wrote:
> <snip>
> > rejection rate.) The question is...WHY in heck would
> > the administration feel the need to bypass the FISA
> > court. None of the 'explanations' given so far makes
> > a damn bit of sense.
>
> Neither did spying on actors, musicians, and civil rights leaders back
> in the '60's and early '70's, but Johnson, Nixon, and Hoover did it.
>
>
> Bill

And this has what to do with the current discussion?

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[gds]

wrote:
> wrote:
> <snip>
> > rejection rate.) The question is...WHY in heck would
> > the administration feel the need to bypass the FISA
> > court. None of the 'explanations' given so far makes
> > a damn bit of sense.
>
> Neither did spying on actors, musicians, and civil rights leaders back
> in the '60's and early '70's, but Johnson, Nixon, and Hoover did it.
>
>
> Bill
>
>

Ahh! the many wrongs make it right argument.

[Mark Hickey]

"Bob" > wrote:

>SB wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 00:52:11 +0000, Mike Kruger wrote:
>>
>>>In linguistics, Chomsky is a bona-finbe genius. Genius isn't all that
>> > transferrable, however. Just because you have achieved brilliance in an
>> > academic field does not mean you are brilliant in all fields, or even more
>> > than one. In politics, Chomsky is on the far, far fringe.
>>
>> No, he's not. He's right on. He seems on the fringe because
>> the rest of the western world is disgustingly to the right. Peace, love
>> and understanding are only for songs and peoples' personal inner circles
>> in our current corporate dominated society where ignorance and selfishness
>> prevails.
>
>IOW, "I and that very small percentage of the population that agrees
>with me are centrists. Everyone else is on the fringe and they are all
>disgusting, hateful, ignorant, selfish people."
>
>Thank god the "true believers" on both the left and right think that
>this type of foaming at the mouth proselytizing is effective
>persuasion. That helps prevent their lunacies from spreading.

Beautiful. Couldn't have possibly said it better myownself.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

[[email protected]]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> wrote:
> > How do you define 'left-wing' and what makes you think
> > I am part of it?
>
> I mostly meant the mind-set you ascribe to Chomsky; however, your expressed
> views qualify pretty well, too :) (Read: more liberals think that "people
> are fundamentally stupid and sheep-like and largely complicit in their own
> repression and ignorance" than do conservatives.)

The idea that the great unwashed masses need to
be governed is perhaps the original conservative
political idea, first articulated in writing in Plato's
Republic, I believe. Pure democracy, otoh, is the
embodiment of political liberalism.

Since then, the words 'liberal' and 'conservative'
have come to mean all kinds of crazy things to
all kinds of crazy people.

I didn't really mean that people are 'fundamentally
stupid,' although that is what I wrote. What I should
have said was people are fundamentally lazy, and
they tend toward ignorance because it's the easy
way out.

Robert

[Tom Keats]

In article . com>,
"Bob" > writes:

>> Anyway, I think this "radical cyclists" bugaboo hails from well
>> before 9/11. Maybe even before the Seattle WTO convention, which
>> certainly instilled paranoid ideas about the Great Unwashed into
>> the corporate mammon worshipers. Or maybe it just brought their
>> latent paranoid notions to the surface.

> I don't blame the "radical cyclist" image on paranoia.

I've noticed that when people (e.g: corporate multinationalists)
have a great deal of wealth or power to lose, they seem to react
very strongly to anything they perceive as a threat to what they
hold dear. Eventually they start seeing boogiemen in every corner,
like (the fictitious) Fred C. Dobbs in "Treasure of the Sierra Madre".

In short, I think having too much wealth or power makes people crazy.

> IMO blame for
> that image rests squarely on the shoulders of those very few that in
> their public statements intentionally politicize what is in no way a
> political act, i.e., riding a bicycle.

I think some of it might have something to do with destructive
vandals infiltrating peaceful protests under the guise of
political interest (calling themselves "Anarchists",) but are
really just looking for a melee to take advantage of. Then all
the peaceful participants end up being associated with those
few hooligans.

> Those statements (and actions)
> are simple minded throwbacks to the philosophy of the mid-60s radical
> Left when everything was viewed through the lens of "The Movement".

When I ride my bike partly because it lessens my impact on
others' quality of life, I guess /that's/ a political statement
on my part. But it's such a gentle and nonprovocative one.
OTOH, I guess it undermines the missions & goals of those
paranoia-driven corporate multinationalists, so they'd better
sic their goons & bully-boys on me.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Tom Keats]

In article . com>,
writes:

> Since then, the words 'liberal' and 'conservative'
> have come to mean all kinds of crazy things to
> all kinds of crazy people.

Wouldn't it be amusing if those concepts/labels were invented
and cultivated just to keep us peons at each others' throats,
so those with real influence could go about their merry ways
unimpeded, undetected and unchallenged?


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Pinky]

STOP CROSS POSTING

--
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom.
Remove PSANTISPAM to reply
"Tom Keats" > wrote in message
...
> In article . com>,
> writes:
>
>> Since then, the words 'liberal' and 'conservative'
>> have come to mean all kinds of crazy things to
>> all kinds of crazy people.
>
> Wouldn't it be amusing if those concepts/labels were invented
> and cultivated just to keep us peons at each others' throats,
> so those with real influence could go about their merry ways
> unimpeded, undetected and unchallenged?
>
>
> cheers,
> Tom
>
> --
> -- Nothing is safe from me.
> Above address is just a spam midden.
> I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Pinky]

STOP CROSS POSTING

--
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom.
Remove PSANTISPAM to reply
"Tom Keats" > wrote in message
...
> In article . com>,
> "Bob" > writes:
>
>>> Anyway, I think this "radical cyclists" bugaboo hails from well
>>> before 9/11. Maybe even before the Seattle WTO convention, which
>>> certainly instilled paranoid ideas about the Great Unwashed into
>>> the corporate mammon worshipers. Or maybe it just brought their
>>> latent paranoid notions to the surface.
>
>> I don't blame the "radical cyclist" image on paranoia.
>
> I've noticed that when people (e.g: corporate multinationalists)
> have a great deal of wealth or power to lose, they seem to react
> very strongly to anything they perceive as a threat to what they
> hold dear. Eventually they start seeing boogiemen in every corner,
> like (the fictitious) Fred C. Dobbs in "Treasure of the Sierra Madre".
>
> In short, I think having too much wealth or power makes people crazy.
>
>> IMO blame for
>> that image rests squarely on the shoulders of those very few that in
>> their public statements intentionally politicize what is in no way a
>> political act, i.e., riding a bicycle.
>
> I think some of it might have something to do with destructive
> vandals infiltrating peaceful protests under the guise of
> political interest (calling themselves "Anarchists",) but are
> really just looking for a melee to take advantage of. Then all
> the peaceful participants end up being associated with those
> few hooligans.
>
>> Those statements (and actions)
>> are simple minded throwbacks to the philosophy of the mid-60s radical
>> Left when everything was viewed through the lens of "The Movement".
>
> When I ride my bike partly because it lessens my impact on
> others' quality of life, I guess /that's/ a political statement
> on my part. But it's such a gentle and nonprovocative one.
> OTOH, I guess it undermines the missions & goals of those
> paranoia-driven corporate multinationalists, so they'd better
> sic their goons & bully-boys on me.
>
>
> cheers,
> Tom
>
> --
> -- Nothing is safe from me.
> Above address is just a spam midden.
> I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Sorni]

Pinky wrote:

> STOP CROSS POSTING

He cross- AND top-posted.

Nice!

[[email protected]]

Bob wrote in part:

> I think you missed the points I was trying to make though, Robert.
> First, warrants are required only if the government is proposing to
> intrude somewhere that a reasonable expectation of privacy exists and
> in this thread we're discussing an area where there is no such
> expectation, i.e., public streets. Absent restraining orders of the
> type imposed on stalkers, anyone may watch anyone else in public. You,
> I, the government- none of us need a court's permission. I doubt anyone
> that has thought it through wants to change that.

Agreed. However, the police (not just in NYC but in Denver and I
presume other cities as well) are now in possession of hours of video
of lawful American citizens lawfully exercising their right
to peaceful protest and assembly. Do the police/FBI have a right to
possess this video? Why or why not.

> Second, while I don't agree with all of the Administration's proposals
> I thought it important to point out that the procedures you are talking
> about *are* being subjected to judicial oversight and scrutiny. The
> Administration is in court defending them, aren't they?

I don't think so. Where'd you get that? The only court they're
defending
this in currently is the court of public opinion, thanks to whoever
spilled the beans about the 'program.' The administration may
have to defend the program in congressional hearings. The
double secret shadow government court that was set up to issue
warrants like candy for spying on thousands of American citizens,
the FISA court, was bypassed completely. Why? One of the
FISA judges resigned in protest and the others have demanded
a briefing from the administration. I don't think they've received
anything in return other than a statement that the wiretaps will
continue. Is that what you mean by 'in court defending them?'

> What those
> court battles are all about is to what extent and under what
> circumstances the Administration's actions require *prior* approval,
> not whether or not the need for national security supersedes the
> Constitution.

Respectfully, I think you missed something.

Robert

[Nuckin' Futz]

http://cryptome.org/echelon-60min.htm

[Bob]

Tom Keats wrote:
> In article . com>,
> "Bob" > writes:
>
> >> Anyway, I think this "radical cyclists" bugaboo hails from well
> >> before 9/11. Maybe even before the Seattle WTO convention, which
> >> certainly instilled paranoid ideas about the Great Unwashed into
> >> the corporate mammon worshipers. Or maybe it just brought their
> >> latent paranoid notions to the surface.
>
> > I don't blame the "radical cyclist" image on paranoia.
>
> I've noticed that when people (e.g: corporate multinationalists)
> have a great deal of wealth or power to lose, they seem to react
> very strongly to anything they perceive as a threat to what they
> hold dear. Eventually they start seeing boogiemen in every corner,
> like (the fictitious) Fred C. Dobbs in "Treasure of the Sierra Madre".
>
> In short, I think having too much wealth or power makes people crazy.
>
> > IMO blame for
> > that image rests squarely on the shoulders of those very few that in
> > their public statements intentionally politicize what is in no way a
> > political act, i.e., riding a bicycle.
>
> I think some of it might have something to do with destructive
> vandals infiltrating peaceful protests under the guise of
> political interest (calling themselves "Anarchists",) but are
> really just looking for a melee to take advantage of. Then all
> the peaceful participants end up being associated with those
> few hooligans.

This sounds an awfully lot like we *agree*, Tom, at least in part.
How's that for a scary thought? <g>

> > Those statements (and actions)
> > are simple minded throwbacks to the philosophy of the mid-60s radical
> > Left when everything was viewed through the lens of "The Movement".
>
> When I ride my bike partly because it lessens my impact on
> others' quality of life, I guess /that's/ a political statement
> on my part. But it's such a gentle and nonprovocative one.
> OTOH, I guess it undermines the missions & goals of those
> paranoia-driven corporate multinationalists, so they'd better
> sic their goons & bully-boys on me.

Would you ride if it made absolutely no difference in anyone else's
quality of life? If so, there's no political statement involved. If
not, why not? I thought you *liked* riding!

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Bob]

wrote:
> Bob wrote in part:
>
> > I think you missed the points I was trying to make though, Robert.
> > First, warrants are required only if the government is proposing to
> > intrude somewhere that a reasonable expectation of privacy exists and
> > in this thread we're discussing an area where there is no such
> > expectation, i.e., public streets. Absent restraining orders of the
> > type imposed on stalkers, anyone may watch anyone else in public. You,
> > I, the government- none of us need a court's permission. I doubt anyone
> > that has thought it through wants to change that.
>
> Agreed. However, the police (not just in NYC but in Denver and I
> presume other cities as well) are now in possession of hours of video
> of lawful American citizens lawfully exercising their right
> to peaceful protest and assembly. Do the police/FBI have a right to
> possess this video? Why or why not.

First, it's undoubtedly true that the police/FBI possess "hours of
video of lawful American citizens lawfully exercising their right to
peaceful protest and assembly." Many of those videos are nothing more
than copies of videos made by news organizations and the very groups
assembling and protesting. Are you proposing to ban any recording of
public events because the blue meanies might get copies? Second and
once again, anything that occurs in an area in which one has no
reasonable expectation of privacy is subject to being viewed. That's
just how things work in an open society.

> > Second, while I don't agree with all of the Administration's proposals
> > I thought it important to point out that the procedures you are talking
> > about *are* being subjected to judicial oversight and scrutiny. The
> > Administration is in court defending them, aren't they?
>
> I don't think so. Where'd you get that? The only court they're
> defending
> this in currently is the court of public opinion, thanks to whoever
> spilled the beans about the 'program.' The administration may
> have to defend the program in congressional hearings. The
> double secret shadow government court that was set up to issue
> warrants like candy for spying on thousands of American citizens,
> the FISA court, was bypassed completely. Why? One of the
> FISA judges resigned in protest and the others have demanded
> a briefing from the administration. I don't think they've received
> anything in return other than a statement that the wiretaps will
> continue. Is that what you mean by 'in court defending them?'
>
> > What those
> > court battles are all about is to what extent and under what
> > circumstances the Administration's actions require *prior* approval,
> > not whether or not the need for national security supersedes the
> > Constitution.
>
> Respectfully, I think you missed something.

I overstated my case. What I *should* have said is that if they are not
yet the courts can and will be involved. Being lawyers, the FISA judges
will I'm sure force the issue into a court that has jurisdiction. I'm
equally certain that lawyers on both sides of the issue have already
prepared briefs but I don't know if any such briefs have been filed
yet. I used the present tense. My bad.
BTW, one thing that seems to have been lost in this whole flap is one
of the prerequisite conditions for any interception of communications
is that at least one of the parties to that communication must be a
previously identified terrorist.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[The Wogster]

wrote:
> Bob wrote in part:
>
>
>>I think you missed the points I was trying to make though, Robert.
>>First, warrants are required only if the government is proposing to
>>intrude somewhere that a reasonable expectation of privacy exists and
>>in this thread we're discussing an area where there is no such
>>expectation, i.e., public streets. Absent restraining orders of the
>>type imposed on stalkers, anyone may watch anyone else in public. You,
>>I, the government- none of us need a court's permission. I doubt anyone
>>that has thought it through wants to change that.
>
>
> Agreed. However, the police (not just in NYC but in Denver and I
> presume other cities as well) are now in possession of hours of video
> of lawful American citizens lawfully exercising their right
> to peaceful protest and assembly. Do the police/FBI have a right to
> possess this video? Why or why not.

As long as a protest and/or assembly is peaceful and breaks no laws, the
local police, really don't care. Heck that video tape has probably been
taped over already, if no law has been broken, and no members of the
crowd are wanted for something, local police are unlikely to keep such
video tape, because they have no reason to keep it. Every person who
visits a shopping mall, takes the subway, hops a cab, uses a bank ATM,
gets photographed or video taped every time they do so. Those video
tapes are usually kept for 7 days, and then reused.

The reason that police video tape such events is that if things get out
of hand, and a peaceful protest turns into a non-peaceful protest, they
can review the tape to see who turned it from peaceful to non-peaceful.

You can bet that if a bunch of car drivers started a peaceful protest to
why gasoline prices jumped 10% on December 24th and stayed there for
the rest of the year so the oil companies could gouge the Christmas
travelers, police would video tape that protest as well.

W

[[email protected]]

Bob > wrote:
> wrote:
> >
> > Neither did spying on actors, musicians, and civil rights leaders back
> > in the '60's and early '70's, but Johnson, Nixon, and Hoover did it.
> >
> > Bill

As George Santayana said, "Those who do not remember the past are
condemned to repeat it." If you voted for Bush and got another Nixon, you
shouldn't be surprised.


Bill

--------------------------------------------------
| Tyrants have always some slight shade of virtue; |
| they support the laws before destroying them. |
| --Voltaire |
--------------------------------------------------

[Nuckin' Futz]

wrote:

> As George Santayana said, "Those who do not remember the past are
> condemned to repeat it." If you voted for Bush and got another
> Nixon, you shouldn't be surprised.

Is there an emoticon for ROLLING ONE'S EYES?!? (Hint: Nixon dirty tricked
his /political/ enemies; Bush is trying to thwart people with KNOWN TIES to
AQ and other terrorist entities. Not even close to similar.)

NF

[[email protected]]

Nuckin' Futz > wrote:
> wrote:
> Is there an emoticon for ROLLING ONE'S EYES?!? (Hint: Nixon dirty tricked
> his /political/ enemies; Bush is trying to thwart people with KNOWN TIES to
> AQ and other terrorist entities. Not even close to similar.)

I recommend that you read a book called "Worse than Watergate," by John
W. Dean. It'll change your mind.

Bill

-----------------------------------------
| The means are the ends in the making. |
| -- Mohandas K. Gandhi |
-----------------------------------------

[Nuckin' Futz]

wrote:
> Nuckin' Futz > wrote:
>> wrote (why do you leave this and then delete
>> your text?!?):

>> Is there an emoticon for ROLLING ONE'S EYES?!? (Hint: Nixon dirty
>> tricked his /political/ enemies; Bush is trying to thwart people
>> with KNOWN TIES to AQ and other terrorist entities. Not even close
>> to similar.)
>
> I recommend that you read a book called "Worse than Watergate," by
> John W. Dean. It'll change your mind.

No it won't. Anything that makes Barbara Boxer giggle like a schoolgirl is
too silly for me.

(BTW, I'd still like a rolling eyes smiley thingie.)

NF

[Mike Kruger]

"The Wogster" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> The reason that police video tape such events is that if things get out of
> hand, and a peaceful protest turns into a non-peaceful protest, they can
> review the tape to see who turned it from peaceful to non-peaceful.
>
That's a very good point.

Also, allegations of misbehavior on one side or another can have a factual
basis. Did the protesters really "do nothing" before the police arrested
them? (etc.)

[[email protected]]

Bob wrote:

> First, it's undoubtedly true that the police/FBI possess "hours of
> video of lawful American citizens lawfully exercising their right to
> peaceful protest and assembly." Many of those videos are nothing more
> than copies of videos made by news organizations and the very groups
> assembling and protesting. Are you proposing to ban any recording of
> public events because the blue meanies might get copies? Second and
> once again, anything that occurs in an area in which one has no
> reasonable expectation of privacy is subject to being viewed. That's
> just how things work in an open society.

Once again, I agree with you there, but you didn't answer the
question. Are you saying it is ok to keep these recordings on
file? For what reason? For how long?

> I overstated my case. What I *should* have said is that if they are not
> yet the courts can and will be involved.

Again, I think you're missing the issue here. The only
reason this might be reviewed by ANY sort of court is
because the fact of warrantless wiretaps was leaked
by someone within the administration. They got
caught. Otherwise, there would continue to be zero
oversight or checks and balances of these wiretaps
and data-mining operations.

Let's say you're a bank robber who jumps bail,
then gets caught and dragged before the judge
again. Are you going to argue that, hey, no
worries, I'm cooperating with the law, I'm here
before the judge aren't I? Because that's the
argument you seem to be making.

> Being lawyers, the FISA judges
> will I'm sure force the issue into a court that has jurisdiction. I'm
> equally certain that lawyers on both sides of the issue have already
> prepared briefs but I don't know if any such briefs have been filed
> yet. I used the present tense. My bad.
> BTW, one thing that seems to have been lost in this whole flap is one
> of the prerequisite conditions for any interception of communications
> is that at least one of the parties to that communication must be a
> previously identified terrorist.

Given the lack of any oversight of these wiretaps, I guess we are
simply asked to take their word for it, eh? Because the administration
is so trustworthy? If they are playing by FISA rules as they claim,
then why the need to bypass completely the FISA court, as if it
didn't exist?

Robert

[[email protected]]

The Wogster wrote:

> As long as a protest and/or assembly is peaceful and breaks no laws, the
> local police, really don't care. Heck that video tape has probably been
> taped over already, if no law has been broken, and no members of the
> crowd are wanted for something, local police are unlikely to keep such
> video tape, because they have no reason to keep it.

Hoo boy. In Denver the police have taken videos of peaceful
protests and those in the videos have been identified as
'criminal extremists,' even if they are law-abiding citizens.
In NYC, the ACLU is suing the police to get them to give up
their collection of videos of peaceful protesters doing nothing
but exercising their right to peaceful protest. The NYPD has
no intention of giving up the videos, or taping over them.

This is an interesting issue but a tiny one compared to
the administration's warrantless wiretaps and data-mining
operations.

Robert

[The Wogster]

wrote:
> The Wogster wrote:
>
>
>>As long as a protest and/or assembly is peaceful and breaks no laws, the
>>local police, really don't care. Heck that video tape has probably been
>>taped over already, if no law has been broken, and no members of the
>>crowd are wanted for something, local police are unlikely to keep such
>>video tape, because they have no reason to keep it.
>
>
> Hoo boy. In Denver the police have taken videos of peaceful
> protests and those in the videos have been identified as
> 'criminal extremists,' even if they are law-abiding citizens.
> In NYC, the ACLU is suing the police to get them to give up
> their collection of videos of peaceful protesters doing nothing
> but exercising their right to peaceful protest. The NYPD has
> no intention of giving up the videos, or taping over them.

If someone is a criminal extremist and so deemed by the police, then
what crime were they charged with? Unless someone is arrested and
charged with a crime, then calling them a criminal is blowing smoke.
Sometimes though, the criminal element can infiltrate a group. For
example the automobile or oil companies could hire organized crime, to
infiltrate a bicycle group, just so the police will identify certain
criminal individuals during an event, to discredit the community.

> This is an interesting issue but a tiny one compared to
> the administration's warrantless wiretaps and data-mining
> operations.

The United States must be the only country in the world, where the
government and the people don't trust one another, and it still calls
itself a democracy. It should really call itself a paranocracy, in that
the government is paranoid of the people, and the people are paranoid of
the government.

W

[Sorni]

wrote:
> Bob wrote:

>> I overstated my case. What I *should* have said is that if they are
>> not yet the courts can and will be involved.

> Again, I think you're missing the issue here. The only
> reason this might be reviewed by ANY sort of court is
> because the fact of warrantless wiretaps was leaked
> by someone within the administration.

Oh, really? That would be huge news if true; got proof? I'm betting it was
either /congressional/ (Rocke-related?) or FISA itself. (See below.) Time
will tell.

> They got
> caught. Otherwise, there would continue to be zero
> oversight or checks and balances of these wiretaps
> and data-mining operations.

Reports to the Intelligence Committee every 45 days (on average) don't
count?

> Let's say you're a bank robber who jumps bail,
> then gets caught and dragged before the judge
> again. Are you going to argue that, hey, no
> worries, I'm cooperating with the law, I'm here
> before the judge aren't I? Because that's the
> argument you seem to be making.
>
>> Being lawyers, the FISA judges
>> will I'm sure force the issue into a court that has jurisdiction. I'm
>> equally certain that lawyers on both sides of the issue have already
>> prepared briefs but I don't know if any such briefs have been filed
>> yet. I used the present tense. My bad.
>> BTW, one thing that seems to have been lost in this whole flap is one
>> of the prerequisite conditions for any interception of communications
>> is that at least one of the parties to that communication must be a
>> previously identified terrorist.
>
> Given the lack of any oversight of these wiretaps, I guess we are
> simply asked to take their word for it, eh? Because the administration
> is so trustworthy? If they are playing by FISA rules as they claim,
> then why the need to bypass completely the FISA court, as if it
> didn't exist?

Something's fishy about FISA since Bush took office. They had hardly any
denials (5 in like 18000?) before; then nearly 200 in a few years. And the
judge who resigned is a highly partisan Clinton appointee. Let the (leak)
inquiry begin!

Bill "Hardball ignores Victoria Tensing because Botox Boy doesn't like what
she says" S.

[[email protected]]

Sorni wrote:

> > Again, I think you're missing the issue here. The only
> > reason this might be reviewed by ANY sort of court is
> > because the fact of warrantless wiretaps was leaked
> > by someone within the administration.
>
> Oh, really? That would be huge news if true; got proof? I'm betting it was
> either /congressional/ (Rocke-related?) or FISA itself. (See below.) Time
> will tell.

You could be right about that, but this will not
be huge news compared to the real story,
which is the illegal wiretapping itself.
That's exactly why we have laws to protect govt.
employees who blow the whistle on illegal government
activity. I think we still have those.

Whatever happened with the Justice Dept's
inquiry into who leaked the information about illegal
CIA prisons in Eastern Europe (which, since their
discovery, have been moved to North Africa)? Are
we still fired up about that one? Dang leakers!!

> > They got
> > caught. Otherwise, there would continue to be zero
> > oversight or checks and balances of these wiretaps
> > and data-mining operations.
>
> Reports to the Intelligence Committee every 45 days (on average) don't
> count?

Not if you're prohibited from speaking with anyone about it.

> > Given the lack of any oversight of these wiretaps, I guess we are
> > simply asked to take their word for it, eh? Because the administration
> > is so trustworthy? If they are playing by FISA rules as they claim,
> > then why the need to bypass completely the FISA court, as if it
> > didn't exist?
>
> Something's fishy about FISA since Bush took office. They had hardly any
> denials (5 in like 18000?) before; then nearly 200 in a few years.

Really? Hadn't heard that--citation please. Maybe there were 40 times
as many denials because there were 40 times as many requests
for warrants. No wait. I have the answer for you. I'm sure it was
'activist judges.' When in doubt go with 'activist judges.'

> And the
> judge who resigned is a highly partisan Clinton appointee.

Oh, Clinton! The guy who actually went to court to argue that he
had the same power that Bush unilaterally decided he had.
That was your big argument last week wasn't it--Clinton did this
too.

> Let the (leak)
> inquiry begin!
>
> Bill "Hardball ignores Victoria Tensing because Botox Boy doesn't like what
> she says" S.

Wow. Turn off the TV and read the papers. Wall Street Journal
if you think the Times and Post are controlled by evil liberal
media interests.

Robert

[Tom Keats]

In article om>,
"Bob" > writes:

> This sounds an awfully lot like we *agree*, Tom, at least in part.
> How's that for a scary thought? <g>

Actually it's not scary at all. I often do find myself in
agreement with you, and I enjoy considering your insights
and opinions, even when they diverge with, or oppose my own.
There's nothing like a civil interchange of thought to
attain new realizations or revelations.

Too bad the WTO people and their ilk aren't so open-minded ;-)

>> > Those statements (and actions)
>> > are simple minded throwbacks to the philosophy of the mid-60s radical
>> > Left when everything was viewed through the lens of "The Movement".
>>
>> When I ride my bike partly because it lessens my impact on
>> others' quality of life, I guess /that's/ a political statement
>> on my part. But it's such a gentle and nonprovocative one.
>> OTOH, I guess it undermines the missions & goals of those
>> paranoia-driven corporate multinationalists, so they'd better
>> sic their goons & bully-boys on me.
>
> Would you ride if it made absolutely no difference in anyone else's
> quality of life?

I don't believe that's possible. My (or anybone's) bicycling
innately does affect people's quality of life. For one thing,
bicyclists are consumers -- we have to buy tires, tubes, patch
kits, chains, brake pads, etc. As consumers we have a ripple
effect on ... oh, gawd! Where's J.K. Galbraith when ya need him?

And a lot of that bike stuff comes from sweatshops in distant
lands, maybe with child labour to boot. Even if it's American/
Union Made, there's no telling where the imported ingredients or
raw resources or tooling or machinery came from, or under what
conditions or environmental impacts they were produced -- which
suits the corporate multinational folks just fine.

That's why I say "/lessens/ my impact on others' quality of
life", rather than entirely removes it. Owning & maintaining
a bicycle is not as entirely innocent as some would have it.

So even riding a bicycle has some impact on some people's
quality of life. But at least there's less danger than from
driving a car, of killing or maiming someone. And less
poisoning of the air, less noise pollution, and especially in
urban areas -- less interference with other people's mobility.

> If so, there's no political statement involved. If
> not, why not? I thought you *liked* riding!

Politics is starting to make my brain hurt (again.)


cheers, & it would be nice if Shell did something good for Nigeria,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Sorni]

wrote:
> Sorni wrote:
>
>>> Again, I think you're missing the issue here. The only
>>> reason this might be reviewed by ANY sort of court is
>>> because the fact of warrantless wiretaps was leaked
>>> by someone within the administration.
>>
>> Oh, really? That would be huge news if true; got proof? I'm
>> betting it was either /congressional/ (Rocke-related?) or FISA
>> itself. (See below.) Time will tell.
>
> You could be right about that, but this will not
> be huge news compared to the real story,
> which is the illegal wiretapping itself.

A) It's not illegal if indeed one end of the conversation involved a foreign
(real or good-faith-suspected) intelligence agent or bad guy; and B) AFAIK
not one case of "abuse" has been shown so far.

Can't help notice how quickly and completely you backed off that "someone
within the admin leaked it" claim, BTW. Reckless charges abound, don't
they?

>>> They got
>>> caught. Otherwise, there would continue to be zero
>>> oversight or checks and balances of these wiretaps
>>> and data-mining operations.
>>
>> Reports to the Intelligence Committee every 45 days (on average)
>> don't count?
>
> Not if you're prohibited from speaking with anyone about it.

The members of the Select IC were certainly free to speak up if they were
alarmed/concerned/outraged -- at least within their closed circle -- and no
one expressed any reservations (save one letter supposedly drafted and stuck
in a drawer) according to at least two members I've heard interviewed.

>>> Given the lack of any oversight of these wiretaps, I guess we are
>>> simply asked to take their word for it, eh? Because the
>>> administration is so trustworthy? If they are playing by FISA rules
>>> as they claim, then why the need to bypass completely the FISA
>>> court, as if it didn't exist?
>>
>> Something's fishy about FISA since Bush took office. They had
>> hardly any denials (5 in like 18000?) before; then nearly 200 in a
>> few years.
>
> Really? Hadn't heard that--citation please. Maybe there were 40 times
> as many denials because there were 40 times as many requests
> for warrants. No wait. I have the answer for you. I'm sure it was
> 'activist judges.' When in doubt go with 'activist judges.'
>
>> And the
>> judge who resigned is a highly partisan Clinton appointee.
>
> Oh, Clinton! The guy who actually went to court to argue that he
> had the same power that Bush unilaterally decided he had.
> That was your big argument last week wasn't it--Clinton did this
> too.

Totally separate issue. The point is that this one judge IS a democrat;
why'd he wait till NOW to bitch/grandstand?

>> Let the (leak)
>> inquiry begin!
>>
>> Bill "Hardball ignores Victoria Tensing because Botox Boy doesn't
>> like what she says" S.
>
> Wow. Turn off the TV and read the papers. Wall Street Journal
> if you think the Times and Post are controlled by evil liberal
> media interests.

They don't want to hear what Ms. Tensing has to say, either. (Recall: she
wrote the freaking STATUTE at issue in the Plame non-case, and said there
was no violation. Didn't get reported much.)

(I only referenced Whiffle Ball because it sounds like that's where you're
getting all your talking points :)

I did read THIS editorial:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0512210142dec21,0,3553632.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed

Bill S.

[[email protected]]

The Wogster wrote:

> If someone is a criminal extremist and so deemed by the police, then
> what crime were they charged with? Unless someone is arrested and
> charged with a crime, then calling them a criminal is blowing smoke.

Blowing smoke, in the form of files kept by the police department.

> The United States must be the only country in the world, where the
> government and the people don't trust one another, and it still calls
> itself a democracy.

There are lots of these countries. Putin's Russia and the new Iraq,
to name a few. Even Egypt calls itself a democracy now. The
USA, with all its faults, has a much more vigorous and legitimate
form of democracy than what is practiced in those countries,
but this could erode or be taken away if we don't stand up
for it.

> It should really call itself a paranocracy, in that
> the government is paranoid of the people, and the people are paranoid of
> the government.

Americans are generally very trusting of their government.
It would be more accurate to call it a BlindTrustocracy.

Robert

[[email protected]]

Sorni wrote:

> A) It's not illegal if indeed one end of the conversation involved a foreign
> (real or good-faith-suspected) intelligence agent or bad guy; and

You are talking about FISA. The administration felt the need to
bypass that law.

"Bush administration officials believe it is not possible, in
a large-scale eavesdropping effort, to provide the kind of
evidence the court requires to approve a warrant. Sources
knowledgeable about the program said there is no way
to secure a FISA warrant when the goal is to listen in
on a vast array of communications in the hopes of
finding something that sounds suspicious. Attorney
General Alberto R. Gonzales said the White House
had tried but failed to find a way."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/21/AR2005122102326_2.html

If you think it is ok to 'listen in on a vast array of
communications in the hopes of finding something
that sounds suspicious,' then where will you
draw the line? Some guys are going to come by
and look through your house while you're gone.
That's ok, too, right? You don't have anything to
hide do you? War on Terror, all that.

> B) AFAIK
> not one case of "abuse" has been shown so far.

Who is going to report the abuse when there is no
oversight of the program?
Now that it has been disclosed every lawyer for every
terrorism suspect is demanding to know if these warrantless
wiretaps were used to obtain evidence or used to obtain
warrants for further surveillance. Every one of those cases
will be in jeopardy.

> Can't help notice how quickly and completely you backed off that "someone
> within the admin leaked it" claim, BTW. Reckless charges abound, don't > they?

What 'reckless charges?' As if blowing the whistle on
illegal un-American activity were a bad thing. We should
track that person down and give em a medal.

Anyway, the NYT cites 'officials' and 'former Bush
administration officials' as source for most of this, as
in this current article:

"... Initially, it was focused on communications into and
out of Afghanistan, including international calls between
Afghanistan and the United States. But the program
quickly expanded.

Several senior government officials say that when the
special operation first began, there were few controls
on it. Some N.S.A. officials wanted nothing to do with
it, apparently fearful of participating in an illegal operation,
according to a former senior Bush administration official."

www.nytimes.com/2006/01/01/politics/01spy.html?hp&ex=1136091600&en=51dcd73cfc5cb1a6&ei=5094&partner=homepage

> The members of the Select IC were certainly free to speak up if they were
> alarmed/concerned/outraged -- at least within their closed circle

Wrong.

> -- and no
> one expressed any reservations (save one letter supposedly drafted and stuck
> in a drawer) according to at least two members I've heard interviewed.

Ridiculous. They spoke out as soon as they were
freed to do so by the leak.

> Totally separate issue. The point is that this one judge IS a democrat;
> why'd he wait till NOW to bitch/grandstand?

Whoa. He 'waited till NOW' because he found out
about it now.

"As it launched the dramatic change in domestic
surveillance policy, the administration chose to
secretly brief only the presiding FISA court judges
about it. Officials first advised U.S. District Judge
Royce C. Lamberth, the head of FISA in the fall of
2001, and then Kollar-Kotelly, who replaced him in
that position in May 2002. U.S. District Judge George
Kazen of the Southern District of Texas said in an
interview yesterday that his information about the
program has been largely limited to press accounts
over the past several days."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/21/AR2005122102326_2.html

> I did read THIS editorial:
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0512210142dec21,0,3553632.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed

And you buy those arguments?

R

[Sorni]

wrote:
> Sorni wrote:
>
>> A) It's not illegal if indeed one end of the conversation involved a
>> foreign (real or good-faith-suspected) intelligence agent or bad
>> guy; and
>
> You are talking about FISA. The administration felt the need to
> bypass that law.

Just like every single administration since its inception.

> "Bush administration officials believe it is not possible, in
> a large-scale eavesdropping effort, to provide the kind of
> evidence the court requires to approve a warrant. Sources
> knowledgeable about the program said there is no way
> to secure a FISA warrant when the goal is to listen in
> on a vast array of communications in the hopes of
> finding something that sounds suspicious. Attorney
> General Alberto R. Gonzales said the White House
> had tried but failed to find a way."
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/21/AR2005122102326_2.html
>
> If you think it is ok to 'listen in on a vast array of
> communications in the hopes of finding something
> that sounds suspicious,' then where will you
> draw the line? Some guys are going to come by
> and look through your house while you're gone.
> That's ok, too, right? You don't have anything to
> hide do you? War on Terror, all that.

If I call or am called by an AQ member, then I deserve to be scrutinized.

>> B) AFAIK
>> not one case of "abuse" has been shown so far.
>
> Who is going to report the abuse when there is no
> oversight of the program?

Even more reason to report something...if it existed. (Hint: If by
accident they heard about your cock-fighting club, they'd chalk it up to a
disgusting pasttime and get on with their business.)

> Now that it has been disclosed every lawyer for every
> terrorism suspect is demanding to know if these warrantless
> wiretaps were used to obtain evidence or used to obtain
> warrants for further surveillance. Every one of those cases
> will be in jeopardy.
>
>> Can't help notice how quickly and completely you backed off that
>> "someone within the admin leaked it" claim, BTW. Reckless charges
>> abound, don't > they?
>
> What 'reckless charges?' As if blowing the whistle on
> illegal un-American activity were a bad thing. We should
> track that person down and give em a medal.

MORE reckless charges! Nice!

> Anyway, the NYT cites 'officials' and 'former Bush
> administration officials' as source for most of this, as
> in this current article:
>
> "... Initially, it was focused on communications into and
> out of Afghanistan, including international calls between
> Afghanistan and the United States. But the program
> quickly expanded.
>
> Several senior government officials say that when the
> special operation first began, there were few controls
> on it. Some N.S.A. officials wanted nothing to do with
> it, apparently fearful of participating in an illegal operation,
> according to a former senior Bush administration official."
>
> www.nytimes.com/2006/01/01/politics/01spy.html?hp&ex=1136091600&en=51dcd73cfc5cb1a6&ei=5094&partner=homepage
>
>> The members of the Select IC were certainly free to speak up if they
>> were alarmed/concerned/outraged -- at least within their closed
>> circle
>
> Wrong.

Not wrong. I heard interviews of at least two members who said no on raised
so much as an eyebrow when told (repeatedly) of this, and their JOB was to
oversee and discuss super-secret issues.

>> -- and no
>> one expressed any reservations (save one letter supposedly drafted
>> and stuck in a drawer) according to at least two members I've heard
>> interviewed.
>
> Ridiculous. They spoke out as soon as they were
> freed to do so by the leak.

Wrong. They could have told the administration if they had misgivings or
doubts. There were at least 15 briefings (closer to 20 I think; not sure).

>> Totally separate issue. The point is that this one judge IS a
>> democrat;
>> why'd he wait till NOW to bitch/grandstand?
>
> Whoa. He 'waited till NOW' because he found out
> about it now.

I'm skeptical about that. We'll see.

> "As it launched the dramatic change in domestic
> surveillance policy, the administration chose to
> secretly brief only the presiding FISA court judges
> about it. Officials first advised U.S. District Judge
> Royce C. Lamberth, the head of FISA in the fall of
> 2001, and then Kollar-Kotelly, who replaced him in
> that position in May 2002. U.S. District Judge George
> Kazen of the Southern District of Texas said in an
> interview yesterday that his information about the
> program has been largely limited to press accounts
> over the past several days."
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/21/AR2005122102326_2.html
>
>> I did read THIS editorial:
>> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0512210142dec21,0,3553632.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed
>
> And you buy those arguments?

Let's see, the author, John Schmidt, "served under President Clinton from
1994 to 1997 as the associate attorney general of the United States." I buy
HIS arguments a helluva lot more than YOURS.

Good night now; happy new year...

BS (nah, really)

[Bob]

wrote:
> Sorni wrote:
>
> > > Again, I think you're missing the issue here. The only
> > > reason this might be reviewed by ANY sort of court is
> > > because the fact of warrantless wiretaps was leaked
> > > by someone within the administration.
> >
> > Oh, really? That would be huge news if true; got proof? I'm betting it was
> > either /congressional/ (Rocke-related?) or FISA itself. (See below.) Time
> > will tell.
>
> You could be right about that, but this will not
> be huge news compared to the real story,
> which is the illegal wiretapping itself.

Robert-
You keep referring to "illegal" wiretaps as if the illegality of the
wiretaps has already been established. That is simply not accurate.
Let's be clear on what we are discussing here. The current debate is
about whether or not the Executive has the authority to intercept
*international* electronic communications. This President says that
when one or more of the parties to those communications has been
previously identified as a member of a group inimical to US national
security he has that authority, calling it espionage. Many disagree
with him, saying that since those communications are either originated
by, routed through, or intended for persons in the US then any
intercepts must receive prior approval from a court in the form of a
search warrant.
The issue is not as black and white as you make it appear. Consider
this- if you replaced the phrase, "as a member of a group inimical to
US national security", in the above sentence with the phrase, "as an
agent of a foreign government inimical to US national security", I
doubt we'd even be having this conversation. That would clearly be
espionage. Maybe the information gathered in such a warrantless
intercept would not be admissible in a US court against a US citizen
but it could certainly be used to formulate strategies to protect the
US from attack by those that would do us harm.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Bob]

Tom Keats wrote:
> In article om>,
> "Bob" > writes:
>
> > This sounds an awfully lot like we *agree*, Tom, at least in part.
> > How's that for a scary thought? <g>
>
> Actually it's not scary at all. I often do find myself in
> agreement with you, and I enjoy considering your insights
> and opinions, even when they diverge with, or oppose my own.
> There's nothing like a civil interchange of thought to
> attain new realizations or revelations.
>
> Too bad the WTO people and their ilk aren't so open-minded ;-)

Would that everyone were as open-minded as us. ;-)

Regards,
Bob

[Sorni]

Bob wrote:
> wrote:
>> Sorni wrote:
>>
>>>> Again, I think you're missing the issue here. The only
>>>> reason this might be reviewed by ANY sort of court is
>>>> because the fact of warrantless wiretaps was leaked
>>>> by someone within the administration.
>>>
>>> Oh, really? That would be huge news if true; got proof? I'm
>>> betting it was either /congressional/ (Rocke-related?) or FISA
>>> itself. (See below.) Time will tell.
>>
>> You could be right about that, but this will not
>> be huge news compared to the real story,
>> which is the illegal wiretapping itself.
>
> Robert-
> You keep referring to "illegal" wiretaps as if the illegality of the
> wiretaps has already been established. That is simply not accurate.
> Let's be clear on what we are discussing here. The current debate is
> about whether or not the Executive has the authority to intercept
> *international* electronic communications. This President says that
> when one or more of the parties to those communications has been
> previously identified as a member of a group inimical to US national
> security he has that authority, calling it espionage. Many disagree
> with him, saying that since those communications are either originated
> by, routed through, or intended for persons in the US then any
> intercepts must receive prior approval from a court in the form of a
> search warrant.
> The issue is not as black and white as you make it appear. Consider
> this- if you replaced the phrase, "as a member of a group inimical to
> US national security", in the above sentence with the phrase, "as an
> agent of a foreign government inimical to US national security", I
> doubt we'd even be having this conversation. That would clearly be
> espionage. Maybe the information gathered in such a warrantless
> intercept would not be admissible in a US court against a US citizen
> but it could certainly be used to formulate strategies to protect the
> US from attack by those that would do us harm.

I liked my "Robert, your mother wears Army boots" approach, but that's
another way to go.

:-D

BS

[[email protected]]

As I see the 'debate' here is still plodding along, I thought some
might like to read the following...

Shock, awe and Hobbes have backfired on America's neocons

Guardian
28 December 2005

....darker dreams surfaced in America's military universities. The
theorists of the "revolution in military affairs" predicted that
technology would lead to easy and perpetual US dominance of the world.

....Shock and Awe: Achieving Rapid Dominance - a key strategic document
published in 1996 - aimed to understand how to destroy the "will to
resist before, during and after battle". For Harlan Ullman of the
National Defence University, its main author, the perfect example was
the atom bomb at Hiroshima. But with or without such a weapon, one
could create an illusion of unending strength and ruthlessness. Or one
could deprive an enemy of the ability to communicate, observe and
interact - a macro version of the sensory deprivation used on
individuals - so as to create a "feeling of impotence". And one must
always inflict brutal reprisals against those who resist. An
alternative was the "decay and default" model, whereby a nation's will
to resist collapsed through the "imposition of social breakdown".

All of this came to be applied in Iraq in 2003... It has been usual to
explain the chaos and looting in Baghdad, the destruction of
infrastructure, ministries, museums and the national library and
archives, as caused by a failure of Rumsfeld's planning. But the
evidence is this was at least in part a mask for the destruction of the
collective memory and modern state of a key Arab nation, and the
manufacture of disorder to create a hunger for the occupier's
supervision...American imperial strategists invested deeply in the
belief that through spreading terror they could take power...

The problem for the US today is that Leviathan has shot his
wad...People can't be terrorised into identification with America. The
US has proved able to destroy massively - but not create, or even
control. Afghanistan and Iraq lie in ruins, yet the occupiers cower
behind concrete mountains.

The spin machine is on full tilt to represent Iraq as a success.
Peters, in New Glory: Expanding America's Supremacy, asserts: "Our
country is a force for good without precedent"; and Barnett, in
Blueprint, says: "The US military is a force for global good that ...
has no equal." Both offer ambitious plans for how the US is going to
remake the third world in its image. There is a violent hysteria to the
boasts. The narcissism of a decade earlier has given way to an
extrovert rage at those who have resisted America's will since 2001.
Both urge utter ruthlessness in crushing resistance. In November 2004,
Peters told Fox News that in Falluja "the best outcome, frankly, is if
they're all killed".

But he directs his real fury at France and Germany: "A haggard Circe,
Europe dulled our senses and fooled us into believing in her
attractions. But the dugs are dry in Germany and France. They deluded
us into prolonging the affair long after our attentions should have
turned to ... India, South Africa, Brazil."

....only America can cure its post 9/11 mixture of paranoia and
megalomania...The US needs to discover, like a child that does not know
its limits, that there is a world outside its body and desires, beyond
even the reach of its toys, that suffers too.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1674184,00.html

[[email protected]]

Also interesting is a US made propaganda film from 1946 entitled
'Despotism'. This

'Illustrates the thesis that all communities can be ranged on a scale
running from democracy to despotism. The two chief characteristics of
despotism -- restricted respect and concentrated power -- are defined
and illustrated. Two of the conditions which have historically promoted
the growth of despotism are explained and exemplified. These are a
slanted economic distribution and a strict control of the agencies of
communication.'

Going by the standards of the USA itself in the 1940' it does seem that
America today can be though of as being controlled by Despotism...

http://www.archive.org/details/Despotis1946

[Mike Kruger]

"Sorni" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>
> Something's fishy about FISA since Bush took office. They had hardly any
> denials (5 in like 18000?) before; then nearly 200 in a few years. And
> the judge who resigned is a highly partisan Clinton appointee. Let the
> (leak) inquiry begin!
>
I agree something's fishy, but suspect its something else. I suspect Bush
decided to do certain things outside this court's review because they were
significant expansions of power beyond the existing law which FISA might not
approve. So, he contends they don't have jurisdiction and avoids raising the
issue.

Time will tell which (or both!) of our theories is correct.

Here's an interesting question: if the privacy violations were indeed
illegal, would it be illegal to leak word of their existence (both legally,
and practically)? If they are indeed illegal, might we be in whistleblower
territory?

So much off-topic stuff of interest.

[[email protected]]

Bob wrote:

> Robert-
> You keep referring to "illegal" wiretaps as if the illegality of the
> wiretaps has already been established. That is simply not accurate.
> Let's be clear on what we are discussing here. The current debate is
> about whether or not the Executive has the authority to intercept
> *international* electronic communications. This President says that
> when one or more of the parties to those communications has been
> previously identified as a member of a group inimical to US national
> security he has that authority, calling it espionage. Many disagree
> with him, saying that since those communications are either originated
> by, routed through, or intended for persons in the US then any
> intercepts must receive prior approval from a court in the form of a
> search warrant.

May I humbly suggest that what the President says, and
what is actually the case may be two very different things.
Some may notice that the story has changed quite a bit
since 2003, when the Pres. assured us that all wiretaps
still require warrants, more than a year after he ok'd warrantless
wiretaps. His new contention that it is a limited program
targeting only known al Qaeda members does not match
what has been leaked to the Post and Times.

"Bush administration officials believe it is not possible, in
a large-scale eavesdropping effort, to provide the kind of
evidence the court requires to approve a warrant. Sources
knowledgeable about the program said there is no way
to secure a FISA warrant when the goal is to listen in
on a vast array of communications in the hopes of
finding something that sounds suspicious. Attorney
General Alberto R. Gonzales said the White House
had tried but failed to find a way."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/21/AR2005122102326.html

It seems the govt. was engaged in the type of eavesdropping
for which no warrants could be forthcoming. This contradicts
the claim that excessive bureaucratic hurdles were the reason
for bypassing the FISA court. So if the govt. knows it can't get
a warrant but does it anyway, what would you call that?
Seems pretty clear-cut to me.

I'm genuinely surprised at you Bob. You are always
such a rock when it comes to the law. Here you seem
willing to play fast and loose with it like some crazy-eyed
lawyer in the White House.

It comes down to this--the 'legal' leg that the administration
will have to stand on is its contention that Congress authorized
the President to do pretty much whatever the fark he wants to
do to prosecute the un-ending, un-endable War on Terror.
Do you trust the executive branch to make up its own laws
and act as check and balance against itself? That's not a
society I want to live in. If I wanted to live in a place like
that, I'd move to Turkmenistan.

> The issue is not as black and white as you make it appear. Consider
> this- if you replaced the phrase, "as a member of a group inimical to
> US national security", in the above sentence with the phrase, "as an
> agent of a foreign government inimical to US national security", I
> doubt we'd even be having this conversation. That would clearly be
> espionage. Maybe the information gathered in such a warrantless
> intercept would not be admissible in a US court against a US citizen
> but it could certainly be used to formulate strategies to protect the
> US from attack by those that would do us harm.

It could also be used against political/ideological opponents for
reasons having nothing to do with national security. Who's to say
it hasn't already? Just trust 'em, right? Because they have
earned such a high level of credibility.

Nobody contests the right of the NSA to spy
on al Qaeda, warrant or no warrant. The point is you need
some sort of effective checks and balances when
granting that power.

Robert

[Bob]

wrote:
> Bob wrote:
>
> > Robert-
> > You keep referring to "illegal" wiretaps as if the illegality of the
> > wiretaps has already been established. That is simply not accurate.
> > Let's be clear on what we are discussing here. The current debate is
> > about whether or not the Executive has the authority to intercept
> > *international* electronic communications. This President says that
> > when one or more of the parties to those communications has been
> > previously identified as a member of a group inimical to US national
> > security he has that authority, calling it espionage. Many disagree
> > with him, saying that since those communications are either originated
> > by, routed through, or intended for persons in the US then any
> > intercepts must receive prior approval from a court in the form of a
> > search warrant.
>
> May I humbly suggest that what the President says, and
> what is actually the case may be two very different things.
> Some may notice that the story has changed quite a bit
> since 2003, when the Pres. assured us that all wiretaps
> still require warrants, more than a year after he ok'd warrantless
> wiretaps. His new contention that it is a limited program
> targeting only known al Qaeda members does not match
> what has been leaked to the Post and Times.
>
> "Bush administration officials believe it is not possible, in
> a large-scale eavesdropping effort, to provide the kind of
> evidence the court requires to approve a warrant. Sources
> knowledgeable about the program said there is no way
> to secure a FISA warrant when the goal is to listen in
> on a vast array of communications in the hopes of
> finding something that sounds suspicious. Attorney
> General Alberto R. Gonzales said the White House
> had tried but failed to find a way."
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/21/AR2005122102326.html
>
> It seems the govt. was engaged in the type of eavesdropping
> for which no warrants could be forthcoming. This contradicts
> the claim that excessive bureaucratic hurdles were the reason
> for bypassing the FISA court. So if the govt. knows it can't get
> a warrant but does it anyway, what would you call that?
> Seems pretty clear-cut to me.

Things are seldom clearcut when the law confronts new technology which
is what has happened here.

> I'm genuinely surprised at you Bob. You are always
> such a rock when it comes to the law. Here you seem
> willing to play fast and loose with it like some crazy-eyed
> lawyer in the White House.

I'm surprised that you are surprised since my point is that there is a
genuine disagreement among legal scholars on whether the intercepts are
legal or illegal. I wouldn't describe my acknowledgment that the law is
as yet unsettled as playing fast and loose.

> It comes down to this--the 'legal' leg that the administration
> will have to stand on is its contention that Congress authorized
> the President to do pretty much whatever the fark he wants to
> do to prosecute the un-ending, un-endable War on Terror.
> Do you trust the executive branch to make up its own laws
> and act as check and balance against itself? That's not a
> society I want to live in. If I wanted to live in a place like
> that, I'd move to Turkmenistan.

Before you move to Turkmenistan or wherever consider that the debate is
still going on and that both sides have *more* than one argument to
make. *One* of the Administration's legal arguments might be that the
intercepts are a reasonable and predictable use of the power Congress
authorized under the Patriot Act. Another argument could be made that
since the intercepts are international in nature and target individuals
and groups believed to pose a threat to US security they are simply an
extension of the long-recognized power of the Executive to conduct
espionage.

> > The issue is not as black and white as you make it appear. Consider
> > this- if you replaced the phrase, "as a member of a group inimical to
> > US national security", in the above sentence with the phrase, "as an
> > agent of a foreign government inimical to US national security", I
> > doubt we'd even be having this conversation. That would clearly be
> > espionage. Maybe the information gathered in such a warrantless
> > intercept would not be admissible in a US court against a US citizen
> > but it could certainly be used to formulate strategies to protect the
> > US from attack by those that would do us harm.
>
> It could also be used against political/ideological opponents for
> reasons having nothing to do with national security. Who's to say
> it hasn't already? Just trust 'em, right? Because they have
> earned such a high level of credibility.

Of course there is a possibility that power could be misused. That's
true of any power held by anyone. For instance, the power of judges to
issue search warrants can also be misused but we don't refuse them that
power. Instead, we set up rules for them to follow and then monitor
their adherence to those rules. That's what should happen here IMO.
What we should *not* do is refuse or grant powers to a President (or
any government office) based on our opinion of the person holding that
office because once granted, powers tend to remain with the office. The
person in that office today will be replaced sometime in the future and
who can say their replacement won't exercise those powers differently?


> Nobody contests the right of the NSA to spy
> on al Qaeda, warrant or no warrant.

If that were true we wouldn't be having this discussion.

>The point is you need
> some sort of effective checks and balances when
> granting that power.

Agreed.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[[email protected]]

Bob wrote in part:

> Things are seldom clearcut when the law confronts new technology which
> is what has happened here.

Fine. Then why not take their case to the court which
already exists to decide just these sorts of issues? Why
not go to congress? Why not stick something in the
Patriot Act. The administration is not empowered to make
up its own laws or ignore existing law as it sees fit.
Although, I suppose they will have to argue that they
are.

> I'm surprised that you are surprised since my point is that there is a
> genuine disagreement among legal scholars on whether the intercepts are
> legal or illegal. I wouldn't describe my acknowledgment that the law is
> as yet unsettled as playing fast and loose.

I think you are missing the point. There is disagreement on
whether the intercepts, as they are described in official statements,
are legal or illegal--the administration is not allowed to decide
unilaterally one way or the other, nor are they allowed to keep
the program secret from the other branches, make claims
about its nature and say 'trust us.'
There is nothing unsettled about that. Whether the judicial
branch might rule in favor of the wiretaps is immaterial, because
it did not get a chance to consider them for four years. Most
of the FISA judges heard about the program for the first
time in the NYT.

R

[Neil Brooks]

wrote:

>Bob wrote in part:
>
>> Things are seldom clearcut when the law confronts new technology which
>> is what has happened here.
>
>Fine. Then why not take their case to the court which
>already exists to decide just these sorts of issues? Why
>not go to congress? Why not stick something in the
>Patriot Act. The administration is not empowered to make
>up its own laws or ignore existing law as it sees fit.
>Although, I suppose they will have to argue that they
>are.

r15757,

I don't know where you're going with this, but it's this simple: The
FISA court--which allows you to shoot first and ask questions (up to
72hrs) later was too slow and cumbersome and needed to be circumvented
in the interests of ... of ... of ....

Look, the current administration has already assured you that the only
time they circumvented the process was to wiretap *known* Al Qaeda
agents talking with people in the United States--a
domestic-to-international scenario (all that talk about partnering
with the phone companies to dump and mine massive amounts of data that
may or may not have been domestic-to-domestic aside).

Are you telling me that their word isn't good enough for you? What do
you think FISA's court would have done, anyway? Make them prove out
their case for 'probable cause,' and then--if all went well--allow the
tap?

You know they weren't going to do that. In fact, I can cite you
*five* examples where they *denied* the right to wiretap (maybe after
the wiretapping was done. Maybe) [1]

For shame. You must be French, mais non?

[/sarcasm]

[1] ok, it was out of about 20,000 requests, but ... still ... five is
a *lot*

[snip]
--
Live simply so that others may simply live