[Winstonm]

Al_U_Card, on Jan 5 2007, 09:39 AM, said:

There is always the hope that the "Mother Ship" will come for us.....

It already came - it was in the tail of that comet a few years back and I heard people were just dying to get on board.

[Winstonm]

keylime, on Jan 5 2007, 10:17 AM, said:

Frankly, the NYT deserves strong sanctions for their reporting over the last year - it's been borderline traitorous.

Could you please elaborate on this? How can a newspaper, which happens to have a constitutional right to be free of government intervention, be traitorous?

Was reporting the Watergate break-in traitorous?
Was publishing Daniel Ellsberg's leak that proved the Gulf of Tonkin a lie traitorous?
How can an Op/Ed (Opinon/Editorial) piece - which was the issue with the NYT - ever be considered traitorous - is it just because it differs with "official" opinion?

Dwayne, I like you but occassionally you say things that just knock me to the floor, and this is one of those times.

The founders of this country understood all too well that allowing one opinion to rule the country, whether that opinion was from a single person or from a group, was the road to ruin - to dictatorial powers. The framework of the constitution was deliberately designed to have a rather ineffective government - there is no doubt dictatorial governments are more effecient - and also to have government oversight via a free and unfettered press.

What is truly traitorous is any assault on the concept of free speech or a free press, because what you in essence are assaulting is freedon of thought.

[mike777]

Freedom of speech is not unlimited, freedom of the press is not unlimited in the USA.

Of course fighting for what those limits are or are not defines us a nation.


I just wish we would assemble in protest against the limits, the other choice is to allow a few unelected judges to decide and have nothing ever settled.


The fact that parts, many parts of Mcain Feingold were found constitutional....I still find frightening but perhaps that is another subject for another time.

I do find the argument that civil rights must be decided by a few unelected judges and not the electorate to be interesting as where the dividing line/debate on what is or not is the best definition of a "civil right" is interesting.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Jan 5 2007, 08:00 PM, said:

Freedom  of speech is not unlimited, freedom of the press is not unlimited in the USA.

Of course fighting for what those limits are or are not defines us a nation. 


I just wish we would assemble in protest against the limits, the other choice is to allow a few unelected judges to decide and have nothing ever settled.


The fact that parts, many parts of Mcain Feingold were found constitutional....I still find frightening but perhaps that is another subject for another time.

I do find the argument that civil rights must be decided by a few unelected judges and not the electorate to be interesting as where the dividing line/debate on what is or not is the best definition of a "civil right" is interesting.

Good views and intelligent commentary, Mike. I happen to believe that the current administration (not just Bush) is behaving in the manner of which the founding fathers of the republic so feared - an attempt to consolidate power into a single branch of government.

This attempt was allowed by the same-party Congress and then for the most part legalized by a right-appointed judiciary.

As for me, I would prefer going too far in allowing freedom of the press rather than in allowing too little. Someone much wiser than me once said:

"Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press, nor that be limited without danger of losing it." --Thomas Jefferson

"The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure." --Thomas Jefferson

A final comment: I have heard and read from many that the U.S. Constitution is outdated, that those were different times and the fear of government was fresh, but now we are too wise to allow the same things to happen....

I am reminded of what Jesse Livermore, considered by many the greatest stock trader ever, said in his later years: "I am convinced that nothing ever changes in the market, because the market is made up of people and people do not change."

The U.S. Constitution was written to guard against human nature, and human nature does not change.

[mike777]

Forever they have done polls on parts of the Constitution, Bill of Rights and how many are in favor of small parts of it.

This polls rarely get more than a third in favor of these subversive ideas.

Suprised to not hear more from you on McCain/Feingold, talk about abetting free speech or not being allowed to petition the government. Yet the U.S. Supreme Court allowed large parts of this to go forward. Shame on them.

Livermore's book is of course a classic.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Jan 5 2007, 09:51 PM, said:

Forever they have done polls on parts of the Constitution, Bill of Rights and how many are in favor of small parts of it.

This polls rarely get more than a third in favor of these subversive ideas.

Suprised to not hear more from you on McCain/Feingold, talk about abetting free speech or not being allowed to petition the government. Yet the U.S. Supreme Court allowed large parts of this to go forward. Shame on them.

Livermore's book is of course a classic.

Mike, I believe you are talking about McCain/Feingold campaign finance?

I don't find that as much an issue at present as these, which I think epitamize the constitutional warping of the current administration:

The Patriot Act - allows what was once illegal search and seizures.
The John Warner Defense Act - abolishes posse commitatus
The Military Commission Act - abolishes habeus corpus.

Campaign finance has to take a back seat right now - in my views.

[mike777]

ok

I will go out on that lonely limb of contraversy ....
to further discussion and suggest that McCain Feingold is a greater threat to freedom of speech and the right to petition the government than the other three combined

I say this knowing full well that that at least 5 men and/or women of the US Supreme Court who are a heck of alot smarter than me disagree.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Jan 5 2007, 11:18 PM, said:

ok 

I will go out on that lonely limb of contraversy ....
to further discussion and suggest that McCain Feingold is a greater threat to  freedom of speech and the right to petition the government than the other three combined

I say this knowing full well that that at least 5 men and/or women of the US Supreme Court who are a heck of alot smarter than me disagree. 

OK, you have my attention. Would you elaborate on your reasons? Thanks.

[mike777]

"First this: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.""


Well for starters, took your quote of some subversive law that seem to focus your posting on free speech and the right to petition the government. Those 3 laws you quote may affect other "rights" but I really do believe less so speech and petitions.

[keylime]

Mike,

You're dead right. McCain-Feingold is much more dangerous than the others because of the implicit mechanism to funnel both money and power in the Swiss cheese of the language.

[Winstonm]

O.K., guys, I am either: 1) incredibly dim-witted (a distinct possibility) or 2) utterly baffled (or both).

What provisions of M/F is the fear? Is it due to the increased influence of PACs?

Or is it the "no soft money" provisions?

In my opinion, M/F doesn't really alter anything that I can see - politicians have for decades now been in the pockets of those who financed their elections, and whether that is "soft" money from unions or "hard" money from a PAC, the ones who dolled out the loot are going to get the spoils.

If I am wrong, enlighten me, please.

[mike777]

Granted this is a huge issue with many side issues. Let's try and focus on just a few for starters.

1) I think most if not all would agree this law affects the political process in a very broad sense of the word. Political parties, positions, ads and candidates for starters are limited.
2) I think most would agree this limits that process again in a broad sense of the phrase.
3) The US Supreme Court I think ruled it limits it in a const. legal sense in a very close and divise vote.
4) This law affects how and what I can say during an election and how and what I can do after the election if I disagree with my local rep.
5) Those who voted for the new law(majority) say this is a good thing compared to the old way/laws.

[Winstonm]

O.K., Obviously I need to look closer - perhaps you might do the same with the John Warner Defense Act?

[inquiry]

I tend to stay out of the water cooler... but I thought a relook at this 2002 article in light of recent events would be, well, either entertaining or depressing...

Bill of rights reduced to six

One of my favorite quotes was:

"The Bill of Rights was written more than 200 years ago, long before anyone could even fathom the existence of wiretapping technology or surveillance cameras," Ashcroft said. "Yet through a bizarre fluke, it was still somehow worded in such a way as to restrict use of these devices. Clearly, it had to go before it could do more serious damage in the future."

Have a read.

[Winstonm]

Ben, that is absolutely perfect - brilliantly written showing a deep understanding by the writer of the situation.

[luke warm]

the BoR was and is genius, and i'm very worried about the way things are headed... of course we the people will be unable to do much about it, being effectively disarmed as we are... we cannot protect ourselves from what the founders considered to be the greatest evil of all - government