That being said, I doubt if I ever phrased it quite as well as Bryan of the Dad's on a Rant blog, did in a post today:
My problem is the false sense of security the current state and federal governments give people by making them jump through hoops when it is completely unnecessary.
9 comments:
A. Driving is a privilege not a right.
B. So, the story today is that the government is giving us a “false sense of security”? In the past the story has been that they are using insecurity and fear to turn us into a police state. Which is it?
A. I never said that driving was a right and even went to the extent of adding an update to make that point clear.
B. That's another problem all together. They like to use the fear of insecurity when it is advantageous. Then they throw in the , "Its for your security," when they want to put more restrictions on US citizens. Both can happen and not be mutually exclusive.
Ah, I see you’re a transcendentalist and thus accept the credo that “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.” Ergo, the government can, in your view, make us feel both secure and insecure at the same time and the paradox of such a view demonstrates its insightfulness.
As to the right to drive, I was directing that to Randy, whose headline proclaims this as yet another example of “losing our freedom.” Perhaps, a second hobgoblin of little minds is an excessive fear of hyperbole.
Frankly, I doubt there has ever been a more laid back war in American history then the “War on Terrorism.” The sacrifices asked of this generation certainly don’t even come close to those suffered during the Civil War, World War I or World War II. That we can feel justified in crying about having to “prove we are American citizens” to get an American drivers license is just plain silly.
Although people gave up physical, material things (money, homes, etc.) during the Civil War, WWI and WWII, they managed to retain the principles that founded this country. That's the real difference.
Republicans don't mind losing rights and principles as long as they can hang on to one more dollar.
Well, you certainly have a Democratic grasp of history. In the Civil War Lincoln suspended the right of habeas corpus, in World War I Wilson signed the Sedition Act of 1918 and in World War II Roosevelt had American citizens rounded up and imprisoned in interment camps. To my knowledge, none of those REAL violations of the Constitution has happened in this war yet. On the other hand, we do have to prove we are citizens to get a license, OH HOW OUR LIBERTIES ARE BEING TRAMPLED, SOB!
Bush has gone well beyond anything Lincoln and Wilson did. Also Lincoln and Wilson didn't actively make plans for a war that would last 60, 70, 80 years or more and put generations in debt.
Your mental gymnastics in the endeavor to diminsh and justify what Bush has done continue to awe.
Do you even know what the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918 were? Try going to this site http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/debs-speech.htm and reading the SPEECH that earned Eugene V. Debs 10 years in prison. Now you tell me, who has gone to prison under the Bush administration for making a SPEECH against the war?
As for Lincoln, again I have to question if you even know what the suspension of habeas corpus meant. Habeas corpus is a legal mechanism that allows an individual held in custody to challenge the propriety of that custody. Lincoln, on his own, authorized the suspension of this RIGHT during the Civil War. This action was challenged in court and overturned by the U.S. Circuit Court in Maryland in Ex Parte Merryman, 17 F. Cas. 144 (C.C.D. Md. 1861).
Now, juxipose Lincoln reaction to a Court order stating he didn’t have the right to suspend habeas corpus with Bush’s, who was faced with the same ruling in In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) (i.e., that United States citizens have a right to seek writs of habeas corpus even when declared enemy combatants). Bush obeyed the ruling and changed his policy, Lincoln ignored the ruling and kept on doing it stating "Are all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?" Again, you tell me, when has any Court issued a ruling that the Bush administration has, not appealed, but flat out refused to follow?
You know, you might try making an argument based on facts rather then unfounded generalizations and name calling. Wether you agree with the War on Terrorism or not it is just plain inaccurate to say, as in your first post, that there were NO restorations placed on the rights of American citizens during the Civil War and two World Wars and then, when refuted, try to say that there were but they weren’t as bad as what we have today.
P.S. Your first post said all Republican care about is “hang[ing] on to one more dollar” but then in your second post you assert that this war is putting us into debt that will last for generations. If all we Republican’s care about is hanging onto our money wouldn’t we want to avoid debt and thus avoid or immediately end this war? Oh, I’m sorry there goes my foolish consistency again.
I wasn't going to say it but since you brought it up as an issue, I've come to the unhappy conclusion that republicans are either hard of hearing or stupid.
Bush came right out and told you he was going to war for, at the least, the rest of your life and that the policies that he was going to put in place would also last the rest of your life. Think about that for a minute.
For the rest of your life getting your license will now take, if you're female, your birth certificate, your marriage certificate, death or divorce certificates and all subsequent marriage, death and/or divorce certificates to prove you are who you say you are. If you're male, you're probably thinking "hey, no prob... I didn't have to change my name so all I need is my birth certificate and maybe a utility bill as proof of my location" so let's move on to other policies that have more potential to affect you.
Wiretapping, spying on email and snailmail for the rest of your lifetime. Example: Do you have any contact, direct or indirect, with foreign students? Do you have any proof that they aren't actually making plans to attack and what proof could you produce that you ween't part of the plan? Or how about the item you bought on ebay last month? Do you know anything about the person you bought it from? And what have you said in some of the more "boisterous" blogs or online chat rooms. Still think you're somehow immune to suspicion? You aren't.
And again unlike Bush, Lincoln and Wilson never made plans for war that would last for 60 to 100 years. But hey, why quibble, since he's more or less putting his war on a credit card he hasn't raised your taxes, right?
To review: Your first statement was that American citizens only lost “material” things rather then “rights” during the Civil War, World war I and World War II. I then pointed out that your statement is demonstrably false. So, you conceded the point that Americans did lose some rights during the Civil War and WWI but asserted that the freedoms we have lost under Bush have gone “far beyond” those of the past (I note, you keep skipping over WWII and the interment of Americans of Japanese decent in your posts).
In any event, I pointed out in my retort that a presidential candidate was actually sentenced to ten years in prison for a SPEECH under the Wilson administration and I noted that Bush responded quite differently then Lincoln when rebuked by the courts for attempting to abolish the right to habeas corpus relief.
Your response to my arguments was, not to cite any examples of people being imprisoned due to race (as in WWII) or dissent to the war (as in the Civil War or WWI), but to rant that Republicans are stupid.
Certainly, you have demonstrated an in-depth understanding of American history that qualifies you to make generalizations as to the intelligence of all those whose political views differ form your own.
As to you “substantive” arguments: again I state that it is a real tragedy that we have to do some extra paperwork to get a license now. Indeed such demands go far beyond the gas, meat and rubber rationing of WWII.
As to the domestic spying canard, I seem to recall that JFK and his baby brother authorize J. Edgar Hoover to tap Martin Luther King Jr and Malcolm X. Are you really arguing that domestic spying is more free-wheeling now then it was under Hoover? Let me hip you to something, the American government has tapped the phones and opened the mail of suspected spies long before the Bush administration.
Just so you know what you are foaming at the mouth about, Bush gave the NSA authorization to monitor phone calls and other communication originating from parties outside the US with known or suspected links to al Qaeda, even if the terminus of that communication fell within the US. Those, concerned with protecting their right to rap with Osama contend that such "domestic" intercepts require FISA court authorization.
Well, you won, Bush has said he will follow that mandate for now on and if we mess some intelligence because of it, well I guess that is a small price to pay to protect our right to speak to suspected terrorists in foreign nations in private.
Finally, if you think the FBI is spying on you because you have an “indirect” contact with a foreign student or because you have bought anything on e-bay then I urge you to get back on your medication. On the other hand, if you are taking a calls from Afghanistan from someone who is on a terrorist watch list, or you are buying the ingredients to make nerve gas off e-bay, then maybe you do have some reason for your paranoia.
Post a Comment