Comments on: Truth and Myth http://moorethoughts.com/2006/01/29/truth-and-myth/ Sat, 05 Jul 2008 03:21:28 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: debt solution http://moorethoughts.com/2006/01/29/truth-and-myth/#comment-15360 debt solution Wed, 24 May 2006 02:28:15 +0000 http://moorethoughts.com/2006/01/29/truth-and-myth/#comment-15360 <strong>debt solution</strong> ditch pinion Hillcrest basting Cenozoic evaluation priest,fretfully reconsider debt http://www.debt-consolidation-opportunities.com/ debt solution

ditch pinion Hillcrest basting Cenozoic evaluation priest,fretfully reconsider debt http://www.debt-consolidation-opportunities.com/

]]> By: Mark Rogers http://moorethoughts.com/2006/01/29/truth-and-myth/#comment-1324 Mark Rogers Tue, 31 Jan 2006 19:20:03 +0000 http://moorethoughts.com/2006/01/29/truth-and-myth/#comment-1324 Sean, I am not happy with this Administration's tendency to act unilaterally at times. However, I do appreciate that this issue (the wiretaps etc) is not one where 'random' citizens are targeted. The criteria may be too broad for some people but it is certainly 'random.' Nathan does a good job of channeling me. I would add that it was the fact that so many of the numerous Soviet spies and their apologists represented the 'Best and Brightest' of the nation and that they did it for reasons of ideology that inserted paranoia into American political life in a permanent way. The Communist spies of that era ensured that Americans could never feel secure from traitors in our midst. Alger Hiss is far more truly the father of President Bush's efforts on domestic spying than Richard Nixon. Sean,

I am not happy with this Administration’s tendency to act unilaterally at times. However, I do appreciate that this issue (the wiretaps etc) is not one where ‘random’ citizens are targeted. The criteria may be too broad for some people but it is certainly ‘random.’

Nathan does a good job of channeling me. I would add that it was the fact that so many of the numerous Soviet spies and their apologists represented the ‘Best and Brightest’ of the nation and that they did it for reasons of ideology that inserted paranoia into American political life in a permanent way.

The Communist spies of that era ensured that Americans could never feel secure from traitors in our midst. Alger Hiss is far more truly the father of President Bush’s efforts on domestic spying than Richard Nixon.

]]> By: Lee http://moorethoughts.com/2006/01/29/truth-and-myth/#comment-1322 Lee Tue, 31 Jan 2006 17:42:45 +0000 http://moorethoughts.com/2006/01/29/truth-and-myth/#comment-1322 If you want to talk censorship, how about the clauses in McCain/Feingold regulating POLITICAL SPEECH sixty days before an election. There is even a danger that if your WEBSITE takes in more than 5000 dollars (yes, I know, highly unlikely) then a blogger might be held to be breaking it. Think about that, McCain-Feingold being used to threaten Powerline, or Daily Kos. That, folks, is censorship. If you want to talk censorship, how about the clauses in McCain/Feingold regulating POLITICAL SPEECH sixty days before an election.

There is even a danger that if your WEBSITE takes in more than 5000 dollars (yes, I know, highly unlikely) then a blogger might be held to be breaking it.

Think about that, McCain-Feingold being used to threaten Powerline, or Daily Kos.

That, folks, is censorship.

]]> By: Sean Braisted http://moorethoughts.com/2006/01/29/truth-and-myth/#comment-1321 Sean Braisted Tue, 31 Jan 2006 16:22:30 +0000 http://moorethoughts.com/2006/01/29/truth-and-myth/#comment-1321 Well I support fully the right of the government to spy on Americans with jobs that pertain to national security, that is pretty much a given, its the spying on all or random citizens w/out due process that worries me if there is no check against the executives authority to carry out such activities. Well I support fully the right of the government to spy on Americans with jobs that pertain to national security, that is pretty much a given, its the spying on all or random citizens w/out due process that worries me if there is no check against the executives authority to carry out such activities.

]]> By: Nathan Moore http://moorethoughts.com/2006/01/29/truth-and-myth/#comment-1320 Nathan Moore Tue, 31 Jan 2006 14:40:31 +0000 http://moorethoughts.com/2006/01/29/truth-and-myth/#comment-1320 I won't speak entirely for Mark (or at all), but I believe the presence of real national security threats within the government create a need and constitutionally rational basis for more privacy invasion in order to counteract the threat. In that way, national security risks (especially internal ones), affect civil liberties. I won’t speak entirely for Mark (or at all), but I believe the presence of real national security threats within the government create a need and constitutionally rational basis for more privacy invasion in order to counteract the threat. In that way, national security risks (especially internal ones), affect civil liberties.

]]> By: Sean Braisted http://moorethoughts.com/2006/01/29/truth-and-myth/#comment-1319 Sean Braisted Tue, 31 Jan 2006 14:16:24 +0000 http://moorethoughts.com/2006/01/29/truth-and-myth/#comment-1319 Hrmm, although I am sure there are a handful of examples of Soviet sympathizers/spies (just as there are Israli sympathizers and spies in the gov't today), I don't quite see how that it is a threat to civil liberties. Perhaps a threat to national security, but not civil liberties. Hrmm, although I am sure there are a handful of examples of Soviet sympathizers/spies (just as there are Israli sympathizers and spies in the gov’t today), I don’t quite see how that it is a threat to civil liberties. Perhaps a threat to national security, but not civil liberties.

]]> By: Mark Rogers http://moorethoughts.com/2006/01/29/truth-and-myth/#comment-1318 Mark Rogers Mon, 30 Jan 2006 23:02:31 +0000 http://moorethoughts.com/2006/01/29/truth-and-myth/#comment-1318 Sean, The American experience in balancing Freedom of Speech with the needs of national security is one of occassional violations followed by a return to broader civil liberties. Lincoln, Wilson and FDR all seriously abridged civil liberties but once the crisis passed, the abridgements ended. Our political system has the Virtue of decentralizing power within parties so that no one ever builds a political legacy that gets transferred to a new generation. If you want to look at a serious threat to civil liberties, look at how members of the American Left betrayed our nation to assist the Soviet Union from the 30s through the 50s. Nothing is as dangerous to the rule of law as when the most priviledged members of that society decide to betray it. The treason of members of the Left sis more to harm civil liberties than Joe McCarthy ever did. Sean,

The American experience in balancing Freedom of Speech with the needs of national security is one of occassional violations followed by a return to broader civil liberties.

Lincoln, Wilson and FDR all seriously abridged civil liberties but once the crisis passed, the abridgements ended. Our political system has the Virtue of decentralizing power within parties so that no one ever builds a political legacy that gets transferred to a new generation.

If you want to look at a serious threat to civil liberties, look at how members of the American Left betrayed our nation to assist the Soviet Union from the 30s through the 50s. Nothing is as dangerous to the rule of law as when the most priviledged members of that society decide to betray it. The treason of members of the Left sis more to harm civil liberties than Joe McCarthy ever did.

]]> By: Kara Watkins http://moorethoughts.com/2006/01/29/truth-and-myth/#comment-1317 Kara Watkins Mon, 30 Jan 2006 19:05:50 +0000 http://moorethoughts.com/2006/01/29/truth-and-myth/#comment-1317 I get incensed when I hear people complaining about no longer having the right to free speech. Anyone can speak out against the government, and short of threatening the President directly, the Supreme Court says just about anything goes. As Nathan has already pointed out, just because someone doesn't get the airtime or fails to draw the attention of the media, or the White House, doesn't mean their freedom of speech is being infringed upon. I get incensed when I hear people complaining about no longer having the right to free speech. Anyone can speak out against the government, and short of threatening the President directly, the Supreme Court says just about anything goes. As Nathan has already pointed out, just because someone doesn’t get the airtime or fails to draw the attention of the media, or the White House, doesn’t mean their freedom of speech is being infringed upon.

]]> By: Sean Braisted http://moorethoughts.com/2006/01/29/truth-and-myth/#comment-1314 Sean Braisted Mon, 30 Jan 2006 17:54:25 +0000 http://moorethoughts.com/2006/01/29/truth-and-myth/#comment-1314 Your right Nathan, that doesn't happen in America because civil liberties advocates fight the government (or government officials) on the small infractions (such as public protest) so that they don't have to fight them on the bigger stuff like arresting newspaper columnists (although Lincoln did that, so there are examples in the past) for saying things the administration doesn't want the public to hear. I suppose the argument works more if you think there is a slippery slope that once the federal executive gains ground, he will not cede that ground and instead charge further up the hill. Your right Nathan, that doesn’t happen in America because civil liberties advocates fight the government (or government officials) on the small infractions (such as public protest) so that they don’t have to fight them on the bigger stuff like arresting newspaper columnists (although Lincoln did that, so there are examples in the past) for saying things the administration doesn’t want the public to hear. I suppose the argument works more if you think there is a slippery slope that once the federal executive gains ground, he will not cede that ground and instead charge further up the hill.

]]> By: Chris Wage http://moorethoughts.com/2006/01/29/truth-and-myth/#comment-1313 Chris Wage Mon, 30 Jan 2006 17:48:02 +0000 http://moorethoughts.com/2006/01/29/truth-and-myth/#comment-1313 I love how the defense of current American policy in so many areas has devolved to "We're better than Stalin/Hitler". Very comforting. I love how the defense of current American policy in so many areas has devolved to “We’re better than Stalin/Hitler”. Very comforting.

]]> By: Nathan Moore http://moorethoughts.com/2006/01/29/truth-and-myth/#comment-1311 Nathan Moore Mon, 30 Jan 2006 17:27:30 +0000 http://moorethoughts.com/2006/01/29/truth-and-myth/#comment-1311 Sean, Okay - the first one was a political staffer, not the secret service. I didn't like it either, but that is not emblematic of a policy, but a stupid political operative. The second one is against local officials, and the allegations have not been proven (unless you have a link to the resolution of the suit after 2002). The third one was also local officials, claiming they were acting under directions of the Secret Service. There was no confirmation of whether they were or not. The problem with all of these incidents is that these people are angry with not being able to get as close to the President as possible to express their discontent an disagreement. No one has such a right. We all have the right to free speech, but not necessarily a right to the best speech. I would be much more interested in examples of columnists, television personalities, and the like being arrested, detained, etc. I just have not seen any evidence of that happening. N Sean,
Okay - the first one was a political staffer, not the secret service. I didn’t like it either, but that is not emblematic of a policy, but a stupid political operative.

The second one is against local officials, and the allegations have not been proven (unless you have a link to the resolution of the suit after 2002).

The third one was also local officials, claiming they were acting under directions of the Secret Service. There was no confirmation of whether they were or not.

The problem with all of these incidents is that these people are angry with not being able to get as close to the President as possible to express their discontent an disagreement. No one has such a right. We all have the right to free speech, but not necessarily a right to the best speech. I would be much more interested in examples of columnists, television personalities, and the like being arrested, detained, etc. I just have not seen any evidence of that happening.

N

]]> By: Sean Braisted http://moorethoughts.com/2006/01/29/truth-and-myth/#comment-1310 Sean Braisted Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:22:58 +0000 http://moorethoughts.com/2006/01/29/truth-and-myth/#comment-1310 Sorry, when I think of censorship I automatically think of the Religious right's war on TV freedom. here are some more relevant examples http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10969-2005Mar29.html http://www.aclu.org//freespeech/protest/11358prs20021101.html http://www.aclu-wv.org/newsroom/WVnewsletter_fall04.pdf These are a few examples, but in general, the requirement that people who ask questions of the President (while certainly not a violation of the law) be supporters of the President and carefully screened is opposite of what the founders intended in trying to keep the President from being an elected King. Sorry, when I think of censorship I automatically think of the Religious right’s war on TV freedom.

here are some more relevant examples

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10969-2005Mar29.html

http://www.aclu.org//freespeech/protest/11358prs20021101.html

http://www.aclu-wv.org/newsroom/WVnewsletter_fall04.pdf

These are a few examples, but in general, the requirement that people who ask questions of the President (while certainly not a violation of the law) be supporters of the President and carefully screened is opposite of what the founders intended in trying to keep the President from being an elected King.

]]>