Mikos,
I understand in Europe they are called Neo-Liberals... no ?
This can only be good
Which is good news for us, because our military does. Institutional learning is a huge advantage for us.scareduck wrote:"Al Queda" is not a monolithic worldwide organization. They don't all head down to the Bad Guys League and discuss strategy every night.
AQ is basically a Sunni Wahhabist philosophy that says everyone must either worship Allah in the way AQ wants, giving AQ almost total control over every aspect of their lives, or die. They have very loose command and control because, not surprisingly, most host governments do not like having their citizens being blown up (liberal democracies) or their power challenged (autocracies).
You could join AQ tomorrow by simply adopting their philosphy. That's part of why it's such a long, hard, slog to defeat them.
Mikos, I salute your overall view. There is nothing worse than totalitarianism, and you are quite right to be very wary of it.Mikos wrote:MSimon: I am only curious, what do you think about inland politics and acts of George W. Bush and Senate or Congress in last years (after 2001)? I live in country where we had totalitarian regime for 40 years (my father fought for freedom, he was dissident), so I am sensitive to this. And I see that personal freedoms slowly vanishes in USA. In my opinion, USA is slowly becoming totalitarian regime (slowly adopting some fascist political elements - I mean fascist as strictly political term, this has nothing to do with nazism or racism, it characterizes political regime with high economical freedoms, but low personal freedoms). This politics of fear is really horrible.
And again, like Benjamin Franklin said: Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
However, America has very, very strong protections of individual rights. It is Europe and Canada where the state has taken control of the practice of medicine, where political speech can be prosecuted, where the state seizes all firearms, where the government is increasingly intruding into every aspect of life. In America, cries of "Fascism" are generally just political rhetoric directed at whoever holds power; we heard much the same complaints from the Right when Clinton was in power (gun control, Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc.). They are almost entirely hyperbole. Executive power peaked with FDR's internment of 100,000 Japanese-Americans, arrests of war protestors, summary execution of terrorists (no Gitmo vacations for German saboteurs), threats against the press, warrantless wiretapping of political opponents and press, and near-attempt to stack the Supreme Court, and has not approached anything like it since.
As Tom Wolfe put it: " ...the great unexplained phenomena of modern astronomy: namely, that the dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet lands only in Europe."
It's so strong, in fact, that Congress keeps passing (or trying to) legislation that enables the President to violate the Constitution (warrantless wiretaps, anyone?) en masse. "If the President does it, it isn't illegal," said Richard Nixon, and George Bush believes the same.TallDave wrote:America has very, very strong protections of individual rights.
Hello everyone, this is my first post. I've been following Dr. B and polywell fusion for about a year now and I'm truly fascinated. To those involved, keep up the good work.
I would rather just be an observer on these boards since I can offer little if any scientific expertise. But, seeing that this topic is quite political, my two cents...
Mikos, have you ever read the book, "Everything I Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarden?" I teach high school for a living so I have learned quite a bit about human nature and dealing with individuals. Politics is much more complicated than my classroom but like the book's title implies, there are many parallels with solutions to the world's problems in everyday life.
Lesson number one, ignoring a problem is the same as condoning it. If there is no action against evil, evil will grow. If the United States takes no action against the ambitions of Al Qaeda they will consume the innocent. If you don't believe me, read their stated goals and objectives. They loudly proclaim it with pride to convert or kill everyone.
Lesson number two, freedom is the ability to do what we should do not what we want to do. Should implies responsibility, want implies anarchy. The President of the United States' number one priority is the protection of the citizens. Has my life changed since 9/11/01? Yes. Have my rights been violated? No. Do I know anyone who's rights have been violated? No. Is it a violation of rights to listen to the phone calls of suspected terrorists making overseas calls? NO!! There is no conspiracy by President Bush to control the U.S. for his own evil purposes. These so called violations have already saved thousands of lives. We should be doing them, the consequences of not doing so are too high. You like to quote Ben Franklin. Ben Franklin and the rest of the founders could not have imagined weapons of mass destruction. We live in a different world that demands solutions to problems that have never been encountered.
Lesson number three, your skepticism is healthy. Keep it up. I look forward to the day when we do not have to use these wartime measures to remain safe. I am also thankful that we live in a country that allows you and me to have differing opinions and debate without fear of consequence.
Finally, the USA is not perfect nor does it claim to be. The conduction of the war in Iraq has been frustratingly slow. I am, in many ways, one of President Bush's biggest critics but not for the "popular" reasons that many hold dear. There are no classic, imperialistic goals of conquest. The spread of democracy is not only healthy, it's inevitable because it is a superior form of government. Elimination of Islamic terrorism is vital to the world's security and they will lose.
BS
I would rather just be an observer on these boards since I can offer little if any scientific expertise. But, seeing that this topic is quite political, my two cents...
Mikos, have you ever read the book, "Everything I Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarden?" I teach high school for a living so I have learned quite a bit about human nature and dealing with individuals. Politics is much more complicated than my classroom but like the book's title implies, there are many parallels with solutions to the world's problems in everyday life.
Lesson number one, ignoring a problem is the same as condoning it. If there is no action against evil, evil will grow. If the United States takes no action against the ambitions of Al Qaeda they will consume the innocent. If you don't believe me, read their stated goals and objectives. They loudly proclaim it with pride to convert or kill everyone.
Lesson number two, freedom is the ability to do what we should do not what we want to do. Should implies responsibility, want implies anarchy. The President of the United States' number one priority is the protection of the citizens. Has my life changed since 9/11/01? Yes. Have my rights been violated? No. Do I know anyone who's rights have been violated? No. Is it a violation of rights to listen to the phone calls of suspected terrorists making overseas calls? NO!! There is no conspiracy by President Bush to control the U.S. for his own evil purposes. These so called violations have already saved thousands of lives. We should be doing them, the consequences of not doing so are too high. You like to quote Ben Franklin. Ben Franklin and the rest of the founders could not have imagined weapons of mass destruction. We live in a different world that demands solutions to problems that have never been encountered.
Lesson number three, your skepticism is healthy. Keep it up. I look forward to the day when we do not have to use these wartime measures to remain safe. I am also thankful that we live in a country that allows you and me to have differing opinions and debate without fear of consequence.
Finally, the USA is not perfect nor does it claim to be. The conduction of the war in Iraq has been frustratingly slow. I am, in many ways, one of President Bush's biggest critics but not for the "popular" reasons that many hold dear. There are no classic, imperialistic goals of conquest. The spread of democracy is not only healthy, it's inevitable because it is a superior form of government. Elimination of Islamic terrorism is vital to the world's security and they will lose.
BS
In regard to IEC Fusion, I look forward to the day when P/B11 reactors dramatically cut the cost of electricity and transportation and reduce worldwide poverty. Fusion energy will not create a utopia, I'm not that naive. But access to cheap, reliable energy can accelerate the standard of living to 2/3 of the world's population. I was happy to see President Bush and the rest of Congress finally agreeing after decades of dissent that alternative energy is vital to not just US interests but all of humanity's. They are finally getting it!! My fingers are crossed.
BS
BS
Yes warrantless wire taps of phone calls crossing the Federal Border. Which has traditionally been the province of the Federal government and is allowed on the basis that non-citizens have no expectations of privacy on international calls.scareduck wrote:It's so strong, in fact, that Congress keeps passing (or trying to) legislation that enables the President to violate the Constitution (warrantless wiretaps, anyone?) en masse. "If the President does it, it isn't illegal," said Richard Nixon, and George Bush believes the same.TallDave wrote:America has very, very strong protections of individual rights.
Warrantless intercepts of foreign embassies are another traditional Federal area of effort. For at least 90+ years.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Except that, not. The testimony (from an AT&T employee who had access and knew whereof he spoke) was that the NSA was engaged in wide-net trolling of ALL phone calls, regardless of destination or origin.MSimon wrote:Yes warrantless wire taps of phone calls crossing the Federal Border. Which has traditionally been the province of the Federal government and is allowed on the basis that non-citizens have no expectations of privacy on international calls.scareduck wrote:It's so strong, in fact, that Congress keeps passing (or trying to) legislation that enables the President to violate the Constitution (warrantless wiretaps, anyone?) en masse. "If the President does it, it isn't illegal," said Richard Nixon, and George Bush believes the same.TallDave wrote:America has very, very strong protections of individual rights.
This is not at issue.Warrantless intercepts of foreign embassies are another traditional Federal area of effort. For at least 90+ years.
That Benjamin Franklins quote is still valid (and always will be). I have grown up in totalitarian regime and I know history of my country very well, so I know where this leads to. I would do anything for preservation of personal freedoms, because even if you give up only one small personal freedom, it is only start and it slowly leads to totality. I would rather die, than give up my freedom.BSPhysics wrote:Lesson number two, freedom is the ability to do what we should do not what we want to do. Should implies responsibility, want implies anarchy. The President of the United States' number one priority is the protection of the citizens. Has my life changed since 9/11/01? Yes. Have my rights been violated? No. Do I know anyone who's rights have been violated? No. Is it a violation of rights to listen to the phone calls of suspected terrorists making overseas calls? NO!! There is no conspiracy by President Bush to control the U.S. for his own evil purposes. These so called violations have already saved thousands of lives. We should be doing them, the consequences of not doing so are too high. You like to quote Ben Franklin. Ben Franklin and the rest of the founders could not have imagined weapons of mass destruction. We live in a different world that demands solutions to problems that have never been encountered.
And by the way I see this as victory of Islamic terrorists, when I see how US citizens are willing to give up their essential liberty. Because this is what terrorists wants - to destroy modern western democracy, to deprive us of our freedoms and rights. And you are giving it to them for free. This is sad...
The Constitution of the United States, Article One Section Nine...
"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."
To imply that all rights are to never, ever be suspended under any circumstance is unconstitutional. The government has the right when public safety demands. A common example is the mandatory suspension of travel during blizzards. Historically, our revered Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus for a time during the civil war. I would argue that criminals have many more rights today than they ever have. Obviously, President Lincoln's decision did not wear down our civil liberties and turn our government to tyranny.
What's left then is a debate on whether or not today's geopolitical climate necessitates President Bush's policy. I believe it does (we were invaded on 9/11) and when the war on terror is over, I will have faith in our government to lay down any emergency powers. That faith comes from 2 centuries of history that has done the exact same thing. Besides, I'm not aware of any supreme court decision that has deemed any of the president's policies unconstitutional anyway.
Mikos, I sympathize with all the struggles that I'm sure you've endured. Those are struggles that I have never known. I don't know what country you are from but I would be willing to bet that your government did not have the equivalent of the Constitution and over 200 years of powerful tradition to protect you.
BTW, I would argue that it is not our western democracy that is being destroyed but their facist agenda. Terrorists have been coming out of the woodwork since 2003 and we're killing or capturing them in record numbers. Democracy in Iraq? Never dreamed of a decade ago. Taliban destroyed and on the run? The Soviets couldn't do it. Pakistan and a resurging Taliban are of concern, but not one that can't be handled. We are winning, not them.
BS
"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."
To imply that all rights are to never, ever be suspended under any circumstance is unconstitutional. The government has the right when public safety demands. A common example is the mandatory suspension of travel during blizzards. Historically, our revered Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus for a time during the civil war. I would argue that criminals have many more rights today than they ever have. Obviously, President Lincoln's decision did not wear down our civil liberties and turn our government to tyranny.
What's left then is a debate on whether or not today's geopolitical climate necessitates President Bush's policy. I believe it does (we were invaded on 9/11) and when the war on terror is over, I will have faith in our government to lay down any emergency powers. That faith comes from 2 centuries of history that has done the exact same thing. Besides, I'm not aware of any supreme court decision that has deemed any of the president's policies unconstitutional anyway.
Mikos, I sympathize with all the struggles that I'm sure you've endured. Those are struggles that I have never known. I don't know what country you are from but I would be willing to bet that your government did not have the equivalent of the Constitution and over 200 years of powerful tradition to protect you.
BTW, I would argue that it is not our western democracy that is being destroyed but their facist agenda. Terrorists have been coming out of the woodwork since 2003 and we're killing or capturing them in record numbers. Democracy in Iraq? Never dreamed of a decade ago. Taliban destroyed and on the run? The Soviets couldn't do it. Pakistan and a resurging Taliban are of concern, but not one that can't be handled. We are winning, not them.
BS
I do like to debate politics but this is Talk-Polywell.org so I'll let my last post stand without reply. It is never my intent to hijack a thread but I do believe that our debate has relevance to the main focus of this site.
IEC fusion has the ability to radically change the US's foreign policy. Namely, the current standoff with Iran. If WB-7 and subsequent experiments show the promise we all hope for, everything changes. Imagine a middle east with deflating oil revenue. Our lead in cheap, alternative energy could shake the foundations of stability in the ME. What are the consequences of energy independence?
BS
IEC fusion has the ability to radically change the US's foreign policy. Namely, the current standoff with Iran. If WB-7 and subsequent experiments show the promise we all hope for, everything changes. Imagine a middle east with deflating oil revenue. Our lead in cheap, alternative energy could shake the foundations of stability in the ME. What are the consequences of energy independence?
BS
The Bush administration has taken the view that we are fighting "terrorism", not a particular country. This puts the government in the position of demanding a rollback of the constitutional checks until... when? When they say it's safe to. In other words, Congress has abrogated its duty and powers as the sole declarer of war (that's an old story, of course, but it's much, much worse this time around), and the President has decided that he can revoke habeas whenever he feels like it. (Note the section you quoted mentioned "rebellion or invasion", neither of which obtains here!)BSPhysics wrote:To imply that all rights are to never, ever be suspended under any circumstance is unconstitutional. The government has the right when public safety demands.
Bush and his enablers subscribe to a radical theory of presidential power hitherto untested in this country, namely that the president has more or less unlimited powers in his role as the "unitary executive". Press John Ashcroft, John Yoo, Alberto Gonzalez, or any of his other legal henchmen on this subject, and the answer you will get back on the topic is the same. In this view, the country has a king with term limits.
That is not the kind of country I wish to live in, or the sort of government I wish to live under.