So Much for 2001
November 30, 2001
by The (Original) Die Hard

The 21st century was supposed to be the dawning of a bright new era. Instead, it is a throwback to the worst of dark secrets, evil oppressions, witch-hunting hate, and outright lies in our history. The next few months may break us from within, not from any puny terrorist nonsense, but from the despair of watching everything our nation fought for crushed under the iron hand of a greedy, bigoted, selfish, cowardly, bullying, and treasonous would-be oligarch empire.

You cannot sustain an economy by stealing from the poor and further enriching the wealthy. You cannot increase spending by giving more money to people who already have more than they know what to do with. You cannot have a product without producers, nor buyers without a population which can afford to buy. Yet workers are downgraded and laid off while corporate welfare "bailouts" for CEOs steal money for schools and retirement and disaster relief. Fat cats belly up to the illegally appointed resident for even bigger handouts while the rest of us are being told to turn off our heaters and cut back on food in order to line the pockets of the already-wealthy.

The illiterate drunk is on his fortieth vacation, napping while photo-ops are set up and his daughters get falling-down drunk. His fawning sycophants exhort us to believe "what a great country this is," while dissenters are arrested and disappeared by the "watch what you say" Gestapo in the name of a faked-up, all-secret "war." Billionaires quietly tell the "lawmakers" they own that there's no need to pay someone a living wage to do slave labor when people are starving in the streets and will be happy to take whatever crumbs are tossed to them - after all, owning slaves is the dream of no-class thieves who need to prove their "superiority" and "prosperity" without actually being able to do anything.

Flags are advertised everywhere while the basis of honoring them, the unique Constitution of our country, is being used for toilet paper by psychotic neo-nazi losers illegally appointed by a dimwitted drunk. Religion is touted as a panacea for all the ills born of general disgust with our unequal justice under one name, and despised as a heinous crime under a slightly different name. We are told that we must "patriotically" give up the freedoms and rights our grand- and great-grandparents fought and died for, in order to be "safe" - told this heinous lie by the same people who have not only proven that they can't keep us safe, who have taken extraordinary measures to keep themselves safe but pay millions to their minions to divert attention from the fact that they have no interest in keeping the rest of us "peons" safe, because it might cost them a dime of profit or a vote against their power.

What does it take, America? How long can you angrily wave your stupid, meaningless flags at stone-age third-world countries, while ignoring home-grown dictators who have slimed that flag and everything it stands for? When will you realize that your indignant blathering about freedom and democracy means nothing when our own unelected oligarchs have stolen it right here at home? How many more of your and your family's hopes and livelihoods must be destroyed, how many more insults must you suffer, how many more rights must you lose, before you WAKE UP?

The bought-and-sold make-up media, with their own fortunes at stake, gloss over the crimes of the treasonous illegal administration, feeding you a false lullaby while the ground crumbles beneath you. You cannot, must not, trust their sound-bite assurances. You must make the effort to face the hard facts, learn the difficult truths. You must demand action against the evil: investigation, impeachment, a public trial where all the wrongs done to us become common knowledge. If every detail of the Clintons' personal private positions in bed justified hundreds of millions of dollars and eight years of insane prosecution, then how much more important is it to find and root out the filth rotting away our core of democracy?

Those who founded our country, who risked torture and execution and sacrificed everything they had for our freedom, did not do so for the comfort and greed of the privileged and powerful hate-spewing few. They did not endure pain and death so that we could be a country of complacent sheep under unquestioned masters. We dishonor the memory of those who gave us what we have by letting lying incompetent greedy bigots sit in our seat of government and steal everything they worked so hard to give us.

Get up. Demand the truth. Spit on the lulling lies of the comfortable liars. Speak out against the silver-tongued traitors trying to enslave you. Take action. And take off those cheap damn stupid hypocritical fluttering flags until you by-the-Constitution EARN one.

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), December 02, 2001

Answers

Cherri: I don't think conservatives will stand out against constitutional rights being removed until the 2nd amendment is threatened. But, golly gee, it is. All this is necessary to protect us from terrorism, ya know.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), December 02, 2001.

Get up. Demand the truth. Spit on the lulling lies of the comfortable liars.

Hey Cherri, perhaps you should start with yourself?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeeD@yahoo.com), December 02, 2001.

LOL Cherri! Fess up, you were laughing as you hit the submit key, weren't you?

If every detail of the Clintons' personal private positions in bed justified hundreds of millions of dollars and eight years of insane prosecution, then how much more important is it to find and root out the filth rotting away our core of democracy?

Who can argue with THAT statement?

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), December 02, 2001.

Pax Americana

-- (roland@hatemail.com), December 02, 2001.

Had to give you some food for thought. Thought you might be getting bored without all of the excitement you were getting on the open forum :o(

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), December 03, 2001.

Cherri, I think the open forum has croaked, thanks I'm sure to you know who. You know who has also hit another forum, which is purely social and I'm sure never dreamed that they would need password protection. But they're all sinners, of course, having posted on old TB2000.

-- Peter Errington (petere7@starpower.net), December 03, 2001.

From what scummy web site did you crib this screed?

-- (lars@indy.net), December 03, 2001.

Another post full of sound and fury signifying nothing. Rather than analysis, Cherri, you cut-and-paste tantrums. The leftist wailing and gnashing of teeth is meant to distract. I will tell you why in a moment.

To suggest the 21st century is a "throwback to the worst of "dark secrets, evil oppressions, witch-hunting hate, and outright lies in our history" is beyond idiotic. It takes a complete lack of historical knowledge or brain injury to make this statement. America has suffered far darker days. A mere half century ago, Japanese- Americans were held in prison camps. Shall we discuss lynchings? Blacklists? Medical experiments on minorities? Genocide?

Modern America is far kinder, gentler place, though the spoiled leftists keep their heads buried firmly in the sand.

The only "despair" I see is from those bereft of a viable political philosophy, those who would make September 11 our fault. Certainly, it is not the American people who are despairing, or suffering from a lack of faith in our leadership.

Your author demonstrates an ignorance of economics rarely found outself UMass Amherst. Who is "stealing" from the poor? How? Taxation? Almost anyone reading public policy knows that the wealthiest of Americans pay the highest level of taxes.

Capitalism produces an inequal distribution of wealth. So has every attempt at collectivism. Massive transfers of wealth (like the "War on Poverty") have been unsuccessful. Why? It is easier to give someone money than a sense of responsibility. Oh, and if this author of this essay is short on heating oil or food, I'll eat my hat.

An incoherent attack on the president only underlines my point. The essay is just a rambling froth of rage. Are citizens concerned about the potential loss of civil liberties... absolutely. By the way, it is disingenuous, Anita, to suggest conservatives only care about one amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Lest I forget, there is a reason for the hyperbolic rhetoric of the left. The cherised anti-American stance has taken a beating in the aftermath of September 11. It is difficult for the left to venerate terrorists as "disenfranchised" by "Imperial America."

In closing, I utterly reject anyone suggesting I need to "earn" my Constitutional rights. I'm delighted to live in America. Deal with it.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), December 03, 2001.

Ken, I wanted to address a few of your comments. At least you MADE comments. Lars simply inquired about the scummy source of it all. Perhaps I should address Lars first.

I don't know where Cherri picked this up, Lars, but I know where *I* read it. Ken's right about one thing. It's a rant sent in to a site that encourages rants from ordinary folks relating to politics [as they see it.] The author wasn't Andrew Sullivan, nor Noam Chomsky. It was just another bloke on the street, a fellow American, if you will.

The 21st century was supposed to be the dawning of a bright new era. Instead, it is a throwback to the worst of dark secrets, evil oppressions, witch-hunting hate, and outright lies in our history...

Ken responds with: To suggest the 21st century is a "throwback to the worst of "dark secrets, evil oppressions, witch-hunting hate, and outright lies in our history" is beyond idiotic...

I think the author was trying to suggest that the country has moved very much in the direction of Japanese-Americans held in prison camps, Ken. It's simply that they're being rounded up and detained for indefinite periods based on their appearance, with no access to family, lawyers, and NO information being leaked on who they are at all. This may sound fine and well to YOU, but [as Roland pointed out in a link in another thread], only about 13 of these folks are even SUSPECTED of being associated with the Al-Qaeda network. The rest were simply brought in. Some were brought in on failures to keep Visas up-to-date. Some were brought in on other minor charges, but some were brought in due to NO charge at all. They just looked Middle-Eastern. However, since no one will tell which people were charged with ANYTHING, there certainly IS a veil of secrecy around the whole thing. When 19 guys with red hair and mustaches decide to do something weird, you may feel the brunt of this trend. You cannot sustain an economy by stealing from the poor and further enriching the wealthy...

Ken responds with: Your author demonstrates an ignorance of economics rarely found outself UMass Amherst. Who is "stealing" from the poor? How? Taxation? Almost anyone reading public policy knows that the wealthiest of Americans pay the highest level of taxes...

I think the author already made it clear above, Ken, that he/she was discussing the bailouts of airlines, insurance companies, etc. If tax dollars are used to bail out these corporations, how can you possibly say this isn't stealing from the poor to enrich the wealthy? There have been MANY testimonials to the fact that the airline WORKERS are being laid off left and right, while the CEO's still maintain $2,000,000 salaries with the airlines putting money into buying more equipment. The illiterate drunk is on his fortieth vacation, napping while photo-ops are set up and his daughters get falling-down drunk.

Ken responds with: An incoherent attack on the president only underlines my point. The essay is just a rambling froth of rage.

Heh. I agree. This was unnecessary.

Flags are advertised everywhere while the basis of honoring them, the unique Constitution of our country, is being used for ...

While I'd agree that this is "frothy", Ken, it bothers me, as well, that folks are blindly adhering to what this administration says and does, using the "But we're at war, and we MUST adjust to these circumstances" argument. The US has declared war on NO country. It has declared war on "terrorism." IMO, this is as vacuuous a statement as the war on drugs or the war on poverty. Certainly it has more discernable realism than the others in that the media is presenting us information daily on efforts in Afghanistan, as well as conjecture regarding attacks on Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Saudia Arabia, Egypt, Somalia, and ANY other country where terrorists exist. Well, this list includes our OWN country, as well as the countries of our allies, and our allies aren't going to support this "war" beyond the Afghanistan border.

Ken said: Modern America is far kinder, gentler place, though the spoiled leftists keep their heads buried firmly in the sand. The only "despair" I see is from those bereft of a viable political philosophy, those who would make September 11 our fault. Certainly, it is not the American people who are despairing, or suffering from a lack of faith in our leadership.

I'm a leftist, Ken, and I don't consider myself spoiled, nor my head in the sand. I also don't see 911 as OUR fault. MANY American people are despaired at the loss of Constitutional guarantees. MANY American people have little faith in our leadership, not because of 911, but due to the legislation and executive orders since that day. The concerns ALL revolve around the potential loss of civil liberties, Ken, and as much as I've discussed these losses on both this forum and the previous, I have seldom seen a conservative stand up and express concern. The concern was always with the 2nd amendment. When it got THAT far, folks would think about it. I'll ignore your other rants about the left.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), December 03, 2001.

Where did you read this Anita, I mean other than here? It is not written by a professional polemicist, however shady. I searched Google. It must come from some shabby Usenet forum.

I'm curious where Cherri finds this stuff and why doesn't she accredit whatever she posts? That's just common netiquette. I have no critique beyond Ken's. Well said Jose.

-- (lars@indy.net), December 03, 2001.

Anita, the author was blowing a gasket. Nothing more. Do I support the unlawful detention of citizens? Of course not. On the other hand, if you are a nonresident alien with an expired visa, I hope you've packed a bag. I suspect the current administration is treading upon some civil liberties. Am I shocked? (laughter) Read your Civil War history, Anita. There is always a dynamic between individual liberties and the interests of the State. Usually, I'm more nervous about the good intentions of liberals, but I shall keep a weather eye on the good intentions of conservatives.

On to economics... from whence do tax dollars come? The top 20% (the wealthy) provide about 80% of income tax revenue. (CBO) The top 50% provide about 95%. About 60% of the federal budget is spent on individual benefits. It is far more accurate to say that corporate welfare is moving wealth from one group of affluent to another. Under every measure imaginable, the "poor" receive far more in benefits than they pay in taxes. Do I think we should end corporate welfare? Yes! This is a sound economic idea. I do not think we should take the savings and throw the money at the "poor." Again, let me use the example of the Native Americans. Do you see how government "charity" has "helped" the Indians? The real benefit of ending corporate welfare is lowering the marginal tax rates. As for the "stealing from poor" argument, it doesn't hold water. Stealing from the rich is the only way to go... as proven by the federal government.

I reject collectism, Anita, as a political philosophy of uniformly good intentions and uniformly bad results. "Many" people watch "Everybody Loves Raymond." Look at the polls, Anita. The vast majority of Americans support the attack against terrorism and are not overly worried about the loss of liberties. I am. As for amendments, after the First, I have a real affection for the 10th.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), December 03, 2001.

One need only read the first paragraph, and cannot help tune out the rest while wondering (without looking at the poster) where Cherri manages to find this crap. It's far from thought-provoking. I wonder if even Cherri had enough determination to plow all the way through it. It reads like a stupidity test, and I can only hope that the unnamed author writing for an unnamed source isn't a conservative wringing the bejeezus out of his thesaurus to make liberals look like lunatics.

Otherwise, it's hard to decide just whom this might be aimed at. Do you suppose there is some tiny group just literate enough to read but too dumb to pound sand? Is this really from the Onion?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 03, 2001.

From the right, here, one vote for Anita.

-- Oxy (Oxsys@aol.com), December 03, 2001.

Lars: I think I first read it at The Democratic Underground. They solicit rants from people, as does The Liberal Slant. I haven't checked out the latter lately, although I try to make the rounds of left and right political news sites on a daily basis. As I'm sure you're aware, cloning is common. This actually makes it much faster for me to go through the drill. I read things ONCE, see the same theme repeated elsewhere, and use that nice little back arrow. By the time Cherri posted this rant, I'd seen it on a few liberal fora, as well.

On to Ken:

Anita, the author was blowing a gasket. Nothing more.

That's what rants are all about, Ken. They're not meant to be treatises, brilliant essays, or even reasonable articles. They're meant to represent what's bothering one at a given place in time. Sometimes one finds a common ground of dissent in the rant and sometimes one does not.

Do I support the unlawful detention of citizens? Of course not.

See what I mean about finding a common ground of dissent?

On the other hand, if you are a nonresident alien with an expired visa, I hope you've packed a bag.

I agree completely.

I suspect the current administration is treading upon some civil liberties. Am I shocked? (laughter) Read your Civil War history, Anita. There is always a dynamic between individual liberties and the interests of the State.

Regardless of the history of the Civil War, Ken, I will always believe that individual liberties should be maintained. As I said previously, the US has declared war on NO country, not even its own. We're not talking about the Civil War here.

Under every measure imaginable, the "poor" receive far more in benefits than they pay in taxes.

I think you're generalizing a little too much here, Ken. While the progressive tax system has been designed to tax the upper echelon much more than the lower or middle class, the upper group also has had and continues to have more loopholes through which to avoid paying taxes. That's why alternative tax laws were established...to ensure that EVERYONE paid SOMETHING. It seems that now corporations will not only not be required to pay SOMETHING, but receive a rebate on what they've paid since 1986? Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the tax breaks for non-corporation types have been reduced, while maintaining the alternative tax laws established for them. Estimates are that these alternative taxes will affect more than 20 million Americans by 2004. Do I think we should end corporate welfare? Yes! This is a sound economic idea. I do not think we should take the savings and throw the money at the "poor."

I agree with you here. You can leave the Native Americans out of the argument.

I reject collectism, Anita, as a political philosophy of uniformly good intentions and uniformly bad results.

"Collectivism" has many meanings, Ken. As a member of society, I can't help but feel as though I'm a member of a group. If you're talking about Socialism, I reject it as well.

"Many" people watch "Everybody Loves Raymond." Look at the polls, Anita. The vast majority of Americans support the attack against terrorism and are not overly worried about the loss of liberties.

LOL. I don't think that the Constitution should be up for majority vote, Ken, maybe simply because "Everybody Loves Raymond" is such a popular show.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), December 03, 2001.

Anita,

I don't think Flint subscribes to either the The Democratic Underground or The Liberal Slant. I'm telling you, people would love to have you living here.

What is Everybody Loves Raymond?

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), December 03, 2001.

Anita:

I agree rants are performed to express a sort of temporary insanity. But this one is all invective and no analysis. The problem with this sort of rant is, it demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that the ranter is utterly incapable of any informed perspective. These all seem to be a contest to see who can call someone the most names based on the least comprehension. Thin entertainment.

As for this part:

[While the progressive tax system has been designed to tax the upper echelon much more than the lower or middle class, the upper group also has had and continues to have more loopholes through which to avoid paying taxes]

Uh, say again? Ken was pointing out (entirely accurately) who DOES pay most of the taxes. I think the fact itself must be addressed. And it is NOT addressed by saying, well, maybe the system is designed to tax the upper echelon, but they get out of it through all those loopholes. Ken's point was exactly that they DO NOT get out of it -- 80% of the taxes REALLY ARE paid by 20% of the taxpayers.

Now, you might be arguing that without those loopholes, 80% of taxes would be paid by only 10% of taxpayers, making the system even more delightfully inequitable than it is. But you CAN NOT convince me that the rich are using loophoes to evade what the rich are in fact not evading. You can't have it both ways. Maybe loopholes really do prevent a bad situation from becoming worse, though...

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 03, 2001.

I see what you're saying, Flint. I was discussing percentage of income and you [and Ken] were talking total dollars. It's a certainty that "poor" folks like me, who never made more than say $70,000 in a given year will pay 30% of that $70,000 in taxes each year while someone who made a million in a given year may, through various loopholes and tax shelters unavailable to me, pay more like 10% in taxes. Yes, indeed, my 30% comes no where close to that 10%. In fact, my 30% is so damn insignificant that I think it should be given back. Don't you?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), December 04, 2001.

You dodge my points, Anita. First, a historical context is almost always advantageous. To make the absurd claim that we are moving into the darkest days of the Republic ruins the entire rant. How can we take anyone so ignorant seriously? During every conflict (declared or not), there has been a tension between our individual liberties and the interests of the State. While you may disagree, the majority of Americans are willing to make some modest sacrifices in return for a greater sense of security. Again, this is usually the case in times of conflict, though I note the exception of Vietnam.

The current situation is different, but not unprecedented. The conflict has been taken onto American soil. The enemy does not meet us on the battlefield, but attacks innocent civilians. It is war, Anita, although I am sorry the Congress has not satisified your lawyerly sensibilities and issued a formal declaration.

Moving to economics, Flint makes his usual accurate observations. I heartily agree with tax simplification and have argued before in support of a flat tax and national sales tax.

It is improper, however, to analyze tax policy on only the revenue side. I have proven that the majority of tax revenues come from the wealthy. The majority of tax benefits flow to the nonwealthy. Social security and Medicare constitutes 35 of federal funding and provides benefits to 46 million and 40 million, respectively. The vast majority of recipients are not wealthy. Medicaid and other means tested benefits make up another 13 percent of the budget. Another 11 percent is slated for the Social Security reserve. If you are counting, Anita, we are up to 59 percent of federal spending.

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the benefit of defense (16 percent of federal spending) is one enjoyed relatively equally by Americans. Remember, though, that the wealthy are still picking up a majority of the tab for the common defense. Interest sucks up about 10 percent of the budget... this is paying the sins for our overspending past. There is another 19 percent in "non-defense discretionary." This is the soup to nuts of government programs like energy, agriculture, education, transportation... a rather long list. This pot of money pays for student loans, mortgage guarantees, transit programs, etc.

I do not doubt that you may pay a higher percentage of income than some wealthy taxpayers. I also do not doubt that you receive a higher percentage of your income in government benefits. Let's say you benefit from a "free tree" program sponsored by a local government. Everyone in the city receives a free tree worth $10. Who receives the greather proportional benefit: You or your neighbor Bill Gates?

It may make you uncomfortable, Anita, but the rich generally pay much more to the government and receive much less in return.

As for the Native Americans, let's keep them in our debate. I have lived near a reservation and worked with Native American children and families. The once proud culture bears witness to the destructive power of liberalism... good intentions and bad results.

Finally, the Constitution should always be up for a "majority vote" because we live in a changing Republic. With your preference, Anita, you'd still be waiting for the right to vote. Personally, I think the 19th Amendment was necessary. Don't you?

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), December 04, 2001.

You dodge my points, Anita. ...

I'm not sure which points I dodged, Ken. You picked out of the rant the points on which you disagreed, and I picked out the points on which I agreed. I do the same with Andrew Sullivan and Noam Chomsky.

Modest sacrifices, IMO, include things like not using as much gasoline as I might normally want or using less sugar or something. I don't include losing the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments among "modest sacrifices." Social security and Medicare constitutes 35 of federal funding and provides benefits to 46 million and 40 million, respectively.......

Unless I'm mistaken, Ken, SS and Medicare expenses come out of Payroll Taxes. Those would be the taxes that the poor shmucks like me never stop paying these days, while those in the higher income brackets reach the maximum long before end of year. I don't think that one can say that the wealthy are paying for this. I do not doubt that you may pay a higher percentage of income than some wealthy taxpayers. I also do not doubt that you receive a higher percentage of your income in government benefits.

Could you exemplify just ONE of these government benefits for me, Ken? I understood [I think] what you said about agricultural programs, road programs, etc., but it's unclear in my mind how I'm benefiting from those programs more than the wealthy.

As for the Native Americans, let's keep them in our debate. I have lived near a reservation and worked with Native American children and families. The once proud culture bears witness to the destructive power of liberalism... good intentions and bad results.

Liberals are responsible for the "plight" of Native Americans? From what *I*'ve read, they were indeed a proud culture that wasn't allowed to continue to live in their teepees and forced to move to shoddy pieces of land. We didn't do this. Finally, the Constitution should always be up for a "majority vote" because we live in a changing Republic...

I'd buy into that argument if I thought that the majority actually understood what was IN the Constitution and WHY it's there, Ken. There actually WAS a Congresswoman who recently said that the 19th amendment was unnecessary. I think folks who ignore the threats to the Constitution and want to simply be safe at any cost are ignorant of WHY these safeguards were established. I also think that this country will never be the same again if we give up these rights. Once rights are terminated, they don't return.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), December 04, 2001.

Damnit, I forgot the 6th Amendment.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), December 04, 2001.

Just to lighten things up a bit, here's another rant from the Democratic Underground. They're ALSO the sponsor of Bob Boudelang, and I'm sure you folks love HIM.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), December 04, 2001.

I award Ken an "A" for unintentional irony.

"I suspect the current administration is treading upon some civil liberties. Am I shocked? (laughter) Read your Civil War history, Anita."

Ken, may I observe that maintaining a historical context is almost always advantageous, and to make the absurd claim that actions taken during the darkest days of the Republic justify similar actions during the present "war" ruins the entire rant?

Yours in mischief,

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), December 04, 2001.

I suspect Cherri mostly posted this to spur discussion -- which it did.

Anita: what Flint and Decker said, in the main. I won't add to it because I pretty much agree with them.

MY objection is with the binary, "you is or you ain't" polarization here. Either I am FOR the Constitution (in which case, I agree with the ... erm, enlightened screed in Cherri's original post, or I'm an ignert bumpkin' who just wants his beer for a reasonable price and my guns t' stay legal.

It is this characterization of the right that offends me the most -- that only LIBERALS really, truly THINK about these things, and the rest of us ... well, we're just a little SLOW, y'know? Bakkerds and ignert.

Having gotten THAT rant off my chest[g], I can say this. Of *COURSE* I am keeping an eye (as is Ken) on Civil Liberties during this conflict. You may not like this, but, like Ken and Flint, I'm willing to draw a distinction between the civil liberties of *American Citizens* and aliens (though I add that I don't care if they're LEGAL aliens; they're GUESTS in our home, and are subject to the rules of our house).

An excellent test case is going to be that of the American(s?) discovered in Afghanistan who are/were fighting with the Taliban. Bush may very well grant THEM a more "standard" treatment, while continuing with the tribunals for those who are not American citizens. There are no easy and quick answers.

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), December 04, 2001.

I suspect Cherri mostly posted this to spur discussion -- which it did.

True story. She rarely even checks back to see if folks have responded. BTW, she's going in for surgery this week, so I feel compelled to take her place. Anita: what Flint and Decker said, in the main. I won't add to it because I pretty much agree with them.

No problem. I don't discuss political issues on this forum to receive agreement. I have other places for that. I EXPECT and RECEIVE responses that I could have written before-hand. MY objection is with the binary, "you is or you ain't" polarization here. Either I am FOR the Constitution (in which case, I agree with the ... erm, enlightened screed in Cherri's original post, or I'm an ignert bumpkin' who just wants his beer for a reasonable price and my guns t' stay legal.

I didn't see your objection with the "You're either WITH us or AGAINST us" argument put forth by Bush. Wasn't that JUST as binary? In addition, I don't think that ANYONE here has suggested that one must agree with EVERYTHING in the original post. The guy was obviously off on a rant, and one can only select [or reject] the portions of the rant that "hit home".

BTW, I'm just an ignert bumpkin' who wants my beer for a reasonable price and wants YOUR guns t'stay legal, as well. Believe me, it's HARD to have an IQ of 64 and try to discuss politics.

I'm willing to draw a distinction between the civil liberties of *American Citizens* and aliens (though I add that I don't care if they're LEGAL aliens; they're GUESTS in our home, and are subject to the rules of our house).

Kindof like the 2nd amendment controversy regarding whether guns are for ALL or intended for a "militia thing", there's controversy about whether the Constitution applies to ONLY US citizens or EVERYONE living in this country. I'm not a Constitutional lawyer, so I'm not sure which way this will go. I suppose it's up to the Supreme Court to decide.

An excellent test case is going to be that of the American(s?) discovered in Afghanistan who are/were fighting with the Taliban. Bush may very well grant THEM a more "standard" treatment, while continuing with the tribunals for those who are not American citizens.

Right now, I've only seen ONE of those mentioned. As weird as it may sound, I'd go for the military tribunal thing on this guy before I'd go for the military tribunal on folks arrested for maybe NOTHING [citizens or not] in THIS country. The guy knew what he was doing. He actively fought against his own country. Of course he probably needs to spend three years in a hospital before he could stand trial, but them's the breaks.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), December 04, 2001.

Wake the fuck up! The fascist Amerikkka requires its military personnel to recite thise POS "oath". Thank "god" for intellects like "The (original) die hard".

The Military Oath

The following oath is taken by all personnel inducted into the armed forces of the United States, as found in the US Code, Section 502.

I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

-- (The (original) die hard@goose.stepping), December 04, 2001.

I EXPECT and RECEIVE responses that I could have written before-hand.

Heh. You've said that before. You should know, just for the record, that I often feel the same way, but I take it one step further into outright arrogance: I'll think, "you know, I could have written this *better* than they did." :)

I didn't see your objection with the "You're either WITH us or AGAINST us" argument put forth by Bush. Wasn't that JUST as binary?

Sure, it was an "either-or" challenge, but that's not just apples and oranges, it's apples and shoeboxes. No relation whatsoever and the *context* is what makes the difference.

There are times when "binary" approaches are perfectly appropriate: Is the building on fire? Yes or no. If so, shall I leave and increase my chances for survival? Yes or no.

And in this case, Bush was delivering a (much-needed and LONG overdue) warning to other regimes which have, in the past, given shelter to terrorists -- Libya, Syria, Sudan and Afghanistan, just to name a few. In the past, these nations have tried to skirt the middle ground, maintaining good relations with the West (for all-important Western trade!), while keeping their people (who hate the West) happy. Bush was letting them know that they had to choose, and I was all for it. In that case, he HAD to say something like, "choose or get off the pot."

Right now, I've only seen ONE [American fighting for the Taliban] mentioned.

I heard a few reports on the news today that there may have been as many as three, but nothing has been confirmed yet.

I'd go for the military tribunal thing on this guy before I'd go for the military tribunal on folks arrested for maybe NOTHING [citizens or not] in THIS country.

IMNHO, you've got that precisely bass-ackwards.

No wonder you don't eat ketchup. You're all backwards. :)

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), December 04, 2001.

Anita, you have a gift for overstatement. Please demonstrate how you have "lost" four Amendments to the Constitution. At best, you have alleged there are persons unknown being held without due process. I'd like to know a little more before I consider the Constitution under attack.

And, yes, you are somewhat mistaken. Employers pay an equal share of social security and medicare taxes. This means the poor shmuck who is an entrepreneur with 100 employees will pay payroll taxes for 100 other persons. Those paying the maximum in payroll taxes (and their employers) are subsidizing others.

Yes, there is a cap on payroll taxes. There is also a tighter cap on benefits. The "return on investment" is far lower for the wealthy than the poor.

As for benefits, do you have a home mortgage? The amount you can deduct (a tax subsidy) is far greater than the person who owns a $20 million estate. Student loans? Many are means tested. Your hypothetical neighbor, Bill Gates, paid a thousandfold more in income and capital gains taxes than you. His property taxes are 200 times yours. I imagine his toilet uses the same amount of water when he flushes. His car does no more or less damage to the local roads. His children in a public school do not demand a 100 times the attention of your children. The police do not respond to his home 100 times more often than yours. Bill Gates will likely never need an unemployment check, a welfare check, free government cheese, an FHA loan for his mortgage, a grant for his children's tuition. Bill Gates will not need a public defender or legal aid. He will not be an uninsured motorist, require free emergency medical assistance or subsdized drug treatment.

Bill Gates will pay more income taxes in a few weeks than you will pay in a lifetime... and the odds are that he'll use fewer individual government benefits. I'll leave it to you to fill in the specifics of the benefits you've used.

Liberals are responsible for the plight of the Native Americans. It was a liberal idea to create the beneficent (but terrible) reservation system and perpetual welfare state.

Finally, how do you explain, Anita, that more Americans have more rights today than in our history. How is it that African Americans have rights? Women? It seems your slippery slope runs towards freedom, not slavery.

And Nipper, where do you see any attempt towards justification in my comments? I state clearly that I oppose violations of civil liberties. Apparently, I just don't find these violations as surprising as others. Liberty is not a light switch. It is an endless balancing act between individual liberty and the commonweal. As a nation, I think we've been rather calm... aside from some isolated liberal hysterics. I haven't read about lynchings of Middle Eastern persons, burning of neighborhoods or outbreaks of rioting. What I see is quiet patriotism... and a people who have earned a Constitution.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), December 04, 2001.

"the poor shmuck who is an entrepreneur with 100 employees will pay payroll taxes for 100 other persons."

LMAO! Yeah, the "poor shmuck" is probably only making $$$millions a year instead of billions like Bill Gates. Poor sap.

In case you have forgotten Mr. Decker dear, part of the responsibility that comes with the privelege of being an entrepreneur in a capitalist society is assuming the risks and the costs of taking on such a venture.

I suppose you would only think it is fair if such a shmuck could simply use these 100 people as slaves without taking any risk or responsibility whatsoever. Yeah, in your dreams pal.

-- (get@lost.pig), December 04, 2001.

In addition, Decker would only think it is "fair" if any shmuck entrepreneur with any hare-brained idea for a business would be bailed out by the taxpayers when his business fails, as Dubya is now doing for so many.

-- (you@sorry.sap), December 04, 2001.

Stephen: And in this case, Bush was delivering a (much-needed and LONG overdue) warning to other regimes which have, in the past, given shelter to terrorists -- Libya, Syria, Sudan and Afghanistan, just to name a few.

That would have been well and nice, but it didn't stop there. His minions started saying things like, "Watch what you say!"...to Americans. The distinct impression given was that if you didn't buy into the entire 9 yards of what the Administration was doing, you were dog meat. I don't think this was SOLELY a warning to other regimes, Stephen. I think it was also a warning to Americans who didn't necessarily agree with the "plans" of the Administration. Maybe I'm just being paranoid, but will YOU come to my aid when I'm arrested for wearing these shoes?

IMNHO, you've got that precisely bass-ackwards.

How so? It wasn't so long ago that MY family came to the US. There's a certain lag-time between arrival and citizenship. Coming from a background of folks who actively worked for the underground in Norway during WW II, should my dad have been arrested? He never did anything wrong, but he still wasn't a citizen yet. Nah. IMO, if you've gone through citizenship and choose to fight against your own country from another land, that constitutes TREASON. Anita, you have a gift for overstatement. Please demonstrate how you have "lost" four Amendments to the Constitution.

Ken, I've been writing about this for MONTHS. I'm not going to repeat it all simply because you just showed up. Maybe Flint or Porter would like to dig out the old threads. I'm too lazy, myself.

And, yes, you are somewhat mistaken. Employers pay an equal share of social security and medicare taxes.

Heh. I'd forgotten about that. Too many years of self-employment, I guess.

I'll leave it to you to fill in the specifics of the benefits you've used.

I went through your list and I've used none so far. Do I qualify for a rebate? Finally, how do you explain, Anita, that more Americans have more rights today than in our history. How is it that African Americans have rights? Women?

Well, Ken, it certainly wasn't because government was handing them out. Liberals fought for them. I guess you forgot about Selma already?

As a nation, I think we've been rather calm... aside from some isolated liberal hysterics. I haven't read about lynchings of Middle Eastern persons, burning of neighborhoods or outbreaks of rioting. What I see is quiet patriotism... and a people who have earned a Constitution.

You don't pay much attention to the news, Ken. Did you not read about the Indian cab driver killed because he wore a turban? He wasn't even Arab. Did you not read about the mosques that were fire- bombed, or the stores run by Arabs that were set afire? You tell ME I have my head in the sand?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), December 04, 2001.

I must be thinking correctly if the John Birch Society agrees with me on something. Then again, there WAS that time that Pat Robertson agreed with me on something this year. Let me tell ya, that was one TEOWAIKI moment.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), December 04, 2001.

From the right, again, one vote for Anita.

-- Oxy (Oxsys@aol.com), December 04, 2001.

Anita, what I objected to was the idea that conservatives are somehow automatically in favor of the suspension of civil liberties, or less zealous in preserving them. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact, from my side of the aisle, it's *liberals* who are willing, for example, to trash the First Amendment right to free speech if it's politically-incorrect speech.

And yeah, I think you ARE being paranoid. I openly criticized the talk of torturing people to get them to talk, for 'zample, and no jack booted thugs came crashing down my door in the middle of the night.

No reasonable person wants to squelch dissent (except, once again, liberal academics, who apparently feel DEEPLY threatened by the conservative point of view, and who will go out of their way to prevent a conservative speaker from appearing at their college -- just to name one example).

But there's a world of difference between dissent and the active promotion of the overthrow of the republic. The fact that a small group that plots such overthrow doesn't have a snowball's chance of acheiving that overthrow isn't the issue; it's the fact that a lot of innocent people will get hurt when they try -- as we saw on September 11.

Did that attack do ANYTHING toward achieving the goals of Al-Quaida? No. But that didn't stop them from trying it. If *WE* can stop them from trying it, then we should do so.

Otherwise, once again, what Ken said. :)

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), December 04, 2001.

Um, Stephen...I think you just "ranted" there.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), December 04, 2001.

[You don't pay much attention to the news, Ken. Did you not read about the Indian cab driver killed because he wore a turban? He wasn't even Arab. Did you not read about the mosques that were fire- bombed, or the stores run by Arabs that were set afire? You tell ME I have my head in the sand?]

This strikes me as a flagrant case of "compared to what"? Ken spoke of things being "rather calm", and Anita went out and found the inevitable, isolated exceptions. And, as one might expect, presented those rare exceptions as though they were the NORM! And THEN accused KEN of having his head in the sand.

Now, I can go out and find cases of just about any kind of crime you can name, if all I have to do is name any two instances. Hell, in a country of 280 million people at a typical crime rate, you can find isolated instances of *anything*. The question is, how unusual are these instances compared to, say ordinary times, or other countries, or under comparable provocation. You know, honest perspective?

Anita is doing just what the y2k doomers were doing -- picking nothing but the rare exceptions and using them to claim there was a general pattern. A classic example of deriving the data from the conclusions. What's ironic is, Anita is quick to spot anyone else doing this, provided she disagrees with the foregone conclusions!

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 04, 2001.

Maybe you weren't there, Flint, when 'sumer posted on the previous forum about all the attacks on Arab-American establishments after 911. She'd never mentioned these things previously, and actually seemed to believe that they were OK, but felt that if the government didn't do something quickly, all the Arab-Americans in Cleveland [or Cincinnati...somewhere in Ohio] would be put to death.

I don't make up this stuff. I simply read it. We also discussed the mosques attacked shortly after 911. I'm not sure if it was on this forum or the previous one. Three were targeted right here in the DFW area. That's not happened since I've lived in Texas, Flint. I think there's indeed a correlation between cause and effect here. If you don't see it that way, "Oh well." [It's not easy filling in for Cherri.]

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), December 04, 2001.

Anita:

Maybe I've lost track of the point here. Of course, as anyone could predict, there has been some targeting of people who look kind of Arab-like. There are always ignorant hotheads. The surprising thing is that there wasn't a great deal more of such ignorance than there was. I'm only asking for perspective. I don't think 'sumer worrying about all the Arabs in Cleveland is very good perspective.

So I think "rather calm" was a pretty accurate phrase. I asked you to compare with other times, with other countries, with other provocations, in the hopes of developing some basis for comparison besides what comes across as a determination to select exceptional events *solely* to misrepresent the reality.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 04, 2001.

I live in a medium-sized city (population 300,000). There hasn't been one report of a Middle Eastern person or establishment being assaulted or harassed. Personally, I find that remarkable.

-- (just an@anonymous.one), December 04, 2001.

Considering the provocation of 9/11, considering the anti-Western hate-rhetoric of fundamentalist Muslims, considering the lack of remorseful breast-beating from main-stream Islam (even in America), I think the sum total of anti-Muslim activity in America is remarkably trivial. I posted a link to this effect from the Washington Post several weeks ago. Cleveland and Texas notwithstanding, there has been notably little anti-Muslim violence in the country at large.

OTOH, there has been anti-American violence in parts of the Muslim world, including murders in Saudi Arabia.

BTW, where are the guilt-ridden apologies to Americans from mainstream Muslims aghast at the behavior of a few radicals acting the name of Islam? Imagine the guilt-tripping anguish in rhe West if some fundie Xtians had mass-murdered 4000 Muslim civilians. Oh, the delicious self-hatred!

-- (lars@indy.net), December 04, 2001.

Stephen: Here's something regarding that American lad. MSNBC actually had quite a spread on him today, including mom and dad saying, "He's just a shy boy." It's not often that I agree with Cato, but in this case I do. No excuses are acceptable.

Flint: I did a google search this morning on "US Arab hate crimes". You might try it to see the differences between BEFORE 911 and after. You, too, Lars. Ohio and Texas were BY FAR not the only states affected. I even saw an incident at a Palos Hills Community College that I once attended. The rise in incidents was the reason why Bush and Ashcroft got on TV to tell the nation that they would NOT tolerate attacks against Arab-Americans.

Cherri's at the hospital now. Her surgery is scheduled for 9am Pacific time.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), December 05, 2001.

I always forget something. Lars: Doing that search you'll find the statements by mainstream Moslems you were waiting for.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), December 05, 2001.

Yep, Walker should be helped in his quest to have his 7 virgins.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), December 05, 2001.

A few random thoughts.... Every entrepreneur faces risks. Taxes are not a risk. Taxes are a cost imposed not by the marketplace, but by government. I am firmly against government intervention in markets and oppose "bail outs" of private corporations. It's bad economics to protect businesses from failure.

I am delighted you admit your laziness, Anita. It makes the rest of the discussion much easier knowing you won't bother to provide evidence.

We enjoy greater rights today because our society evolved. Our changing culture eventually changed the legal structure. This process continues today... not because the liberals are saving us, but because the dynamics of a Republic allows change. As accurately noted by Flint, both conservatives and liberals want to limit freedoms... they just differ on the particular freedoms in question. The mass of Americans are centrists. They reject the extremes of liberalism and conservatism. I think most Americans understand that the attack on our nation has created a complex set of problems including how we defend a free and open society. I think it's a bit hystrionic (and partisan) to start wailing about the loss of Constitutional amendments. Somehow, I think we'll muddle through without gulags, star chambers, inquisitions, riots, secret police or death squads.

As for the news, Anita, I imagine my grasp of current events is at least on par with yours. As usual, I find it hard to improve on Flint's rebuttal. A handful of news clippings proves my point far more than yours. In the wake of the September 11 attack, I feared far worse. The incidents have been isolated and have no support from the general public. Most Americans understand that the terrorists do not represent the Arab world or the Islamic religion.

Despite the worries of the ultra-liberals, America is an astonishing tolerant place. So it remains.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), December 05, 2001.

Hey Ken, how come you only post from work? Is this what they pay you to do? LOL!! You can goof off all day while someone else does the work, and you get paid more than they do! That's the beauty of capitalism!!

-- (WHO you @ calling. lazy??), December 05, 2001.

Anita:

Google is a pretty good search engine. I use it for the same reason you do -- it combs through huge amounts of stuff and sifts out more or less just what you're looking for.

But wasn't that what I said? Let me try again. Y2K was turned (by those determined to do so) from an unimportant maintenance chore to the potential end of the world by precisely the technique you now admit to -- carefully tuning out everything else. And as reality so obligingly demonstrated, this technique yields the exact opposite of a balanced perspective. Yet people continue to use Google to support their claims of chemtrails, a flat earth, and you name it. With as much success as you experience, and for the same reason.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 05, 2001.

Flint: You asked for comparison data. My searches revealed that there were more hate crimes enacted on Arab Americans in the three days after 911 than the entire last year. You and Ken sit there and say, "Well, it wasn't as bad as I THOUGHT it would be." Well, it IS/WAS to the Arab American community.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), December 06, 2001.

Ken,

If it's bad economics to protect businesses from failure, is it also bad economics to protect sectors of the economy? Air travel for instance?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeeD@yahoo.com), December 06, 2001.

Yesterday, Anita, I ate more lox than I had for the entire previous year. Of course, since I had eaten only one bite previously... an entire bagel was an enormous jump in lox consumption. C'mon, Anita, I heard far better distortions during the Y2K debate. According to the FBI, there were 150 anti-Islamic "hate crimes" between 1992 and 1998. During the same period there 7410 anti-Jewish "hate crimes" and 19,968 anti-Black "hate crimes." In 1998, there were 21 anti- Islamic "hate crimes." To exceed a year's total in three days, one would need 22 "hate crimes." WOW! Twenty-two crimes! I think a multi-agency task force in order. (chuckle) Personally, Anita, I think the African-American community would be delighted to trade places with the Islamic community... even after 9/11.

Unk, it's almost always bad economics for government to intervene in the marketplace. Remember the rule of unintended consequences.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), December 07, 2001.