On 23 Dec 2005 08:05:16 -0500, kmd <k...@lifeofaction.org> wrote:
>On 22 Dec 2005 13:46:15 -0500, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
>>If it's *domestic terror* you want to do something about, then it's the >>Christian Identity Movement than needs to be behind a chain-link fence >>more than the Moslems. Moslems didn't bomb Oklahoma City, or the Olympics, >>or various abortion clinics. Christians did.
>> There are many who do violence and claim that it is their Christian >> beliefs that drove/led them to do it. There are centuries of this kind >> of history. I acknowledge and grieve everything done in violence in >> the name of Christianity.
>> But this is corruption, distortion. These actions are not a necessary >> part of what Christianity is or must be. Nor are they inherent or >> inevitable as a result of something in the religion itself.
>> But the heart of what I'm saying is that violent shitheadedness is not >> the *totality* of what Christianity and Christians are. So much of >> what I read and hear implies or claims that it is. No small amount of >> that comes from so-called Christians who want to assert that theirs is >> the only way to be Christian in the world.
>what this really means to me is that shitheads seem to disperse themselves >among many religions in the world. christianity may have more shitheads >than some others because let's face it, there's a lot of people who call >themselves christians.
>years ago, i was in scientology. now there's a prime hangout for shitheads >IME. still, many believers of that faith (if you can call it that, because >we had faith that they weren't just robbing us blind) are not shitheads, >perhaps just because it's very difficult to gather a large crowd and filter >out every last non-shithead.
>there. i think i've confused myself.
I have a long reply on this, but I think I need time to think through and edit my response before posting it.
The gist is that I think that one must acknowledge the capacity for violence within oneself before one can think through effective strategies to deal with the shitheads who actually go ahead and express it. One must acknowledge the dark in order to see the light.
I've had personal experience in the Canadian west with both good, loving fundies of the christian flavour and wacked, patriachial ones.
We have wacked patriachial ones of all flavours running as subthreads in _all_ of my cities' religious communities (the sad part is that most of them don't understand how wacked they are), but a strong, participatory civil society structure tends to expose them rapidly, at which point they retreat back into the shadows.
Yes, these are gross generalizations, but I'd have to research and verify a bunch of stuff from Rumour Control(TM) aka the Mocassin Telegraph before I'd could post the comprehensive, substantiated list that would lend substence to my experience. :)
In article <lqpiq1h2fjn9kgj5h8tk9lipapa069l...@4ax.com>, Mike Given <asph...@gipco.org> wrote:
>Velochic du nord wrote: >>Soooooooooooooo......... >>What is all of your takes on this?
> If I have a choice of my government spying on me or some other >government spying on me, I'd rather it be the former.
I'd rather it be the latter. If they get caught, they can get hurt (sitting here in the middle of the US, they probably can't get over a border too fast). Besides, I sort of expect the latter, if they have any reason to waste the effort; just like I expect our government to spy on furriners when it feels like it.
Finally, I've authorized our government to do a lot of spying on me (I work in finance).
In article <hq4kq15fnj575dcj68if7q4d94314ms...@4ax.com>, Mike Given <asph...@gipco.org> wrote:
>steveb wrote: > No solution is perfect. Domestic terror needs to be dealt with and >a bit of peeking seems the least invasive method with the best quality >of return. If it means that some CIA analyst records a few of my >boring-ass phone confabs to rule me out of the picture, then "big >fucking deal" says I.
When the government can't even convince its own tame pet court to allow it, that _is_ a big deal.
>>Governments should not be allowed to peek and pry, and justify it >>later.
> Why not? You do realize that wiretaps can be issued without your >knowing it, right?
Sure, _if_ they convince a judge that there's a reason (and, with the current legislation, they have a while _after_ they do it to convince him, so they can't even claim it was an emergency and they didn't have time to ask).
> And sakes-alive, don't even get me started on the >number of personal orifices the IRS is allowed to probe (and plunder).
None. Customs, on the other hand, . . .
> We already know that the government is not allowed to house troops in >our homes
The only Amendment it hasn't violated.
>If some CIA analyst records a phone conversation of yours and >dismisses it as harmless, in what way was your freedom or liberty >impaired?
My privacy, where I (should) have it, is important to me.
> If that same CIA analyst subsequently eavesdrops on a >conversation from some fundamentalist freak about to blow up a federal >office building in, oh, I don't know, say, the middle of Oklahoma, in >what way would your freedom and/or liberty be impaired?
Too bad they don't consider those sorts of people as targets, isn't it?
Besides, if they wanted to, they could probably get a judge to agree to let them.
> I don't see the current US situation as "default".
It never is.
> I don't see >non-invasive monitoring of communication via public utilities and >resources that are subsidized by tax money as unreasonable in this >non-default conidtion.
"subsidized by tax money" meaning requiring the service providers to build systems that allow for government wiretapping at their own expense? That's the situation, you (should) know.
> Personally I'd rather pay a few dollars more >for a gallon of gasoline if I thought that would make terrorists stay >the fuck home, but I'm under no such loftily-inspired notion. Right >here, right now, there is a need to *suspend* a *tiny* bit of privacy >to preserve a greater good,
If they could convince judges of that, they wouldn't need to break the law.
In article <Xns97361786A58Estealthaxecomcast...@208.49.80.60>,
stealthaxe <stealth...@comcast.net> wrote: >Also, I wouldn't want to be the one rebuilding the audio from the IP packet >sequence, but I suppose there's equipment out there to do that.
>years ago, i was in scientology. now there's a prime hangout for shitheads >IME. still, many believers of that faith (if you can call it that, because >we had faith that they weren't just robbing us blind) are not shitheads, >perhaps just because it's very difficult to gather a large crowd and filter >out every last non-shithead.
They'd be just the ones to do it, though.
-- Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice." Autoreply is disabled |
> In article <Xns97361786A58Estealthaxecomcast...@208.49.80.60>, > stealthaxe <stealth...@comcast.net> wrote: >>Also, I wouldn't want to be the one rebuilding the audio from the IP >>packet sequence, but I suppose there's equipment out there to do that. > You mean like your VOIP equipment? > Seth
Standard VoIP equipment can't be used to snoop on another conversation. I'm in the business; I know. I'm sure it's not hard to do the necessary modifications though. Currently my employer's premier VoIP product has no Lawful Intercept function but from what I know of regulatory it's going to be a requirement before the product goes GA.
However, VoIP covers a lot of territory, including shareware clients to be used from PC to PC for example (like Yahoo's service). I'm quite certain that there's no provision to monitor these kinds of calls. Especially since you could homebrew your own solution and thereby force would be snoopers to reverse engineer your solution before they can snoop. It's not as simple as having a radio receiver or anything like that. Commercial grade solutions have to have LI provisions for just such reason, but "freeware" solutions pose a unique problem that you don't exactly see with POTS.
Keep in mind that an LI solution is integrated into the provider's network, and it's non-trivial to build a "snooper" that can tap into private VoIP networks.
In article <Xns9734F2B74A7EBstealthaxecomcast...@208.49.80.60>,
stealthaxe <stealth...@comcast.net> wrote: >Allison Turner- <beton...@sover.net> wrote in news:doea1m02ad3 >@drn.newsguy.com:
>> Government being allowed to tap my phone without my >> knowledge and without some approval from *someone* >> independent (a judge-stamped search warrant) is just not >> ok.
>this has probably been mentioned already, but wasn't it only >internationally terminating or internationally originating phone calls >that could be tapped without warrant?
Um, that's what was claimed, but I think it went further.
Allisson <allis...@panix.com> wrote: > >Selki wrote: > >> Allisson <allis...@panix.com> wrote: > >>>Allisson & twinkies > >>>[I got an A in my Cognitive Neuroscience course and the Prof > >>>I hope to have as PhD advisor, was interested in the idea > >>>behind my class project as potential real work for me as a PhD, > >>>whoo hoo.] > >> Hurray! If you ever have more time to write about it, I'd be interested. > I want to look at how increased dimensionality of the stimuli (adding > shape criteria to color stimuli) in a classification task does for the > goodness-of-fit for each model and how using neurophysiological data > (fMRI) follows the predicted time course and what regions of the > brain are involved in these tasks. Each theory posits a different > region as being crucial. This was my class project but I discussed my > idea with the person whom I want for my PhD advisor (I'm applying for > FT study next Fall) and they were "exeptionally interested" in pursuing > it beyond a theoretical class exercise in experimental design.
prairierabbit <jlcl...@ilstu.edu> wrote: > "Allisson" <allis...@panix.com> wrote in message > news:dobpjf$afs$1@reader1.panix.com... > > I watched a great interview with Doris Kearns Goodwin > Charlie Rose, right? Kept me up until past my bedtime, she did... > [note for readers: the book she just wrote is _Team of Rivals : The > Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln_, which is on my winter reading list.]
My brother mentioned this book over Christmas. I've never been a huge fan of Lincoln, but this interested me enough to add to my book list.
kmd <k...@lifeofaction.org> wrote: >On 23 Dec 2005 09:52:18 -0500, a...@pobox.com (Mean Green Dancing >Machine) wrote: >>In article <8d1oq1p1eccuij7r5tn26fd1oh9btg5...@4ax.com>, >>kmd <k...@lifeofaction.org> wrote: >>>On 23 Dec 2005 09:10:59 -0500, a...@pobox.com (Mean Green Dancing >>>Machine) wrote: >>>>In article <t8tnq1t9q9kjj3f67ntk6etnl5feedo...@4ax.com>, >>>>kmd <k...@lifeofaction.org> wrote: >>>>>On 22 Dec 2005 13:46:15 -0500, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
>>>>>>If it's *domestic terror* you want to do something about, then it's >>>>>>the Christian Identity Movement than needs to be behind a chain-link >>>>>>fence more than the Moslems. Moslems didn't bomb Oklahoma City, or >>>>>>the Olympics, or various abortion clinics. Christians did.
>>>><raised eyebrow> Oh, really? Let us know know when you've been >>>>hassled for being Christian. I mean actually hassled, not just >>>>dealing with some snotty comments on Usenet. And when we don't have >>>>an overtly Fundie POTUS.
>>>Aahz, can you come off your soapbox for ten seconds for long enough to >>>see me as a human being and not a category?
>>Dunno. Depends on whether your soundbites stimulate appropriate >>kneejerks. I actually don't know you well enough to see you as an >>instance of human being; all I have to go by are the particular words >>you're using at any point in time.
>You know that I am a human being, whether you have met me in person or >not. Also, you have read more from me than just these particular words >at this point in time.
Note carefully the distinction between knowing that you're a human being and seeing you as a human being. I certainly don't perceive the mass of people outside when I drive as individual humans, and that doesn't really change for me until there's some real data about a person stored in my memory. You're not there yet. Yes, I recall seeing you before, the same way that I recall seeing lots of people at SF cons who I don't know.
>>Note that this is *not* the same thing as seeing you as a category -- >>I won't let you get away with pulling the either/or card.
>I wasn't trying to. Your response suggested to me that you were >not differentiating between me and George W. Bush. Your response >suggested to me that we fit into the same category for purposes of this >discussion, that of "Christian."
When I made that comment, we were having two different "this discussion", so your complaint doesn't really apply. My comment was in the context of a discussion that I thought was about being hassled for being Christian (which seemed to me the obvious context for your response to Paul).
>>>I just listened to Osafi on Krista Tippett's "Speaking of Faith" and he >>>said a whole bunch of things that resonated with my frustration at the >>>public appropriation of my faith by a bunch of violent shitheads.
>>That's something different; it certainly wasn't clear you were referring >>to this. (And yes, I did take a quick skim of the page you linked to.)
>So you saw that he is a progressive Muslim.
Well, yes, but that doesn't mean I know what point you're trying to make without explicit clarification. Progressive Muslims have all kinds of beliefs and goals.
>>From that standpoint I do understand what you're talking about; I've had >>similar reactions when I see the Ultra-Zionists trying to push the >>Palestinians out of the Occupied Territories by building settlements.
>And to add injury to violence, claiming to do it in the name of the >God of Israel. And then the maddening times when media coverage and >otherwise-intelligent conversation describe this as what "Jews" do. It >feels to me like a collusion with the violent shitheads to appropriate >the public face of life-affirming beliefs and practices and turn that >face into a death mask.
Exactly.
>>>One of the most moving things he talked about was the experience of >>>listening to pundits and academics bemoan the "deafening silence of >>>Muslim moderates." And Osafi said what the heck do I have to do -- >>>scream from the rooftops? And he said that one of the worst things one >>>human being can do to another is to refuse to hear them.
>>That's true in a philosophic sense, possibly, but not in any practical >>sense, and definitely not true from other philosophic standpoints.
>How is it not true in a practical sense if it's true from Osafi's >experience and from mine?
It's not true from two standpoints:
* Taking the comment literally, it's simply not the case that refusing to hear is one of the worst a human can do to another
* Also taking the comment literally, there's an implication that you have a right to be heard, which I will fight against vigorously
You should note that I'm predicating my response partly on your use of "one" and "another". From my POV, there's more room for agreement if you're talking about groups of people, because I believe that much evil has been done because groups weren't listening to each other. There still remains the issue that forcing people to hear just doesn't work, and any movement in that direction brings up all kinds of other problems.
(This is a problem I have with "diversity training", BTW. As long as it focuses on behavior, that's fine, but I've heard too many stories about trying to enforce PC thought, which is worse than the disease.) -- --- Aahz <*> (Copyright 2005 by a...@pobox.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/ Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het Pythonista
Fourteenth Virtual Anniversary: one day and counting
In article <985oq1teldlhaqbdpjqildb832e50af...@4ax.com>,
kmd <k...@lifeofaction.org> wrote: >On 23 Dec 2005 09:52:18 -0500, a...@pobox.com (Mean Green Dancing >Machine) wrote:
>>Tangent: I recently had occasion to re-read the earliest e-mail between >>me and my primary (who I met on soc.singles fourteen years ago, for those >>of y'all who are more recent immigrants to this newsgroup). I find it >>interesting how little my writing style has changed over the years.
>Heh. Do you see any changes? I see lots when I go back and look.
Not really any change in style. There are some changes in what I talk about and how I talk about them, and I'm less likely to get sucked into interminable point/counterpoint discussions where it's apparent that the other party isn't paying any attention to what I'm saying. I doubt anyone could find style changes that identify when I was writing. -- --- Aahz <*> (Copyright 2005 by a...@pobox.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/ Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het Pythonista
Fourteenth Virtual Anniversary: one day and counting
Paul Ciszek wrote: >Mike Given wrote: >>Maybe that's what we should do with this Muslim critters. Shut >>'em all behind a chain-link fence. Or maybe just catapult 'em >>across the border into Canada. >>No solution is perfect. Domestic terror needs to be dealt with >>and a bit of peeking seems the least invasive method with the >>best quality of return. >If it's *domestic terror* you want to do something about, then >it's the Christian Identity Movement than needs to be behind a >chain-link fence more than the Moslems.
Not "more than", but speaking otherwise, you're preaching to the choir on that notion. I find it shameful that we've endured the Ku Klux Klan for a century without giving them the richly-deserved label of "terrorist".
>Moslems didn't bomb Oklahoma City, or the Olympics, or various >abortion clinics. Christians did.
True, but is wasn't Christians that bombed the World Trade Centers - twice. And again, you're preaching to the choir because I consider "Intelligent Design" to be a form of Christian terrorism, and have personally escorted patients past crowds of out-of-town anti-abortion fanatics blocking entrances to clinics.
>>If that same CIA analyst subsequently eavesdrops on a >>conversation from some fundamentalist freak about to blow up a >>federal office building in, oh, I don't know, say, the middle >>of Oklahoma, in what way would your freedom and/or liberty be >>impaired? >They don't spy on *those* freaks, alas.
Precisely my point. If a warrantless wiretap was used to catch a KKK posse out on a nigger- or gay-hunt I wouldn't shed a single tear.
>>And the day the government starts issuing poo-pooh permits, >>I'll be among the first to load a weapon and take up arms >>against it. >And if the government starts asking people to present "papers, >please" to travel even with one's home city?
Same casus belli.
>Because that is already happening.
Where do you live? 'Cuz in my home town of brotherly love, any federal officer asking for travelling papers would probably get the shit kicked out of him by any number of friendly bystanders on sheer principle. Plenty of recent immigrants to go around too - it's hardly uncommon to see a goodly number of kufis, shoras, and burkas wandering around and no one give 'em a second glance.
Mikey (..but a NY Rangers jersey is another matter entirely.)
On 30 Dec 2005 10:58:29 -0500, Mike Given <asph...@gipco.org> wrote:
> Precisely my point. If a warrantless wiretap was used to catch a >KKK posse out on a nigger- or gay-hunt I wouldn't shed a single tear.
Well maybe you should.
The check and balance applied to Government intrusion is necessary simply because the system is operated by people with agendas. It doesn't matter what the agenda is, it's enough that it exists and allows unchecked systems to become persecutory.
How long before the need to justify your existence as an agency requires that you change focus and begin to spy on .... well any group that you, or your bosses personally don't like.
steveb wrote: >Mike Given wrote: >>Precisely my point. If a warrantless wiretap was used to >>catch a KKK posse out on a nigger- or gay-hunt I wouldn't >>shed a single tear. >Well maybe you should.
Hm. Lemme ruminate on that for a minute. Nope. Sorry. I'll never be so morally absolute as to cloud my judgement in such a manner. Seriously, why all you people haven't made me Supreme Emperor yet just boggles the mind dontchyaknow.
>The check and balance applied to Government intrusion is >necessary simply because the system is operated by people >with agendas.
Spot the actual problem.
>It doesn't matter what the agenda is,
Wow. I don't even know where to begin on that. Other than to say that if "fair and reasonable treatment of the governed" is an agenda, then I'm okay with it.
>it's enough that it exists and allows unchecked systems >to become persecutory.
I'm familiar with the old "Power corrupts.." bromide, I just don't subscribe to it. The actual truism comes from a favorite author of mine who put it as: "Power attracts the corruptible; absolute power attracts the absolutely corruptible"; nowhere is this more evident than in the American political system. With labor unions running a close second and journalism at least falling somewhere in the top ten. "Persecutory", indeed. A powerful organization that's operated by a group (or even an individual) whose "agenda" is simply to enforce the notion that a person's right to exist ends where the next person's right to exist begins has got a damn good start. A bit of a conservative ideal, I admit, but I do at least try to practice what I preach.
>How long before the need to justify your existence as an >agency requires that you change focus and begin to spy on.... >well any group that you, or your bosses personally don't like.
That's putting the cart before the horse. Not that I'm completely against putting the cart before the horse if the situation calls for it, but it's a silly thing to do in this instance.
>I think they call it Totalitarianism.
Actually if that's what "they" call it then "they" are gravely mistaken.
Mikey (..look up "oligarchy" and get back to "us".)
On 30 Dec 2005 10:45:00 -0500, a...@pobox.com (Mean Green Dancing
Machine) wrote: >In article <985oq1teldlhaqbdpjqildb832e50af...@4ax.com>, >kmd <k...@lifeofaction.org> wrote: >>On 23 Dec 2005 09:52:18 -0500, a...@pobox.com (Mean Green Dancing >>Machine) wrote:
>>>Tangent: I recently had occasion to re-read the earliest e-mail between >>>me and my primary (who I met on soc.singles fourteen years ago, for those >>>of y'all who are more recent immigrants to this newsgroup). I find it >>>interesting how little my writing style has changed over the years.
>>Heh. Do you see any changes? I see lots when I go back and look.
>Not really any change in style. There are some changes in what I talk >about and how I talk about them,
Yeah, me too. Of course, I've had a worldview conversion since my first post, so that has a whole lot to do with it. I was decidedly, snarkily agnostic/atheist when I first arrived in ss(m) if ya can believe it.
>and I'm less likely to get sucked into >interminable point/counterpoint discussions where it's apparent that the >other party isn't paying any attention to what I'm saying.
Is that a comment on the exchange between you and me that you snipped to get to this last bit?
>I doubt >anyone could find style changes that identify when I was writing.
kmd <k...@lifeofaction.org> wrote: >On 30 Dec 2005 10:45:00 -0500, a...@pobox.com (Mean Green Dancing >Machine) wrote: >>In article <985oq1teldlhaqbdpjqildb832e50af...@4ax.com>, >>kmd <k...@lifeofaction.org> wrote: >>>On 23 Dec 2005 09:52:18 -0500, a...@pobox.com (Mean Green Dancing >>>Machine) wrote:
>>>>Tangent: I recently had occasion to re-read the earliest e-mail between >>>>me and my primary (who I met on soc.singles fourteen years ago, for those >>>>of y'all who are more recent immigrants to this newsgroup). I find it >>>>interesting how little my writing style has changed over the years.
>>>Heh. Do you see any changes? I see lots when I go back and look.
>>Not really any change in style. There are some changes in what I talk >>about and how I talk about them,
>Yeah, me too. Of course, I've had a worldview conversion since my >first post, so that has a whole lot to do with it. I was decidedly, >snarkily agnostic/atheist when I first arrived in ss(m) if ya can >believe it.
I'll even believe six impossible things before breakfast. ;-) But my essential worldview has changed not at all, only how I think about it. For example, I once swore I'd never get involved with a smoker, yet I celebrated my tenth anniversary with one last October. (No, not the ProblemOlderWoman for those of you having trouble with dates.) OTOH, I've never ever seen zir smoking, and zie doesn't have the icky smoker smell I usually encounter. My basic policy still stands; I've just made an exception for an unusual circumstance.
>>and I'm less likely to get sucked into >>interminable point/counterpoint discussions where it's apparent that the >>other party isn't paying any attention to what I'm saying.
>Is that a comment on the exchange between you and me that you snipped >to get to this last bit?
Nope. I'm not much of one for hidden messages. I did respond to the rest of the stuff in another post, did you miss it?
>>I doubt >>anyone could find style changes that identify when I was writing.
>Not even you?
Not really. Many's the time I've come across an old post from the early 90s and had to double-check that it really was old because it sounded exactly like something I'd say now. -- --- Aahz <*> (Copyright 2005 by a...@pobox.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/ Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het Pythonista
Fourteenth Virtual Anniversary: one day and counting
On 30 Dec 2005 15:31:25 -0500, Mike Given <asph...@gipco.org> wrote:
>kmd wrote: >>No small amount of that comes from so-called Christians who >>want to assert that theirs is the only way to be Christian >>in the world. > You vex me, woman. Truly and entirely, you vex me.
My work here is done.
>Mikey (..either that or I have taught you well.)
Only the shadow knows.
-- Kristen, and he ain't talkin' "Woe to those who say nothing when those who have nothing to say keep chattering on." Augustine
|
