As an aside, does that sound like V for Vendetta to anyone else?
(And as long as I'm being political, how bout all you yanks on Flare write an email to your congressppl to vote against retroactive amnesty for the telcos that participated in the illegal NSA wiretaps? Just hurry, because the Senate votes Monday at noon. More info at http://www.stopthespying.org/, run by EFF.)
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
I love Big Brother!
Sigh... Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
This should be in the Flameboard, given the subject matter.
I guess I need not say any more other than to mention one other name: Maher Arar.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
I forgot about the Flameboard. Understandable, given I've never even visited the Flameboard...
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I'm not sure what there is to argue about, though. Still, if you'd like. . .
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Well, I've met more than a few people who would be firmly OK with this kind of thing, in the name of Freedom and America and Christ-O Cereal. Not that I think there are probably going to be those kind of people here. But just sayin'.
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
I'm not sure what bothers me more. The fact that this sort of thing happens unchecked, or the fact that there are actually people who think this is a-okay. Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
I think those are both one and the same issue, aren't they?
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
Well, you get the two sub-classes of individuals. The ones that are doing this because they'll stop at nothing to "protect their country" and then you get those that under normal circumstances would find the behaviour abhorrent, but because its being done to make them safe and by the people they trust, it must be okay, right? As long as I get to sleep in a warm comfy bed and its not me or mine in that cell, I'll let it slide and be the better for it. Right? Everything'll be okay, right?
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Well...sociobiology has been criticized as reductionist in the extreme...but from a sociobiological perspective, it makes sense, really. The basic outgroup vs ingroup psychology. Our species evolved as 'group' animals, which at first expressed itself as tribes and clans when we grew a culture. We have empathy and altruism like other so-called higher-order mammals, but like them, its directed at our ingroup, the ones we consider "us" and not "them." It made evolutionary sense to block off the empathy for the other groups - their continued survival did nothing to ensure yours, and in fact might constitute a threat. There was no point in wasting valuable resources caring about it, let alone helping them.
So today we have racists and homophobes and those people you mentioned who let things like this slide as long as they're family is safe. I mean, to me, it all seems like the same thing. In school the jocks hate the nerds, the nerds hate the preps; in adult life you get other rivalries more or less severe; people have groups they passionately dislike for one reason or another. If a person hates lawyers, for example, everyone seems to think that's a bit illogical, but nobody seems to think its abhorrent, like racism or creedism, but its the same mechanics.
I see it this way: A white person might hate black people or vice versa because it's easy to mark them as 'outgroup.' Skin color, subculture, speech patterns, body build and features, all are obvious physical differences that make it easy for a relatively unenlightened mind to see them as fundamentally "not-us" and activate the ingroup vs outgroup behavior. However, many (most? hopefully?) people are intelligent and compassionate enough to see beyond minor physical and cultural differences such as those, and truly never (right, well, almost never) have a racist thought. But, then, they pick a more complicated set of criteria to mark outsiders and dislike them instead. Sometimes you get people who are very good at being polite and tolerant even to groups they secretly hate, but they do hate them. I'd bet money that there is not a single person on this planet who is totally free of that thinking pattern, that them-vs-us mentality. There are probably some small number of people who never actually label a group as "them," but that doesn't mean they never have thoughts in that direction.
It also seems to me that people are more tolerant of huge differences than they are of small ones. That makes some sense too - as we evolved, species or groups who filled a similar niche or lived near our territory were more of a threat than very different animals or distant groups. It's hard for people to care about suffering that's very far away - again, why waste the resources when your own group might starve or be eaten tonight? - but it's not often that you find a person who hates a distant group of people with the same passion that they might hate a group closer to home, or more like themselves. For example, I once knew someone who had no problem with Muslims, whose culture and beliefs are quite different from his (being an American and a Baptist) but who had a passionate dislike bordering on hate for certain mainstream Protestant denominations who, in my opinion, were virtually identical in culture and beliefs to him.
The only way I've ever heard of to try and combat those kinds of feelings in yourself is to go ahead and admit that you have racist or creedist or whateverist thoughts, let yourself label groups as 'bad,' but then do your utmost to give individuals a chance. It's easier to accept an individual, even with different beliefs, than it is to accept a whole group.
Anyway, I'm starting to ramble...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Indeed, you are.
Most people of voting age are MORONS and dont follow the news in any way, so the government gets away with this shit all the time.
If our current government can spy on it's own people without cause, fake a case for war- resulting in thousands of US casualties (and tens of thousands of foreign casualties), destroy evidence of torture they were specificly court-ordered not to destroy, declare a widely-understood torture tactic as not torture (even though they've inprosoned people for it in the past as torture) and "out" CIA operatives for political gain, all WITHOUT any consequences, they can get away with anything they damn well like.
You can bet we'll be slowly learning about additional illegal things the Bush admisisttration has done.... after the Republicans are safely out of office, that is. I forsee a slew of "tell-all" books from White House insiders being published.
Though all such criminal activity will, likely, be considered expmpt from prosecution on grounds of "National Security".
Putin should be taking notes.
But now I'm rambling.
Worst. President. Ever.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Saw in the Times today that apparently the CIA made a conscious decision to impede the 9/11 panel investigation by withholding evidence. Link below, but you've got to sign up with the Times to be able to read it, I believe. ('sfree, but I hate it - such a hassle.)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)