Why the US can't be trusted

Do some of you feel a little sick that you would so willingly give up/exchange freedoms which even this government has recognized was a wrong move?

whether you order a kosher or vegetarian meal, for example.

I choose freedom over frightened safety.

I agree with whoever said that nobody really minds as long as it's not there ass that's in the fire, or something to that effect.

Also, I don't think this is such a big issue, because there are terrorists out there, and I think a little pullback on our freedoms, if it actually helps stop terrorists, is prescribed. It's just a time in history where we have to be a little flexible with our freedoms. At some point down the line, things will go back the other way, and we will get back our full compliment of freedoms. Things go in crests and waves, I think, and for now, we have to be in this crest. It isn't permanent, and I think it could help.

You call that paranoid... I call it free.

And the reason that your choice bothers me is that you, with your less than absolute interest in freedom, are likely to vote. You could easily choose to vote for someone who also sees no problem in restricting your freedoms and mine.

"Is giving up a modest amount of freedom worth your perceived safety?"

But the argument here seems to be whether it is okay to give up some privacy in public settings. To that I answer an unhesitating yes (though that x-ray scanner that can look through clothes is a bit disconcerting.)

Piffka wrote:

You call that paranoid... I call it free.

I did not call it paranoid Piffka. Americans tend to be more paranoid about these things than most and I had been about to mention that but I did not call this paranoid.

And while this distinction might not seem important to you (doesn't seem to as you imply that those who do not agree with you are both insand and sick) it is important to me.

Quote:

And the reason that your choice bothers me is that you, with your less than absolute interest in freedom, are likely to vote. You could easily choose to vote for someone who also sees no problem in restricting your freedoms and mine.

My question clearly asked if you'd still object even if my lacking concern were not to affect policy and law in any way.

So would it? I mean, spare me all the "freedom" rhetoric. When I said that all freedoms are "exchanged" it was an important point. Freedoms are exchanged, when one is taken away it's opposite is given.

For example, the "freedom to murder" being taken away gives the "freedom not to be murdered". This is a clear example of a no-brainer exchange of freedoms.

There are certain freedoms that are almost universally wished for and others are not.

Basically you value a certain freedom and more than do I. This is not about you wanting "freedom" and me not wanting it, it's about having different values to different freedoms.

Heck it's not even about privacy concerns vs. no privacy concerns, there are certain things that are legal in the US that I do not accept at all in regard to my personal privacy.

So my question is, if my lacking concern for this particular issue did not affect law or policy in any way, would it still bother you that I am not concerned?

Karzak... I refuse to allow fear to run my life. I wonder, have you read what the government proposed? I believe that our government has no right to maintain a trolling database of everyone... not just suspicious characters. This was to be a database, available to every "current" ally to peruse. It was to detail where I go, where you go, who I go with, who you go with, what I eat, what you eat, and how we both pay for it. It is a way to follow the money and that trail would have led into your bank accounts and mine. Currently those are considered private except under judicially approved and limited circumstances. How much of that do you consider public knowledge? How far would the government have to go before you became outraged?

Craven, I respect you but you are difficult to argue with... you go out in so many directions.

I don't think I said anywhere that I thought someone was insane (I assume, anyway, that insand means that).

And when I said "sick" I was thinking feeling sick to one's stomach and sheepish to be arguing on a side that had already become moot.

As to whether or not it would bother me how you felt... the answer is yes.

Do you want to know why?

Partly it would be because I think you are discounting something you have (though I agree that there are many ways freedom is already abridged in this country).

Partly it would be because I don't understand why anyone would willingly give up freedom/ personal information not knowing where it might end up.

You are a person who seems to value, even more than I, your private information, so it doesn't quite make sense to me.... doesn't add up.

Finally, it would bother me because I like to be right. Who doesn't?

I think I am right that freedoms should be highly valued and protected.

You say you refuse to allow fear to run your life but then follow it with a list of fears. ???? I tend to see these sorts of things as conflicts of fears. One side says "Look! Something terrible is going to happen if we don't do something about it so we're going to do "Y"! ". Then an opposing view says "You can't do "Y"! Someone might abuse "Y" to infringe on my rights!"

Poof! Instant conflict. But it all boils down to opposing fears.

Piffka wrote:

Karzak... I refuse to allow fear to run my life. I wonder, have you read what the government proposed? I believe that our government has no right to maintain a trolling database of everyone... not just suspicious characters. This was to be a database, available to every "current" ally to peruse. It was to detail where I go, where you go, who I go with, who you go with, what I eat, what you eat, and how we both pay for it. It is a way to follow the money and that trail would have led into your bank accounts and mine. Currently those are considered private except under judicially approved and limited circumstances. How much of that do you consider public knowledge? How far would the government have to go before you became outraged?

You say you refuse to allow fear to run your life but then follow it with a list of fears. ???? I tend to see these sorts of things as conflicts of fears. One side says "Look! Something terrible is going to happen if we don't do something about it so we're going to do "Y"! ". Then an opposing view says "You can't do "Y"! Someone might abuse "Y" to infringe on my rights!"

Poof! Instant conflict. But it all boils down to opposing fears.

As for me, since you ask, there is a huge difference between recognizing peril and allowing fear to run your life. Do you want me to illustrate?

Recognizing peril... hiking near a mountainous cliff and seeing that a fall would be fatal. Allowing fear to rule... never hiking near a cliff -- at least you are protected.

Piffka wrote:

Craven, I respect you but you are difficult to argue with... you go out in so many directions.

I know that I am difficult to argue with for both good and bad reasons but out of curiosity, what directions are you speaking of?

If I told you, it would only make arguing more difficult.

Quote:

I don't think I said anywhere that I thought someone was insane (I assume, anyway, that insand means that).

You portrayed your position represented a refuge of sanity, thereby making the clear implication that opposing positions were its converse.

You are now putting words in my mouth that I never said. There is no clear implication of anything other than I think opposing positions are wrong.

Quote:

And when I said "sick" I was thinking feeling sick to one's stomach and sheepish to be arguing on a side that had already become moot.

Sick/revolting, same difference to me. But I have no significant qualm with this and don't intend to pursue it.

Good. Saying one feels "sick" is a common way to express minor mental anguish... as in, "I feel sick... I didn't make the half-price sale at Nordstroms."

Quote:

As to whether or not it would bother me how you felt... the answer is yes.

Quote:

Do you want to know why?

That was my next question.

That is why I said it... I anticipated the flow.

Quote:

Partly it would be because I think you are discounting something you have (though I agree that there are many ways freedom is already abridged in this country).

So? When I gave away my toys as a child I did the same thing. There are times that I want to do so, and if it doesn't harm anyone why would it bother you?

If it were not to influence your life in any significant way I think it's odd that you would care about whether or not I felt the same as you on this.

I am very sorry that you equate toys with freedom. It continues to show me that you discount at your peril the freedoms you enjoy. It makes me sad that you might toss it aside and not see it as valuable.

Quote:

Partly it would be because I don't understand why anyone would willingly give up freedom/ personal information not knowing where it might end up.

So? If it doesn't affect you and I don't have a problem with what is done with my information why does it bother you?

To me, this type of mentality is a similar intrusion. It's not to a degree that would bother me too much but you caring about what I do with my privacy is odd, if it does not affect you.

Are you saying that my mindset is "this type of mentality"? Mine is only an intrusion if you make it one. I don't plan to do anything more with my caring about you than that. "No man is an island."

Of course, in the real world (which I know you wanted to leave for this part of the discussion) what you and others choose to do with your privacy might affect me.

Quote:

You are a person who seems to value, even more than I, your private information, so it doesn't quite make sense to me.... doesn't add up.

I value some very much and others less so. I suspect we'll have a lot of detailed differences.

For example, before I started using the name I chose at 10 I had a different legal name. There are only a handful of people in my life who know what it was and only because the bastards knew me before I chose my new name.

There's no really special reason for it, it's just my preference. I don't much like buying condoms, but at the same time don't mind if people know many of my embarassing sexual moments.

It's just preference. I'd be more willing to post my name, address and phone number on these forums than my real email address.

That is very interesting. I am a public person in my town so many know me or know of me. I suppose that your reticence in allowing your real email address to become known has some arcane electronic basis. To me, if I were worried, I'd change my ISP frequently.

Quote:

Finally, it would bother me because I like to be right. Who doesn't?

I'm having a hard time seeing this as a right/wrong thing.

I mean, if you said you liked chocolate icecream and I said I liked strawberry icecream more you'd probably not care and ascribe it to different taste.

Well, I do think it odd that anyone would prefer fruit over chocolate. However, in this case we can only purchase one container and have to share it.

And in this case I think it's similar. If you care about this issue a lot I can appreciate that, and the laws should take your concerns into regard to some extent.

The laws should stay as they are or become more loose. That is my wish. I believe there are too many laws and with each we are more restricted.This was a particularly abominable law; as such, it was crushed even by its creators.

But absent any concerns about law and policy I don't see why you should care what I felt about my own information.

Unless of course, you see this as an inherent danger to me and care for eleemosynary reasons or somesuch.

I do see that you losing your right to privacy is an inherent danger and I would call out to you on a trail if you were headed over a cliff.

I had to look up your weird word to make sure I got it right. Yes, it is a charitable and even an altruistic reasoning based on agape.

Quote:

I think I am right that freedoms should be highly valued and protected.

So do I, thing is I think you are wrong to paint this as freedom vs its opposite when it's really abut weighing specific freedoms differently.

Great. I'm glad that you do indeed value freedom and see it as needing protection. I "paint" this as such because these incursions must be nipped in the bud. It is too easy to get casual about freedom. I am especially attuned because there have been many incursions over the last few years. To me, it feels like an army testing the resolve of their opposition. I believe my best course is to match this with fervor.

I am a very independant freedom-loving person Piffka, thing is, the freedoms I value might not always coincide with the ones you do, and even when they do the values we ascribe to them may not coincide either.

I see. Most people say they are independent and free... but it is interesting to see how they compromise themselves.

In America, "freedom" is a weird word.

Do you think that somewhere else it is not, then?

Piffka wrote:

As for me, since you ask, there is a huge difference between recognizing peril and allowing fear to run your life. Do you want me to illustrate?

Recognizing peril... hiking near a mountainous cliff and seeing that a fall would be fatal. Allowing fear to rule... never hiking near a cliff -- at least you are protected.

Those are the only two options if you are an absolutist. A fear of falling off of a cliff could be countered by using safety ropes to sooth the fears. Aquiring and using those ropes (and the equipment that goes with using ropes) may not be a major life altering events but it is impacting how the climber's life is lived in minor ways. Add those to the ways the climber deals with soothing all of their other fears and the impact of all of those actions greatly impacts how a person lives their life.

By JIM FORMAN / KING 5 News

SEATTLE - For hundreds of thousands, the Ballard Locks are a must-see stop on the Seattle tour. Countless pictures are taken there every day. But one Seattle man was stopped by Homeland Security.

"There are no signs saying not to take photographs of the Ballard Locks and railroad bridge," said Ballard resident Ian Spiers who just wanted to snap some pictures for his college photography class.

He thought the famed locks and landmark railroad bridge would be the perfect subject.

Ballard resident Ian Spiers said he just wanted to snap some pictures for his college photography class. That was until someone reported him twice as a suspicious character, bringing out federal and local law enforcers.

"We are talking about eight grown men with guns," he said. "It scared the hell out of me."

Spiers said all he had was a camera and a tripod.

Spiers was questioned and told it was against the law to photograph the area.

The ACLU says Homeland Security went too far.

"We've never heard of such a law," said Doug Honig, ACLU. "Government officials ought to be able to tell the difference between a tourist and a terrorist."

Spiers says it's not just about racial profiling. Still, his Web site - Brown Equals Terrorist - is prompting a debate over how the government exercises authority in these post 9/11 times.

"I don't know why I was stopped. I still don't know," he said.

He is still waiting for an answer.

"We take all reports of security concerns extremely seriously and as we get these reports we will continue to respond to them," said Sean Whitcomb, Seattle Police.

And Spiers agrees; he just questions how those investigations are carried out.

"They need to be exercising judgment that doesn't scare the hell out of the citizens, and that includes me," he said.

Spiers said, while he was told he couldn't take pictures, a federal agent on the scene took his picture.

As for the government, the Corps of Engineers, which operates the locks, welcomes all tourists and their cameras.