------------
(Mr. Smalley has been discussed in this blog before. If you check those links, you will see that Mr. Smalley is not exactly impressive in his thinking skills. But I seem to remember dealing with him on a personal level several years ago and found him to be thoughtful and an independent thinker. I wonder what happened?
Mr. Smalley is responding to Peter Arnone who was responding to Leonard Pitts. Here's Leonard Pitts' column below, followed by Mr. Arnone's letter, followed by Mr. Smalley's response.)
----------------------------
It will not be with guns.
If ever tyranny overtakes this land of the sometimes free and home of the intermittently brave, it probably won't, contrary to the fever dreams of gun rights extremists, involve jackbooted government thugs rappelling down from black helicopters. Rather, it will involve changes to words on paper many have forgotten or never knew, changes that chip away until they strip away precious American freedoms.
It will involve a trade of sorts, an inducement to give up the reality of freedom for the illusion of security. Indeed, the bargain has already been struck.
That is the takeaway from the latest controversy to embroil the Obama administration. Yes, it is troubling to learn the National Security Agency has been running a secret program that reputedly gives it access to Americans' web activity — emails, chats, pictures, video uploads — on such Internet behemoths as Google, Facebook and Apple. Yes, it is troubling to hear that “George W.” Obama has routinely renewed a Bush-era program allowing the feds to more easily graze the “metadata” of phone activity (time and date, numbers dialed, etc.) of millions of Verizon customers.
But what is most troubling is that Americans are not particularly troubled by any of it. According to a new poll by the Pew Research Center and The Washington Post, most of us — 56 percent — are OK with the monitoring of metadata, a process then-Sen. Joe Biden called “very, very intrusive” back in 2006.
According to the same poll, nearly half — 45 percent — also approve of allowing the government to track email content and other online activity. And 62 percent feel it is more important to investigate terrorist threats than to safeguard the right to privacy. That approval is consistent across party lines.
We are at war against terror, the thinking goes, so certain liberties must be sacrificed. It's the same thing people said when similar issues arose under the Bush regime. It doesn't seem to matter to them that the “war” is open-ended and mostly metaphorical, meaning that we can anticipate no formal surrender point at which our rights will be restored.
---------------------------------------
Mr: Aronone: There is hope for bi-partisanship. In his recent Chronicle column (June 14), non-member of the vast right-wing conspiracy Leonard Pitts made a statement more profound than he realizes. In surrendering our civil liberties, Americans are succumbing to “an inducement to give up the reality of freedom for the illusion of security.” Joining him in his betrayal of leftist principles, fellow non-member Ralph Nader asked, “Has there been a bigger con man in the White House than Barack Obama?”
The fog is lifting. Never in our history has America awakened to the enemy within, Big Brother, our alarmingly over-reaching federal government. Tentacles penetrating and intimidating our institutions and personal lives, it is consolidating the absolute power and control of a totalitarian state. It is no fantasy the nightmare of 1984 is at our doorstep.
We can no longer take for granted the blessings of our “one nation under God, with liberty and justice for all.” Therein lies the essence of our conflict: supporters of our Judeo-Christian heritage versus intolerant secularists. That the Obama administration “strongly objects” to an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act guaranteeing religious liberty to our military, is a clear indication of where our government now stands.
Exalted author Karl Marx stated, “My object in life is to dethrone God and destroy capitalism.” Obama and Hillary mentor Saul Alinsky dedicated his book “Rules for Radicals,” to Lucifer. They weren’t talking about mom, apple pie, and the Fourth of July. Nor is megalomaniac billionaire George Soros, the subverter of nations, as he funds a plethora of organizations and progressive politicians undermining our American identity.
Idaho legislator Curtis Bowers made clear in “Agenda: Grinding America Down,” America is at the crossroads. Either we choose the new world order of Soros’ borderless “Open Society,” or defend our nation’s freedom.
Is being forced to go slower the loss of a liberty? We used to be able to speed along on Bozeman’s North 19th Avenue when it was a dusty trail. Now it’s paved and they allow only up to 40 mph to minimize accidents.
We used to hunt pheasant and grouse starting about where the Dairy Queen is at on North Seventh, and north to the Interstate. But with all those houses, cars and people, we can’t hunt there any more. Is that a “loss of right”?
Snowmobilers were damaging our forests by going off trail. They lost the right to go off trail because our right to have an undamaged forest trumped their right to damage it. We forest lovers didn’t lose a right; we insisted on it. (I suppose he expects answers to these questions on issues neither writer raised. Or maybe he's being flippant, since none of these things have anything to do with rights.
NSA keeps track of phone numbers of Americans contacted by foreign terrorists. If they find something worthy of investigating, they’ll get a court order (This is what they say, but how do we know they actually do this?) and identify the people involved. Only then will they listen in. (What assurance do we have that this is true?) What essential rights have we lost? (Ok, Mr. Smalley is apparently gaining the ability to focus. He asks a question that is on topic. Mr. Pitts, however, identified the right to privacy already. Is this answer not acceptable to Mr. Smalley? Or is this further evidence that Mr. Smalley did not read Mr. Pitts' column?)
Our government wants to keep guns away from the mentally ill, and to eliminate mega-round ammo clips to help reduce the likelihood of massacres. Our right to live trumps the right of others to take our life away, doesn’t it? (Wow. Mr. Smalley abandons lucidity once again. Note that he does not frame his argument upon something like rights are note absolute, or that government has the power to limit rights. No, he identifies the mentally ill and mega-round clips, equating them with "...the right of others to take our life away." Did you know the mentally ill and those who possess large ammo clips possessed this right, and this right is specifically indentified by these two factors?
The fog is lifting. Never in our history has America awakened to the enemy within, Big Brother, our alarmingly over-reaching federal government. Tentacles penetrating and intimidating our institutions and personal lives, it is consolidating the absolute power and control of a totalitarian state. It is no fantasy the nightmare of 1984 is at our doorstep.
We can no longer take for granted the blessings of our “one nation under God, with liberty and justice for all.” Therein lies the essence of our conflict: supporters of our Judeo-Christian heritage versus intolerant secularists. That the Obama administration “strongly objects” to an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act guaranteeing religious liberty to our military, is a clear indication of where our government now stands.
Exalted author Karl Marx stated, “My object in life is to dethrone God and destroy capitalism.” Obama and Hillary mentor Saul Alinsky dedicated his book “Rules for Radicals,” to Lucifer. They weren’t talking about mom, apple pie, and the Fourth of July. Nor is megalomaniac billionaire George Soros, the subverter of nations, as he funds a plethora of organizations and progressive politicians undermining our American identity.
Idaho legislator Curtis Bowers made clear in “Agenda: Grinding America Down,” America is at the crossroads. Either we choose the new world order of Soros’ borderless “Open Society,” or defend our nation’s freedom.
--------------------------------
Vern Smalley: Columnist Leonard Pitts, local writer Peter Arnone and others say we’re losing rights and liberties because of our over-reaching government. What are they talking about? (So Mr. Smalley apparently didn't read Mr. Pitts' column. Mr. Pitts clearly delineated a specific concern. He is troubled by the Obama Administration spying on us, and he's even more troubled that a majority of those surveyed aren't troubled by it. Mr. Smalley, apparently unencumbered by actual knowledge of what was written, proceeds to list several things in speculation regarding what Mr. Arnone and Mr. Pitts are talking about.)
Is being forced to go slower the loss of a liberty? We used to be able to speed along on Bozeman’s North 19th Avenue when it was a dusty trail. Now it’s paved and they allow only up to 40 mph to minimize accidents.
We used to hunt pheasant and grouse starting about where the Dairy Queen is at on North Seventh, and north to the Interstate. But with all those houses, cars and people, we can’t hunt there any more. Is that a “loss of right”?
Snowmobilers were damaging our forests by going off trail. They lost the right to go off trail because our right to have an undamaged forest trumped their right to damage it. We forest lovers didn’t lose a right; we insisted on it. (I suppose he expects answers to these questions on issues neither writer raised. Or maybe he's being flippant, since none of these things have anything to do with rights.
Mr. Smalley continues, finally getting to the actual issues raised:)
Every time someone Googles to find how to make a bomb, somebody in the government gets interested. This is good, isn’t it? All of us have the right to not fear maniacal bombers. (This is the central issue. But rather than engage it, Mr. Smalley simply assumes it's good that government is watching. However, Mr. Pitts in particular raised several points as to why it's not good, which Mr. Smalley just ignores.
Every time someone Googles to find how to make a bomb, somebody in the government gets interested. This is good, isn’t it? All of us have the right to not fear maniacal bombers. (This is the central issue. But rather than engage it, Mr. Smalley simply assumes it's good that government is watching. However, Mr. Pitts in particular raised several points as to why it's not good, which Mr. Smalley just ignores.
Mr. Smalley then makes this astonishing statement: "All of us have the right to not fear maniacal bombers." Mr. Smalley wonders what rights are being compromised, then invents a right, right before our eyes! So he can identify a right being violated. This contradicts his whole premise!
We have a right not to fear, and that right apparently IS being violated. So how does one exercise a right to not fear? What does that even mean? Government is listening to our conversations, so because of that we do not have to fear maniacal bombers? This right presumably trumps the right to be free from warrantless searches, which is specifically named in the Bill of Rights. Does any of this even make sense on any level?)
NSA keeps track of phone numbers of Americans contacted by foreign terrorists. If they find something worthy of investigating, they’ll get a court order (This is what they say, but how do we know they actually do this?) and identify the people involved. Only then will they listen in. (What assurance do we have that this is true?) What essential rights have we lost? (Ok, Mr. Smalley is apparently gaining the ability to focus. He asks a question that is on topic. Mr. Pitts, however, identified the right to privacy already. Is this answer not acceptable to Mr. Smalley? Or is this further evidence that Mr. Smalley did not read Mr. Pitts' column?)
Our government wants to keep guns away from the mentally ill, and to eliminate mega-round ammo clips to help reduce the likelihood of massacres. Our right to live trumps the right of others to take our life away, doesn’t it? (Wow. Mr. Smalley abandons lucidity once again. Note that he does not frame his argument upon something like rights are note absolute, or that government has the power to limit rights. No, he identifies the mentally ill and mega-round clips, equating them with "...the right of others to take our life away." Did you know the mentally ill and those who possess large ammo clips possessed this right, and this right is specifically indentified by these two factors?
If I may interpret, I think what he attempted to say is "Our right to live trumps the rights of the mentally ill to possess a firearm, and trumps the right to possess large ammo clips." Even these statements fail, because he has himself identified the restriction of rights. This means he disproves his own premise once again.)
Maybe those who worry about losing rights could share details of their concerns. (Oblivious to the fact that he just succeeded in refuting his own premise, he nevertheless restates it.) I’d really like to understand what all this hand-wringing is about. (I'm going to generalize and say that Mr. Smalley doesn't think there are any rights being infringed, except when they are. He himself has already refuted himself twice.
Since Mr. Smalley is selectively blind when if comes to the violation of right, let's see if these things resonate with him: Occupy Wall Street. Abortion. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Living Wage. Unions. Clean water. Climate change.
Maybe those who worry about losing rights could share details of their concerns. (Oblivious to the fact that he just succeeded in refuting his own premise, he nevertheless restates it.) I’d really like to understand what all this hand-wringing is about. (I'm going to generalize and say that Mr. Smalley doesn't think there are any rights being infringed, except when they are. He himself has already refuted himself twice.
Since Mr. Smalley is selectively blind when if comes to the violation of right, let's see if these things resonate with him: Occupy Wall Street. Abortion. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Living Wage. Unions. Clean water. Climate change.
So do any of these topics evoke a feeling that rights are being violated, Mr. Smalley?)
No comments:
Post a Comment