Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

This was a truly sick idea, and demonstrates how ghastly is the mentality of this administration. :evil: :evil:

Sick how? Read the proposal, and the rationale behind it. The administration is conceding defeat, as far as the intelligence war against decentralized foes is concerned. They admit that they are incompetent to effect any kind of meaningful reduction in terrorist activities.

You're making it sound like the first step in a twelve-step program.

"We admitted we were powerless over terrorism; that our foreign policy had become unmanageable."

To bet on death and destruction is sick.

But that's not what they thought they were doing, you see.

When you put your faith in the omnipotent, you are most certainly not 'betting'. They don't even consider what the market is (blasphemy!), or by what mechanism the outputs they want are generated; they simply say: let The Market do for us what we are powerless to do for ourselves. The magic wand is waved, and the answers appear.

Now do you see why they are to be pitied rather than condemned?

__________________________

"Private enterprise is not a thing. It is a body of natural spontaneous economic phenomena rising out of the activities of people who produce and exchange wealth with one another with no interference by government. It is not the function of private enterprise to house the people. It is the business of people to house themselves." -- Garet Garrett

A definite late 3T/early 4T sign.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0730/p01s01-usgn.html

**For Discussion Purposes Only**

USA
from the July 30, 2003 edition

Foreign visits to US drop sharply

With visa scrutiny to be stepped up Friday, some foresee a still bigger falloff in students, researchers, au pairs, and others.

By Abraham McLaughlin | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
From college students to lab researchers to au pairs, America is normally a magnet for millions of foreigners. But this year it's seeing a dramatic drop-off in the number of visitors.
Both tighter restrictions on getting into this country - and a strong disillusionment with the US abroad - are causing tens of thousands of people worldwide to forgo trips to America. Critics say the decline is evidence of a visa-screening process too restrictive, creating a "fortress America." But supporters see that process as essential to protecting the nation in a post-9/11 world.

Either way, the screening will probably only get tighter. Starting this Friday, the vast majority of the roughly 8 million people who apply for visas each year will be required to have interviews in person at US embassies - even if they have to travel many hours to do so. The result is likely to be, for now anyway, even fewer foreign visitors. Already:

? Foreign attendance at US English- language summer classes - usually about 150,000 - is down some 30 percent.

? The flow of au pairs arriving - about 12,000 a year - has slowed by roughly 10 percent in 2003.

? Hospitals are seeing a continued weakness in international-patient numbers, including a 23 percent drop at the world-famous Mayo Clinic since 2001.

? Overall visa applications dropped from 10.4 million in 2001 to 8.3 million in 2002. Visa approvals fell from 7.5 million in 2001 to 5.7 million in 2002.

That trend could accelerate with start of the in-person interview and other new requirements. "If foreign governments imposed something similar on Americans, we wouldn't like it very much at all," says Michael McCarry, head of the Alliance for International Education and Cultural Exchange, a lobbying group in Washington.

Indeed, the new approach is the equivalent of a US citizen - who wanted to visit, say South Africa - having to call the South African Embassy on a 1-900 number to schedule an interview several weeks in advance, travel to Washington, D.C., for the interview, stay overnight in a hotel, fly back home to await the visa's arrival by mail, and only then be allowed to leave on the trip.

Defenders say the policy is one of a growing patchwork of measures that has so far kept America free from any domestic terror attacks since 9/11.

"These guys who are trying to get in here know all the tricks," says Alan Capps, editor of The Journal of Homeland Security, referring to terrorists. "It's a constant game of cat and mouse where we've got to be looking and listening and on our guard all the time." Having across-the-board screenings during the visa process is the only way to ensure that everyone is checked at least once, experts say.

But even the government has allowed that the process isn't as effective or efficient as possible. A recent report by the General Accounting Office noted that only 843 consular officers preside over the 8 million incoming applications. In fact, lines at embassies are often so long that consular staffers only have a couple of minutes to conduct each interview. The State Department has added 39 consular officers this year and will add 40 next year.

For graduate student Jasmin Shakeri, the process didn't work. And now the tri-lingual Iranian native - who's also a part-time soul singer - has given up on coming to America.

Last fall she had secured a spot in a master's program at Clark University, in Worcester, Mass., rented an apartment, and even earned a $25,000 scholarship. She had been to the US eight times before. But this time, she was denied a visa.

"I was really upset," she says. "I've known and traveled this country, and now they don't want me." She's finishing her studies in Germany and plans to go to Egypt for vacation this year where, she says, "They want me."

Many US institutions say they're missing out on qualified foreigners who bring cultural enrichment, fresh ideas, and, frequently, lots of cash.

At the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., visa delays are hurting a once-booming international business. The application used to be a 24-hour process but is now routinely a 3-week wait, says Stephen Gudgell, head of the clinic's international program.

He notes that competitors in other countries, including Germany, are capitalizing on America's newly cumbersome process. They're able to guarantee medical visas in 24 hours. He recalls a young Middle Eastern male - the kind the State Department would watch carefully - who wanted cardiac surgery at Mayo. But rather than waiting three to four weeks for a visa, he went to Germany. "Those situations occur on a regular basis," Mr. Gudgell says.

But until America's system is more effective and efficient, such rejections - and the economic and cultural toll they take - may be the price of a terror-free life, security experts say. "We're not going to shut our doors," says Mr. Capps, "but we are going to have to be a little more stingy in who we let in."

? Andreas Tzortzis contributed from Berlin.

Originally Posted by Sean Love

A definite late 3T/early 4T sign.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0730/p01s01-usgn.html

**For Discussion Purposes Only**

USA
from the July 30, 2003 edition

Foreign visits to US drop sharply

With visa scrutiny to be stepped up Friday, some foresee a still bigger falloff in students, researchers, au pairs, and others.

By Abraham McLaughlin | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
From college students to lab researchers to au pairs, America is normally a magnet for millions of foreigners. But this year it's seeing a dramatic drop-off in the number of visitors.
Both tighter restrictions on getting into this country - and a strong disillusionment with the US abroad - are causing tens of thousands of people worldwide to forgo trips to America. Critics say the decline is evidence of a visa-screening process too restrictive, creating a "fortress America." But supporters see that process as essential to protecting the nation in a post-9/11 world.

Either way, the screening will probably only get tighter. Starting this Friday, the vast majority of the roughly 8 million people who apply for visas each year will be required to have interviews in person at US embassies - even if they have to travel many hours to do so. The result is likely to be, for now anyway, even fewer foreign visitors. Already:

? Foreign attendance at US English- language summer classes - usually about 150,000 - is down some 30 percent.

? The flow of au pairs arriving - about 12,000 a year - has slowed by roughly 10 percent in 2003.

? Hospitals are seeing a continued weakness in international-patient numbers, including a 23 percent drop at the world-famous Mayo Clinic since 2001.

? Overall visa applications dropped from 10.4 million in 2001 to 8.3 million in 2002. Visa approvals fell from 7.5 million in 2001 to 5.7 million in 2002.

That trend could accelerate with start of the in-person interview and other new requirements. "If foreign governments imposed something similar on Americans, we wouldn't like it very much at all," says Michael McCarry, head of the Alliance for International Education and Cultural Exchange, a lobbying group in Washington.

Indeed, the new approach is the equivalent of a US citizen - who wanted to visit, say South Africa - having to call the South African Embassy on a 1-900 number to schedule an interview several weeks in advance, travel to Washington, D.C., for the interview, stay overnight in a hotel, fly back home to await the visa's arrival by mail, and only then be allowed to leave on the trip.

Defenders say the policy is one of a growing patchwork of measures that has so far kept America free from any domestic terror attacks since 9/11.

"These guys who are trying to get in here know all the tricks," says Alan Capps, editor of The Journal of Homeland Security, referring to terrorists. "It's a constant game of cat and mouse where we've got to be looking and listening and on our guard all the time." Having across-the-board screenings during the visa process is the only way to ensure that everyone is checked at least once, experts say.

But even the government has allowed that the process isn't as effective or efficient as possible. A recent report by the General Accounting Office noted that only 843 consular officers preside over the 8 million incoming applications. In fact, lines at embassies are often so long that consular staffers only have a couple of minutes to conduct each interview. The State Department has added 39 consular officers this year and will add 40 next year.

For graduate student Jasmin Shakeri, the process didn't work. And now the tri-lingual Iranian native - who's also a part-time soul singer - has given up on coming to America.

Last fall she had secured a spot in a master's program at Clark University, in Worcester, Mass., rented an apartment, and even earned a $25,000 scholarship. She had been to the US eight times before. But this time, she was denied a visa.

"I was really upset," she says. "I've known and traveled this country, and now they don't want me." She's finishing her studies in Germany and plans to go to Egypt for vacation this year where, she says, "They want me."

Many US institutions say they're missing out on qualified foreigners who bring cultural enrichment, fresh ideas, and, frequently, lots of cash.

At the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., visa delays are hurting a once-booming international business. The application used to be a 24-hour process but is now routinely a 3-week wait, says Stephen Gudgell, head of the clinic's international program.

He notes that competitors in other countries, including Germany, are capitalizing on America's newly cumbersome process. They're able to guarantee medical visas in 24 hours. He recalls a young Middle Eastern male - the kind the State Department would watch carefully - who wanted cardiac surgery at Mayo. But rather than waiting three to four weeks for a visa, he went to Germany. "Those situations occur on a regular basis," Mr. Gudgell says.

But until America's system is more effective and efficient, such rejections - and the economic and cultural toll they take - may be the price of a terror-free life, security experts say. "We're not going to shut our doors," says Mr. Capps, "but we are going to have to be a little more stingy in who we let in."

? Andreas Tzortzis contributed from Berlin.

Coupled with a drop of similar proportions in Americans travelling abroad, one might wonder if a feedback loop may have set in since 9/11, which could end up isolating America the way Japan was isolated during the reign of the Tokugawa Shoguns - whether that outcome is desired by anyone or not.

Originally Posted by Titus Sabinus Parthicus

Coupled with a drop of similar proportions in Americans travelling abroad, one might wonder if a feedback loop may have set in since 9/11, which could end up isolating America the way Japan was isolated during the reign of the Tokugawa Shoguns - whether that outcome is desired by anyone or not.

But how many Americans traveled abroad to begin with? In 1995 only one in five had a current passport, and many of those (including myself) used it for one trip abroad and then not again. My mother didn't get a passport until a couple of years ago, when she was in her mid-fifties.

It was easy enough to renew my passport - fill in the Adobe form on the State Department site, print it, sign it, and send it in with new photos and a $55 fee - but I don't have any idea when I'll use it. (Though I'd love to make it back to Italy at some point.)

However, most international travel by Americans is to Canada or Mexico... where you do not need a passport. If you did, I'm sure the share of passport holders would be much higher.


Does anyone know how the number of Americans going on long vacations within the country... road trips, for example... has changed since 9/11?

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

However, most international travel by Americans is to Canada or Mexico... where you do not need a passport. If you did, I'm sure the share of passport holders would be much higher.


Does anyone know how the number of Americans going on long vacations within the country... road trips, for example... has changed since 9/11?

I have heard that within US driving vacations are more frequent. This is due to people not flying as I understand the news reports. I have no quotes at my fingertips to substantiate this, however. I heard it on the news. I guess we could check with AAA.

Our society is full of lost boys and girls hanging out at the edge of adulthood. Yet we find it difficult even to give them a name. The absence of a readily recognised word to describe these infantilised adults demonstrates the unease with which this phenomenon is greeted. Advertisers and toy manufacturers have invented the term 'kidult' to describe this segment of the market. Another word sometimes used to describe these 20- to 35-year-olds is 'adultescent', generally defined as someone who refuses to settle down and make commitments, and who would rather go on partying into middle age.

It is important not to confuse adultescents with those referred to as 'middle youth'. Middle youths are a generation ahead of adultescents. They are 35- to 45-year-olds who regard themselves as being at the cutting edge of youth culture; they are going through a phase known as 'middlescence' - a state of mind that fiercely resists the usual trappings of encroaching middle age.

One reason why words like kidult and adultescent have not entered everyday language is because society does not know how to deal with the gradual erosion of the line between childhood and adulthood. Anglo-American culture is ambiguous in its response to this development. The occasional outcry against some absurd manifestation of this trend is drowned out by the powerful message that growing up is a troublesome and unpleasant activity. And since the refusal to grow up is often interpreted as an attractive option, words that suggest that there might be something wrong in living in a state of extended adolescence are unlikely to gain common currency


The children who won't grow up
by Mr. Frank Furedi in spiked of 29 July 2003.

DTH?

New Harry Potter movie is 4T colored.

Here is a segment of it:
Full article here: http://www.msnbc.com/news/943721.asp

IMAGINING HOGSMEADE
?Azkaban? is a spookier story than the first two?the soul-sucking dementors, who guard Azkaban Prison, make their first appearance?and Cuaron?s design team promises that the movie?s palette will reflect the gathering darkness. For Hogsmeade, set designer Stuart Craig labored to avoid a ?pretty, chocolate-box? village, creating a main street that swerves zanily. Honeydukes, the candy store, is floor-to-ceiling psychedelia, with tangles of licorice and?a Cuaron touch?Mexican skulls made of sugar. (To prevent candy jars from magically emptying between takes, the cast has been told that the goodies are lacquer-coated. They?re not.) Cuaron also reimagined the role of Professor Dumbledore after Richard Harris?s death. British actor Michael Gambon now plays the Hogwarts headmaster as an elegant old hippie.

Virgil....that color is extremely difficult to read.

Setting the stage for 4T: 3T molding of the Millies as a group-oriented generation:

The teen years are a natural time for separation, but the last year has not been a normal one, said Peter Hart, whose research company wrote the report. War in Iraq, a faltering economy, scandals in business and the church today's teens have absorbed it all, Hart said.

"During all of the turmoil and change, instead of isolating themselves, I think they've drawn themselves back toward family," Hart said. "It's family and friends that are their support network."

Full article at Survey: High Schoolers Admire Families.

In reading the post about the children who won't grow up, the term "middlescence" was originally,I believe, coined by Gail Sheehy in her book "New Passages" which was a followup to her "Passages". The term was used to describe a passage that was fairly unique to much of the Silent generation, many of whom actually experienced adolescence in midlife, hence the term "middlescence."

I have mentioned many times that Boomers were pretty much the opposite, growing up with a vengeance in the mid-1980's after several years of hedonism and wild partying. At times I feel that the term "Generation Exhausted" should apply to them as they seem to be the ones saying "been there, done that" in regards to late-night partying, casual sex, etc.

Are Boomers saying to those 13'rs, "We had our fun, but we're going to do as much as we can to keep you from having yours?

Speaking of evidence relating to what turning we're in, I can't help but remember what Sean Love said would happen when the generations became properly lined up, in 2003 - that events would speed up, and spiral out of control. Given the Lawrence decision, followed by the action taken by the Episcopal Church yesterday, with the likely fallout there, add in the likely course of action on Gay Marriage of the Massachusetts SC in the coming weeks, and top it off with the fact that tempers are rising already on the issue of Gay Rights, could it be that we've been so 9/11 fixated that the real 4T Catalyst is starting to unfold now, right before our eyes, and we're missing it, (or dissing it as 'more 3T BS'.)? Just a thought.

Originally Posted by Titus Sabinus Parthicus

....could it be that we've been so 9/11 fixated that the real 4T Catalyst is starting to unfold now, right before our eyes, and we're missing it, (or dissing it as 'more 3T BS'.)?

could be, rabbit.... could be.


Yosemite TK

Originally Posted by Titus Sabinus Parthicus

Speaking of evidence relating to what turning we're in, I can't help but remember what Sean Love said would happen when the generations became properly lined up, in 2003 - that events would speed up, and spiral out of control. Given the Lawrence decision, followed by the action taken by the Episcopal Church yesterday, with the likely fallout there, add in the likely course of action on Gay Marriage of the Massachusetts SC in the coming weeks, and top it off with the fact that tempers are rising already on the issue of Gay Rights, could it be that we've been so 9/11 fixated that the real 4T Catalyst is starting to unfold now, right before our eyes, and we're missing it, (or dissing it as 'more 3T BS'.)? Just a thought.

Only time will tell...

New mindset, new threat

08/06/03

Lawrence M. Krauss


Fifty-eight years ago today, the United States dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima, incinerating the city and its inhabitants. Shortly after that, it destroyed a second Japanese city, Nagasaki, with a second nuclear weapon. The horror of these events was so great that, thankfully, in the intervening half-century or so, no nation has used nuclear weapons against another nation.

During the Cold War, the policy of "mutually assured destruction," appropriately nicknamed MAD, effectively kept nuclear peace. The United States and the Soviet Union had amassed so many nuclear weapons (more than 40,000, enough to destroy both countries many times over) that each knew that use of such weapons would be followed by a retaliation too deadly to contemplate.


In spite of this policy, there have been times when the world seemed on the brink of nuclear war. The Cuban missile crisis, for example, spurred the construction of home bomb shelters and ridiculous and traumatic civil defense exercises in which school children practiced hiding under their desks.

In 1947, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists created the Doomsday Clock. On that date, the clock read seven minutes to midnight, as a dramatic visual representation of how close the world might be to nuclear disaster.

The Doomsday Clock has been moved forward and backward 16 times since its creation, coming as close as two minutes to midnight in 1953 after the United States and Soviet Union tested their first thermonuclear weapons, and to three minutes to midnight in 1984 with the acceleration of the arms race induced during the early years of President Ronald Reagan's administration. At the end of the Cold War, after the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty was signed, the clock was moved back to 17 minutes to midnight, representing the lowest level of perceived nuclear threat since its inception.

In February, the board of directors of the Bulletin moved the clock forward for the third time since 1991. It now reads 7 minutes to midnight, the same reading it had in 1947, at the beginning of the modern nuclear arms race. They were motivated to make this move in part because of the U.S. abandonment of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and U.S. efforts to thwart international agreements to constrain proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Unfortunately, current events are likely to drive the clock even closer to midnight. It is true that events in Iraq suggest it was not undertaking an ambitious nuclear weapons program, as we had been earlier led to believe. However, North Korea has made it clear that it is actively developing nuclear weapons and might export them.

The new concerns about nuclear proliferation come not just from developing countries, however. In a recent disturbing move, the Bush administration announced its intent to begin research on a new type of nuclear weapon, a bunker buster that might destroy underground bunkers. It is claimed that such "small" nuclear weapons would have little collateral damage, and therefore their use might be sanctioned in an attempt to locate and destroy enemy or terrorist weapons sites located underground.

Unfortunately our recent experience with pre-emptive strikes against purported enemy locations in Iraq, Sudan and elsewhere suggests that military intelligence is not what we might hope it would be, and that civilian targets can easily be confused with military ones. Moreover, breaking the taboo against the use of nuclear weapons in wartime is a very dangerous precedent to set, and one that should not be taken lightly. In particular, it is not at all clear what kind of strategic advantage small nuclear weapons might have over large conventional weapons for this type of military purpose.

The United States is not the only major power exploring a new generation of nuclear weapons. Recent reports from Russia suggest an active program to replace aging weapons and develop new ones. At a recent conference in Moscow organized by the Washington-based Center for Defense Information and the Russian Ministry of Atomic Energy, researchers confirmed that significant funds were being allocated to new nuclear weapons research.

The deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki should continue to serve as a stark reminder that the world should work together to keep nuclear weapons from ever being used again. If we attempt to change the ground rules so that some nuclear weapons are acceptable for first use in wartime, we risk sliding down a slippery slope from which we may never recover.

Krauss is chairman of the Physics Department at Case Western Reserve University. His most recent book, "Atom," won the American Institute of Physics Science Writing Award in 2002.




? 2003 The Plain Dealer. Used with permission.

Having no children to support, I see I have bought my last fishing/hunting license for the near and far future.

Minnesota is among the states that joined the U.S. in this program "FOR THE CHILDREN":

Social Security Number collection information
DNR required to collect SSN


In 2003, the State of Minnesota passed legislation that requires the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to collect your social security number (SSN) as part of an application for a non-commercial hunting or fishing license. This legislation was passed to meet the federal requirements of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act. This federal requirement is to assist states in enforcement of child support programs.


To purchase a hunting or fishing license, regardless of your age, you must either have your SSN on your DNR customer file or provide your SSN as part of your license application. If you have a SSN but refuse to provide it, you will be denied a hunting or fishing license.

Progress progresses, thanks to the GOP Congress and the SWOTE's husband...our GOP governor and House, and DFL Senate 666-7734-999

Why is it that adults seem much more paranoid about giving out info like their SSN, credit card number, and other personal info than younger people? Are they still scared of big brother? I know my dad is this way, too. I sure as hell am not.

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

Why is it that adults seem much more paranoid about giving out info like their SSN, credit card number, and other personal info than younger people? Are they still scared of big brother? I know my dad is this way, too. I sure as hell am not.

You have learned to love Big Brother...say hi to him when you're at the Capitol. Big Brother Loves You! :lol:

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

Why is it that adults seem much more paranoid about giving out info like their SSN, credit card number, and other personal info than younger people? Are they still scared of big brother? I know my dad is this way, too. I sure as hell am not.

:lol:

At first blush, supplying SSN for a license does not faze me, either, Alex (says the 72 y.o.: Bring It On, Make My Day, Whaddya Gonna Do, Kill Me?). :wink:

Besides, most localities could probably cross-index most residents' SSN's if they had to. SSN's are becoming commonplace info.

So, upon deeper reflection, I do understand the reluctance. After all, with identiity theft on the rise, we are told over and over NOT to do this, aren't we?

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

Why is it that adults seem much more paranoid about giving out info like their SSN, credit card number, and other personal info than younger people? Are they still scared of big brother? I know my dad is this way, too. I sure as hell am not.

Because many adults (esp. Xers) know (not suspect, know) that any system that can be abused, will be abused. The possibilities for identity theft alone are reason for caution.

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

In reading the post about the children who won't grow up, the term "middlescence" was originally,I believe, coined by Gail Sheehy in her book "New Passages" which was a followup to her "Passages". The term was used to describe a passage that was fairly unique to much of the Silent generation, many of whom actually experienced adolescence in midlife, hence the term "middlescence."

I have mentioned many times that Boomers were pretty much the opposite, growing up with a vengeance in the mid-1980's after several years of hedonism and wild partying. At times I feel that the term "Generation Exhausted" should apply to them as they seem to be the ones saying "been there, done that" in regards to late-night partying, casual sex, etc.

Are Boomers saying to those 13'rs, "We had our fun, but we're going to do as much as we can to keep you from having yours?

Yes.

If the usual pattern from the past repeats itself, as the Boomers enter Elderhood (still some years away), we can expect them to become very anti-hedonistic, at least in terms of what they preach. They'll also try to forget what they themselves used to be like, if they follow the pattern.

Think "grim", as in 'grim determination', 'glowered grimly', etc. Of course, it's theoretically possible that the pattern won't repeat at that level this time, too.

Time will tell.

Isn't the hatred shown our president just awful, especially when we face such serious challenges to our national security?

One major politician called the administration's policies an "abject national embarrassment."

A former national security official said the president "has squandered American credibility and undermined our preeminence around the world."

Another highly respected foreign policy expert said the administration "has not been able to distinguish between professorial concepts and foreign policy."

A key House leader insisted that "the president does not have the divine right of a king." He accused the administration of providing the public with "the spin, the whole spin, and nothing but the spin."

An important senator called the president "a jerk," and a House member said: "He still looks like a small man in a big office and an illegitimate president."

Terrible, terrible stuff. These politicians clearly don't know what the thoughtful conservative writer David Brooks knows: that politics should not take on a "lurid and emotional tone," and that it's self-defeating to indulge "the hypercharged tendency to believe the absolute worst about one's political opponents."




Why won't they stop?

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Isn't the hatred shown our president just awful, especially when we face such serious challenges to our national security?

One major politician called the administration's policies an "abject national embarrassment."

A former national security official said the president "has squandered American credibility and undermined our preeminence around the world."

Another highly respected foreign policy expert said the administration "has not been able to distinguish between professorial concepts and foreign policy."

A key House leader insisted that "the president does not have the divine right of a king." He accused the administration of providing the public with "the spin, the whole spin, and nothing but the spin."

An important senator called the president "a jerk," and a House member said: "He still looks like a small man in a big office and an illegitimate president."

Terrible, terrible stuff. These politicians clearly don't know what the thoughtful conservative writer David Brooks knows: that politics should not take on a "lurid and emotional tone," and that it's self-defeating to indulge "the hypercharged tendency to believe the absolute worst about one's political opponents."




Why won't they stop?

Perhaps because we Americans are once more caught in the same downward spiral as we were back in the late Fifties - the late Eighteen Fifties, that is?

During a 4T, diverse groups are able to work together to achieve a common objective, even if they disagree with each other on many issues.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...se_patriot_act

A diverse group unites to oppose Patriot Act

Idaho organization says law erodes civil liberties

By Rebecca Boone, Associated Press, 8/11/2003

BOISE, Idaho -- Put pacifists, gun rights advocates, abortion rights supporters, and antiabortion activists in a room and try to find a political viewpoint they all agree on.

It could take awhile.

Bring up the USA Patriot Act, a national law designed to fight terrorism but which critics contend erodes basic civil liberties, and they may start nodding in agreement.

Such is the case with the Boise Patriots, a diverse group whose members hope to keep the Patriot Act from being implemented in Idaho.

"It may only be when our core civil liberties are under attack that we'll see such a groundswell of activism come out of the woodwork," said Jack Van Valkenburgh, executive director of American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho. "I don't think we've ever had an issue that's brought such a broad cross section of groups together."

The Patriot Act, passed by Congress shortly after the 2001 terrorist attacks, greatly expanded the government's surveillance and detention powers.

The founder of the Boise Patriots contends the law also diminishes the protections Americans have under the Bill of Rights, allowing the government to search homes without notifying those who live there, track reading selections people make at libraries or bookstores, and detain immigrants indefinitely for visa violations.

Gwen Sanchirico said she started the Boise Patriots to get the City Council to pass a resolution affirming the city's dedication to civil liberties and prohibiting the Boise Police Department from using the expanded powers granted under the law. The effort has grown to include state government.

Sanchirico and Van Valkenburgh began contacting anyone they thought would be interested in the cause and asked friends to do the same.

Soon pagans were mingling with Mormons, semiautomatic- weapons collectors with gun control advocates, Green Party members and Libertarians with Republicans and Democrats.

"It's a very grass-roots approach," Sanchirico said. "We're collecting signatures for two petitions -- one at the state and one at the local level -- and we hear from one or two new people a day saying: `How can I help? What can I do?' "

One of them was Phyllis Schatz, a Boise Libertarian.

"I like the idea of cooperating with different types of people to achieve one goal," Schatz said. The 74-year-old fears her descendants could someday be targeted under the Patriot Act.

"Freedom is what I live for, and if we can't have freedom, nothing else matters," Schatz said. "I've pretty well lived my life in some respects, but I don't want my grandchildren and great-grandchildren to grow up in a world where the government is hanging over their heads."

The threats Americans face under the Patriot Act are bigger than any political ideology, said Elton Nesselrodt, a driver for Panhandle Animal Lab who is worried that he could be persecuted under the law because he is a pagan.

"Just by my affiliation, that puts me at greater chance of having background checks because I'm not traditional," he said. "If I go to the library and read something about the occult or metaphysics, that could put up a red flag in a government record somewhere."

But Ada County Sheriff Vaughn Killeen, who is running for Boise mayor, said the law should not be rescinded.

"It gives law enforcement the ability to investigate terrorism more effectively," he said. "But it should be reviewed. When it comes to issues such as the police or the feds searching your library records without a warrant, I don't agree with that. I think we need to be careful we don't throw the baby out with the bath water."

But Killeen added that he welcomes the attention that groups like the Boise Patriots are bringing to the issue.

"We often pass laws in the wake of tragedies that we later amend when reasonable behavior prevails," he said. "A review of the Patriot Act right now is healthy."

Even the legislation's name offends Larry Eastland, a Republican Party activist and former staff assistant to Gerald Ford. "By implication they're saying that anyone who disagrees with it is not a patriot, and I strongly disagree with that," Eastland said.

Although he's a supporter of the Bush administration, Eastland said the law is dangerous.

"We cannot afford to put our liberty in the hands of the government, even in the hands of hard-working, right-thinking people, because once we give it away or allow it to be taken, it is never returned."

Here?s evidence of a swing toward Orwellean civil obedience: school kids in Ohio agree to wear uniforms. Can the Hitler Youth be very far behind?