Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: Evidence We're in a Third--or Fourth--Turning - Page 421







Post#10501 at 01-10-2006 10:44 AM by Virgil K. Saari [at '49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains joined Jun 2001 #posts 7,835]
---
01-10-2006, 10:44 AM #10501
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
'49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains
Posts
7,835

Cowardly create an anonymous e-annoyance, go to jail

Quote Originally Posted by The Pervert
Folks, after this post, I'm going to have to go back to my regular account, the one with my real name on it. Phooey. If this isn't a sign of what the 4T will do to the Internet, I don't know what is.

BTW, my first donation of the year will go to the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

From CNET.com. For non-profit educational and discussion purposes only.

PERSPECTIVE: Create an e-annoyance, go to jail

By Declan McCullagh
http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-anno...3-6022491.html

Story last modified Mon Jan 09 04:00:00 PST 2006






Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime.
It's no joke. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity.

In other words, it's OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a blog as long as you do it under your real name. Thank Congress for small favors, I guess.

This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of Usenet, is buried in the so-called Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act. Criminal penalties include stiff fines and two years in prison.

"The use of the word 'annoy' is particularly problematic," says Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "What's annoying to one person may not be annoying to someone else."

Buried deep in the new law is Sec. 113, an innocuously titled bit called "Preventing Cyberstalking." It rewrites existing telephone harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet "without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy."

To grease the rails for this idea, Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and the section's other sponsors slipped it into an unrelated, must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice. The plan: to make it politically infeasible for politicians to oppose the measure.

The tactic worked. The bill cleared the House of Representatives by voice vote, and the Senate unanimously approved it Dec. 16.

There's an interesting side note. An earlier version that the House approved in September had radically different wording. It was reasonable by comparison, and criminalized only using an "interactive computer service" to cause someone "substantial emotional harm."

That kind of prohibition might make sense. But why should merely annoying someone be illegal?

There are perfectly legitimate reasons to set up a Web site or write something incendiary without telling everyone exactly who you are.

Think about it: A woman fired by a manager who demanded sexual favors wants to blog about it without divulging her full name. An aspiring pundit hopes to set up the next Suck.com. A frustrated citizen wants to send e-mail describing corruption in local government without worrying about reprisals.

In each of those three cases, someone's probably going to be annoyed. That's enough to make the action a crime. (The Justice Department won't file charges in every case, of course, but trusting prosecutorial discretion is hardly reassuring.)

Clinton Fein, a San Francisco resident who runs the Annoy.com site, says a feature permitting visitors to send obnoxious and profane postcards through e-mail could be imperiled.

"Who decides what's annoying? That's the ultimate question," Fein said. He added: "If you send an annoying message via the United States Post Office, do you have to reveal your identity?"

Fein once sued to overturn part of the Communications Decency Act that outlawed transmitting indecent material "with intent to annoy." But the courts ruled the law applied only to obscene material, so Annoy.com didn't have to worry.

"I'm certainly not going to close the site down," Fein said on Friday. "I would fight it on First Amendment grounds."

He's right. Our esteemed politicians can't seem to grasp this simple point, but the First Amendment protects our right to write something that annoys someone else.

It even shields our right to do it anonymously. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas defended this principle magnificently in a 1995 case involving an Ohio woman who was punished for distributing anonymous political pamphlets.

If President Bush truly believed in the principle of limited government (it is in his official bio), he'd realize that the law he signed cannot be squared with the Constitution he swore to uphold.

And then he'd repeat what President Clinton did a decade ago when he felt compelled to sign a massive telecommunications law. Clinton realized that the section of the law punishing abortion-related material on the Internet was unconstitutional, and he directed the Justice Department not to enforce it.

Bush has the chance to show his respect for what he calls Americans' personal freedoms. Now we'll see if the president rises to the occasion.
And here's the relevant section of the law.

It's illegal to annoy
A new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet, you must disclose your identity. Here's the relevant language.

"Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
This would be a good practice if it were done by custom rather than law. But, Progressives dislike and are annoyed by tradition so manners are made the subject of the courts rather than the rougher justice of common courtesy.

I know I have annoyed a great many people here and elsewhere but I have thought that if we are willing to say something in public, the public has the right to know who is making voice. Posters should be comfortable as citizens in a Commercial Republic make the choice between staying safe or speaking truth to power. If we have become so cowed that fear for our financial future or societal position keeps us from speaking as a known citizen then the Founders may have fought for naught. Alexis de Tocqueville found no such reticency in a much ruder Republic.

I am for instance much annoyed by Mr. Vince Lamb's postings about "Reality Television". As much as I would wish for correction upon this matter, I do not think it a matter for the State to instruct him upon his errors of televisionistic enthusiasm or his errors of hidden identity. It may be that posters think themselves braver in these dark times when they post from behind a screen. They are not. Consider what it takes to speak in Burma or Zimbabwe or lately reformed Eurasia; consider being a citizen.


Yo. Ob. Sv.
Virgil K. Saari







Post#10502 at 01-10-2006 11:33 AM by Virgil K. Saari [at '49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains joined Jun 2001 #posts 7,835]
---
01-10-2006, 11:33 AM #10502
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
'49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains
Posts
7,835

Threats

In nearly a decade online I have only had two threats (only one of violence) upon my person. As they both came from Ohio, and not from the nearby in the North Star State, I have discounted them. I post this not as an exemplar of my bravery, but as a proof that many of our fears may have little substance in fact.


Be not so servile, gentle reader.

Yo. Ob. Sv.
VKS







Post#10503 at 01-10-2006 12:08 PM by Brian Beecher [at Downers Grove, IL joined Sep 2001 #posts 2,937]
---
01-10-2006, 12:08 PM #10503
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Downers Grove, IL
Posts
2,937

This whole scenario is an example of how we have moved light years away from the 60's rhetoric of peace, love and understand. In retrospect, was that theme a bunch of malarky or what?

I agree that what's annoying to one might not be to another. Those who cowed fear into many in the workplace in the 1990's are now doing the same things online. I believe most people use anonymous "handles" at least in part to protect their idenity. I am probably one of the few posters here who is still using his actual name in posting.







Post#10504 at 01-10-2006 12:40 PM by The Wonkette [at Arlington, VA 1956 joined Jul 2002 #posts 9,209]
---
01-10-2006, 12:40 PM #10504
Join Date
Jul 2002
Location
Arlington, VA 1956
Posts
9,209

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Beecher
This whole scenario is an example of how we have moved light years away from the 60's rhetoric of peace, love and understand. In retrospect, was that theme a bunch of malarky or what?

I agree that what's annoying to one might not be to another. Those who cowed fear into many in the workplace in the 1990's are now doing the same things online. I believe most people use anonymous "handles" at least in part to protect their idenity. I am probably one of the few posters here who is still using his actual name in posting.
I think a lot of us also use handles to form an alter-ego. It is fun. And most of the regulars know who I am. :wink:
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008







Post#10505 at 01-10-2006 12:55 PM by Virgil K. Saari [at '49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains joined Jun 2001 #posts 7,835]
---
01-10-2006, 12:55 PM #10505
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
'49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains
Posts
7,835

Gnostic

Quote Originally Posted by The Wonkette
Quote Originally Posted by Brian Beecher
This whole scenario is an example of how we have moved light years away from the 60's rhetoric of peace, love and understand. In retrospect, was that theme a bunch of malarky or what?

I agree that what's annoying to one might not be to another. Those who cowed fear into many in the workplace in the 1990's are now doing the same things online. I believe most people use anonymous "handles" at least in part to protect their idenity. I am probably one of the few posters here who is still using his actual name in posting.
I think a lot of us also use handles to form an alter-ego. It is fun. And most of the regulars know who I am. :wink:
It is also a way to keep the sheep and goats in their several cotes. :arrow: :arrow: :arrow:







Post#10506 at 01-10-2006 01:22 PM by Virgil K. Saari [at '49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains joined Jun 2001 #posts 7,835]
---
01-10-2006, 01:22 PM #10506
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
'49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains
Posts
7,835

In our bones we know we must prepare for eventual

Celestial manners and the e-name is our struggling attempt to get our Hao's in order. :arrow: :arrow: :arrow:







Post#10507 at 01-10-2006 01:41 PM by Virgil K. Saari [at '49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains joined Jun 2001 #posts 7,835]
---
01-10-2006, 01:41 PM #10507
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
'49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains
Posts
7,835

Nannyarchy in the Anglo-sphere

Quote Originally Posted by BBC
Mr Blair accepted that on-the-spot fines for some offences reversed the principle that people were innocent until proven guilty.


But he argued: "To get on top of 21st century crime we need to accept that what works in practice, in reality on the streets, is a measure of summary powers with right of appeal alongside the traditional court processes."

The Radiant Way Blair unveils his 'respect' plans :arrow: :arrow: :arrow:

Quote Originally Posted by The Tory (sic) Leader Mr. David Cameron
"The real respect agenda must be based on optimism about the ability of people and communities to create civilised lives for themselves, rather than a pessimistic view of human nature."
:arrow: :arrow: :arrow: Conservative (sic) cakes or Labour lemon meringues







Post#10508 at 01-10-2006 02:21 PM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
01-10-2006, 02:21 PM #10508
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Re: Create an e-annoyance, go to jail

Quote Originally Posted by The Pervert
Folks, after this post, I'm going to have to go back to my regular account, the one with my real name on it. Phooey. If this isn't a sign of what the 4T will do to the Internet, I don't know what is.
Trying to enforce this thing will be a nightmare. I wouldn't worry too much. Besides, you're not anonymous. Most of us here know each other's real names even if we post under a handle.

BTW, where's our Hopeful Cynic? :P







Post#10509 at 01-10-2006 02:27 PM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
01-10-2006, 02:27 PM #10509
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Re: Cowardly create an anonymous e-annoyance, go to jail

Quote Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari
I know I have annoyed a great many people here and elsewhere but I have thought that if we are willing to say something in public, the public has the right to know who is making voice. Posters should be comfortable as citizens in a Commercial Republic make the choice between staying safe or speaking truth to power. If we have become so cowed that fear for our financial future or societal position keeps us from speaking as a known citizen then the Founders may have fought for naught. Alexis de Tocqueville found no such reticency in a much ruder Republic.

I am for instance much annoyed by Mr. Vince Lamb's postings about "Reality Television". As much as I would wish for correction upon this matter, I do not think it a matter for the State to instruct him upon his errors of televisionistic enthusiasm or his errors of hidden identity. It may be that posters think themselves braver in these dark times when they post from behind a screen. They are not. Consider what it takes to speak in Burma or Zimbabwe or lately reformed Eurasia; consider being a citizen.


Yo. Ob. Sv.
Virgil K. Saari
That was splendid, Mr. Saari.

Sincerely,

Kifflie Scott (AKA The Roadrunner)







Post#10510 at 01-10-2006 07:46 PM by Zarathustra [at Where the Northwest meets the Southwest joined Mar 2003 #posts 9,198]
---
01-10-2006, 07:46 PM #10510
Join Date
Mar 2003
Location
Where the Northwest meets the Southwest
Posts
9,198

Re: Create an e-annoyance, go to jail

Quote Originally Posted by The Roadrunner
BTW, where's our Hopeful Cynic? :P
He is pretty annoying.
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.







Post#10511 at 01-10-2006 10:28 PM by Roadbldr '59 [at Vancouver, Washington joined Jul 2001 #posts 8,275]
---
01-10-2006, 10:28 PM #10511
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Vancouver, Washington
Posts
8,275

Quote Originally Posted by The Wonkette
Quote Originally Posted by Brian Beecher
This whole scenario is an example of how we have moved light years away from the 60's rhetoric of peace, love and understand. In retrospect, was that theme a bunch of malarky or what?

I agree that what's annoying to one might not be to another. Those who cowed fear into many in the workplace in the 1990's are now doing the same things online. I believe most people use anonymous "handles" at least in part to protect their idenity. I am probably one of the few posters here who is still using his actual name in posting.
I think a lot of us also use handles to form an alter-ego. It is fun. And most of the regulars know who I am. :wink:
Ditto for me.
"Better hurry. There's a storm coming. His storm!!!" :-O -Abigail Freemantle, "The Stand" by Stephen King







Post#10512 at 01-10-2006 11:38 PM by Virgil K. Saari [at '49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains joined Jun 2001 #posts 7,835]
---
01-10-2006, 11:38 PM #10512
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
'49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains
Posts
7,835

>>> in the UK

Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Simon Jenkins in the progressive [i
Guardian[/i](UK)]Under Blair, articulate citizens no longer take civic responsibility and the social obligations that go with it. They are not trusted to do so. Instead they are reduced to complaining and whingeing when things go wrong. But these communities are not historical abstractions. Blair's speechwriter quoted Hobbes, Tawney and Richard Sennett in implausible defence of his centralism. He should read De Tocqueville, who described a similarly atomised democracy in postrevolutionary France as one in which "each citizen stands apart, like a stranger to the destiny of others. His children and personal friends form for him the entire human race ... while above them rises an immense and tutelary power, that of the state".
All this drivel does is bring Basra to our doorsteps

Quote Originally Posted by SJ
Feel the newness. Sense the respect oozing from the editorials and dripping down the thinktank walls. Institutions are just trouble. They are for wimps. Real men do abstract nouns.

Romantic idealism at play in the Anglo-sphere. :arrow: :arrow: :arrow:







Post#10513 at 01-11-2006 10:50 AM by Virgil K. Saari [at '49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains joined Jun 2001 #posts 7,835]
---
01-11-2006, 10:50 AM #10513
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
'49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains
Posts
7,835

Reality Creation Corporation

Ugly Phrase Conceals an Uglier Truth
Behind the US Government's corruption of language lies a far greater perversion


Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Salmon Rushdie in the [i
Sydney Morning Herald[/i](Antipodes)]What is wrong with this kind of thinking is that, as Isabel
Hilton of The Guardian wrote last July, "The delusion that
officeholders know better than the law is an occupational hazard of the powerful and one to which those of an imperial cast of mind are
especially prone … When disappearance became state practice
across Latin America in the '70s it aroused revulsion in democratic
countries, where it is a fundamental tenet of legitimate government that no state actor may detain - or kill - another human being
without having to answer to the law."
:arrow: :arrow: :arrow:







Post#10514 at 01-11-2006 12:13 PM by Brian Beecher [at Downers Grove, IL joined Sep 2001 #posts 2,937]
---
01-11-2006, 12:13 PM #10514
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Downers Grove, IL
Posts
2,937

This morning I heard that one Chicago area suburb is considering taking the indoor smoking ban a step further in that they are considering a ban on cigarette sales as well. Could we see another prohibition movement here?







Post#10515 at 01-11-2006 12:59 PM by Uzi [at joined Oct 2005 #posts 2,254]
---
01-11-2006, 12:59 PM #10515
Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
2,254

Those were the days....

"It's easy to grin, when your ship's come in, and you've got the stock market beat. But the man who's worth while is the man who can smile when his pants are too tight in the seat." Judge Smails, Caddyshack.

"Every man with a bellyful of the classics is an enemy of the human race." Henry Miller.

1979 - Generation Perdu







Post#10516 at 01-12-2006 06:05 PM by Virgil K. Saari [at '49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains joined Jun 2001 #posts 7,835]
---
01-12-2006, 06:05 PM #10516
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
'49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains
Posts
7,835

Romantic Idealism on the Web

Quote Originally Posted by J.K. Dineen [i
Court TV[/i]]Man sues chatroom pals: I was humiliated beyond what 'no man could endure' AOL chatroom An AOL chatroom named 'Romance — Older Men' was the scene of unbearable humiliation for one chatter, according to a new lawsuit. ...


The case is not simply "someone conversing in a chatroom" but also involves "harassing someone in Ohio," which gives Ohio courts jurisdiction, according to Gillespie's lawyers.

Gillespie, 53, claims that Marlowe and Bob Charpentier, a 52-year-old Oregon resident, insulted him and harassed him in the AOL chatroom called "Romance — Older Men" to the point where it inflicted "severe emotional distress and physical injury that is of a nature no reasonable man could be expected to endure it."


Ohio

Romance

Older Men

Lawsuit





:arrow: :arrow: :arrow: Yikes!







Post#10517 at 01-12-2006 07:41 PM by Virgil K. Saari [at '49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains joined Jun 2001 #posts 7,835]
---
01-12-2006, 07:41 PM #10517
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
'49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains
Posts
7,835

On the Reform of Eurasia








Post#10518 at 01-12-2006 10:02 PM by Zarathustra [at Where the Northwest meets the Southwest joined Mar 2003 #posts 9,198]
---
01-12-2006, 10:02 PM #10518
Join Date
Mar 2003
Location
Where the Northwest meets the Southwest
Posts
9,198

Re: Romantic Idealism on the Web

Quote Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari
Quote Originally Posted by J.K. Dineen [i
Court TV[/i]]Man sues chatroom pals: I was humiliated beyond what 'no man could endure' AOL chatroom An AOL chatroom named 'Romance — Older Men' was the scene of unbearable humiliation for one chatter, according to a new lawsuit. ...


The case is not simply "someone conversing in a chatroom" but also involves "harassing someone in Ohio," which gives Ohio courts jurisdiction, according to Gillespie's lawyers.

Gillespie, 53, claims that Marlowe and Bob Charpentier, a 52-year-old Oregon resident, insulted him and harassed him in the AOL chatroom called "Romance — Older Men" to the point where it inflicted "severe emotional distress and physical injury that is of a nature no reasonable man could be expected to endure it."


Ohio

Romance

Older Men

Lawsuit





:arrow: :arrow: :arrow: Yikes!
:lol: Awesome.

Mr. Saari, you rule. 8)
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.







Post#10519 at 01-12-2006 10:10 PM by Roadbldr '59 [at Vancouver, Washington joined Jul 2001 #posts 8,275]
---
01-12-2006, 10:10 PM #10519
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Vancouver, Washington
Posts
8,275

Re: Romantic Idealism on the Web

Quote Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari
Quote Originally Posted by J.K. Dineen [i
Court TV[/i]]Man sues chatroom pals: I was humiliated beyond what 'no man could endure' AOL chatroom An AOL chatroom named 'Romance — Older Men' was the scene of unbearable humiliation for one chatter, according to a new lawsuit. ...


The case is not simply "someone conversing in a chatroom" but also involves "harassing someone in Ohio," which gives Ohio courts jurisdiction, according to Gillespie's lawyers.

Gillespie, 53, claims that Marlowe and Bob Charpentier, a 52-year-old Oregon resident, insulted him and harassed him in the AOL chatroom called "Romance — Older Men" to the point where it inflicted "severe emotional distress and physical injury that is of a nature no reasonable man could be expected to endure it."


Ohio

Romance

Older Men

Lawsuit





:arrow: :arrow: :arrow: Yikes!
Geez... is this guy a first-class wuss, or WHAT???

If he didn't like the sort of bullshit that went on in that chatroom, why didn't he simply flip everyone off and walk away? I would... there's no way my very dignity would be worth a mere 25 grand.
"Better hurry. There's a storm coming. His storm!!!" :-O -Abigail Freemantle, "The Stand" by Stephen King







Post#10520 at 01-13-2006 12:29 AM by The Pervert [at A D&D Character sheet joined Jan 2002 #posts 1,169]
---
01-13-2006, 12:29 AM #10520
Join Date
Jan 2002
Location
A D&D Character sheet
Posts
1,169

Re: On the Reform of Eurasia

"Injun Country", eh? That's an interesting way to frame the other side in a clash of civilizations.
Your local general nuisance
"I am not an alter ego. I am an unaltered id!"







Post#10521 at 01-13-2006 10:22 AM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
01-13-2006, 10:22 AM #10521
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

Re: On the Reform of Eurasia

Quote Originally Posted by The Pervert
"Injun Country", eh? That's an interesting way to frame the other side in a clash of civilizations.
It's also the wrong way to think. A Western culture might attempt to help other cultures move in a direction of the other culture's choice. There are opportunities for two peoples to move in the same direction to mutual benefit. But when one culture assumes it is superior to another, and attempts to use force -- be it military, economic or political force -- things can get ugly. Thus, you get the US finding itself fighting insurgency in Iraq, and the world banking organizations forcing policies that favor abstract economic policies at the expense of the People's standard of living.







Post#10522 at 01-13-2006 07:10 PM by albatross '82 [at Portland, OR joined Sep 2005 #posts 248]
---
01-13-2006, 07:10 PM #10522
Join Date
Sep 2005
Location
Portland, OR
Posts
248

saddam and the 3t

http://reuters.myway.com/article/200...S-IRAQ-DC.html

Saddam Hussein is in many ways the embodiment of the Unravelling, in my opinion. He was a master at getting away with murder in 3T politics. So it's no surprise that his own trial is a circus on a level above even Michael Jackson and OJ, is it? Not even the judge can handle it! Makes Judge Ito's constant exasperated moods seem petty. :lol:







Post#10523 at 01-13-2006 09:03 PM by antichrist [at I'm in the Big City now, boy! joined Sep 2003 #posts 1,655]
---
01-13-2006, 09:03 PM #10523
Join Date
Sep 2003
Location
I'm in the Big City now, boy!
Posts
1,655

Not to threadjack, but...

I don't know why they didn't just execute him in the field. Bringing him back for a monkey trial isn't justice. it's more like a mockery of one.

/threadjack







Post#10524 at 01-13-2006 09:35 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
01-13-2006, 09:35 PM #10524
Guest

Quote Originally Posted by mgibbons19 (71)
Not to threadjack, but...

I don't know why they didn't just execute him in the field. Bringing him back for a monkey trial isn't justice. it's more like a mockery of one.
I'm not the least bit surprised to see the left mocking or pooh poohing the importance of the Saddam trial. The rule of law is, after all, a traditionalist institution and thereby an annoyance to those who, like liberals (at least those who can unabashedly admit it), would thrust a bitter dagger into the heart of The Past.

Traditionalists, however, seek to realize the hope of future progress by affirming The Past. Thus, Saddam's crimes against that hope must be exposed fairly and properly in a "court of law" if said hope is to be truly valid.

The Left rejects this affirmation with The Past. Thus, it is actually in their agenda to trivialize trials such as these just as the Chicago Seven (yes, Ramsey Clark was there too) turned their "court of law" into a circus in 1969.







Post#10525 at 01-14-2006 12:14 AM by albatross '82 [at Portland, OR joined Sep 2005 #posts 248]
---
01-14-2006, 12:14 AM #10525
Join Date
Sep 2005
Location
Portland, OR
Posts
248

Rule of law has nothing to do with it. Saddam is raising hell in that trial. Defense lawyers are being assassinated. It's ridiculous, nothing is getting done. Saddam is just playing more of his 3T tricks to make the whole thing inefficient. He is a Silent after all! :lol:
-----------------------------------------