Do you have one of Seeger's testimony to HUAC? I looked around, but didn't find anything but the transcript.Man, I can do this all night.
I'll go look in a second, but first:
I would have favorited your post, but I didn't want to lend credence to arguing with Sebastian when he's in full-on snark mode.
Which I also enjoy.
---
No, I don't see it. I don't have any particular magic--my jaw dropped when google turned up that video when I typed in "Brecht" and "HUAC."
Never fear my purple hoofed fella, I'm here to explain to you what transpires in this discussion, as it appears you got yourself confused while running around, and has been unable to properly understand what is in debate! Our dear Comrade fella appears to be more on the spot, so that's a initial guideline for you. Do not meander!What is in discussion here is how the extension of state powers to confront "terror" have been influencing people's lives. An extension which was initiated with Bush and has continued under Obama. The coordination of NYPD with the FBI in order to choke the OWS movement for instance <--- ; the war on whistleblowers; the treatment of Bradley...
As offensive as I find most of this stuff, I would like to point out that it's not really so much an extension of federal powers as the retraction of the temporary curtailment of them in the 70s. Mostly as a result of reaction to the findings of the Church commission.
The rollback didn't start too long after that.Before then, the investigations of the civil rights and anti-war movements that prompted the Church Commission, the persecution of communists after WWII, the persecution of anarchists, communists and pacifists for most of the early 20th century, etc, etc. The list goes on.
We've been here before. We've fought this fight before. In some ways, the tools to fight it are far better now.
I guess that one of my main points here is that this fight is not being fought at all. When Bush started with this stuff, democrat-leaning people would complain how awful these things were. It appears that people are so afraid of Republicans in office now that they are willing to let Obama get away with pretty much anything to avoid it. This, I think, might be one of the reasons I retread this subject all the time.
One of the guys from video 4 goes on star in Lillehammer which is also about an informant. The guy in Springsteen's band.
No, I hadn't heard of that. I looked it up and it looks cool. It goes on the list, thank you.
But I've still got A Game of Thrones, The Walking Dead and Spartacus all in the queue...
I'll take that risk, if we mundanes don't stop them now, they'll eventually form the Psi Corps and try to take over the Earth Alliance.Beware of pissing off vegans. They've got psionic powers.Yeah there is a big difference between asking "Did you see X toss a molotov cocktail at the hockey riot" and "have you ever seen X with a copy of Atlas Shrugged" or "who do you see at the hipster organo/vegan/wheatfree anarchist lounge/whole foods on a regular basis".Depends on what they're asking. If, for example, they're not asking questions that could exonerate people, but just want the names of all the people she knows in anarchist circles, then not answering is a principled act. Think the McCarthy hearings.This is contempt of court. You don't have the right to refuse to testify when subpoenaed. If you refuse to testify (and you're not one of several exempt cases, such as refusing to incriminate yourself, revealing privileged information, etc.), then that's contempt of court. This doesn't have anything to do with President Obama, and as she's said, she's choosing prison in lieu of testimony.
I know that whenever the FBI goes looking for black clothes and books by Bakunin, my spider sense starts tingling.Mine too, but it fades when I see that someone is willing to go to prison rather than testify against someone. If her testimony weren't condemning, then she'd be happy to exonerate the people she was being asked to testify against.
Close but not quite.
I guess that one of my main points here is that this fight is not being fought at all. When Bush started with this stuff, democrat-leaning people would complain how awful these things were. It appears that people are so afraid of Republicans in office now that they are willing to let Obama get away with pretty much anything to avoid it. This, I think, might be one of the reasons I retread this subject all the time.
It's a very good subject. We try to keep tabs on it over in the Bride of Government Folly thread, but, unfortunately, our fearless leader, Comrade Thorn, has been off-Paizo (or at least off-Politroll Threads) for a while now.
IIRC, Citizen Cardozo, you are in Brazil? How is shiznit there? Is Lulu still in charge? I heard he became a right stooge of the plutocracy.
Yup, I'm in Brazil.
Things here are...complicated. Many things have improved in Brazil since Lula gained power. Funding for science has increased enourmously since Labor Party took power, our economy has grown and people have, in general, better conditions of living. Health is still kinda crappy, as is transport and our problems with crime.
The main problem with his government was that, in order to be able to govern he took a stance of trying to make alliances with anyone, even the most corrupt of our politicians. It was disheartening to remember him chastasing politicians in the past for their use of public money for enrichment and shaking hands with them afterwards. And the thing is, he almost managed to sell the notion that these things were not really important. And yes, he deviated a lot from what one would expect of a leftist here in Brazil, but not completely. So, kind of a mixed bag.
But he's not in charge anymore, though his party is still in government (Dilma Rousseff is our president now). At the same time many Labor Party members which were accused of corruption during his government are being condemned now, so they are not interfering as much as they could with the process. Which is good.
The funny thing is I never voted for Lula, and I was pretty sure he would be a very, very crappy president. Despite all his problems, he was nothing like the sort.
Oh and our press sucks. Yours does too, in some ways worse than ours, but at least you seem to have a number of independent alternatives. Here it basically just sucks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess that one of my main points here is that this fight is not being fought at all. When Bush started with this stuff, democrat-leaning people would complain how awful these things were. It appears that people are so afraid of Republicans in office now that they are willing to let Obama get away with pretty much anything to avoid it. This, I think, might be one of the reasons I retread this subject all the time.
The leftist people I know are all pretty pissed off about it. But here's the thing: the odds of any of this getting even slightly better under a GOP administration are pretty much zero.
So here's the realistic choice for a leftist voter in the US:
1) A rain of crap with at least a few improvements to show for it or
2) A turd tsunami burying you alive and no improvements at all
And most of us, while we could be way, way the hell happier, will settle for some incremental improvements like the health care reform and ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
I guess that one of my main points here is that this fight is not being fought at all. When Bush started with this stuff, democrat-leaning people would complain how awful these things were. It appears that people are so afraid of Republicans in office now that they are willing to let Obama get away with pretty much anything to avoid it. This, I think, might be one of the reasons I retread this subject all the time.The leftist people I know are all pretty pissed off about it. But here's the thing: the odds of any of this getting even slightly better under a GOP administration are pretty much zero.
So here's the realistic choice for a leftist voter in the US:
1) A rain of crap with at least a few improvements to show for it or
2) A turd tsunami burying you alive and no improvements at allAnd most of us, while we could be way, way the hell happier, will settle for some incremental improvements like the health care reform and ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
I do get that. If I was an american, I might end up voting for Obama, but I'd have to do it with a handkerchief to the nose. But the thing is, don't you think that his base should be doing more in pressuring him about these issues? It's not like you can prevent a Republican from governing ever again. And then, all those things Obama has been putting into place will be freely available for these guys.
Though I believe in your report concerning your leftist friends, I see a large number of democrats who actually think these things are "good", that Obama is showing he's "tough", apparently because Obama is the one doing it. At the most people say that "he must be doing it for a good reason that only he is privy to". When Bush did this stuff he was the Spawn from Hell, but now these things are "normal" and we have to understand that "the man has to make tough decisions". He even let Bush of the hook in the investigations against torture AND the telecoms in the investigations against illegal wiretapping.
But the thing is, don't you think that his base should be doing more in pressuring him about these issues?
Obama's base is too busy doing everything in its power to prevent half the country from electing Romney. We gripe about our Democratic presidents in the middle of their terms, but when it comes to campaign season, we rally.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't find anything to corroborate this independently. Their own site has given them a name similar to that of The West Memphis Three. Giving oneself one's own cool, outsider name posted alongside drama shots smacks of fraud and self-importance.
Note they do not state what the charges are, but charges there must be. Dancing around that issue makes them sound sweet and innocent, which is quite convenient. I like the part where they cry about how the authorities are trying to make them feel alone and isolated and helpless, when that is precisely the side-effect of anarchy in the first place. Poor babies.
Thing is, there are a lot of people between the cops and the President. Acting like this is a voting point, or a direct result of some policy unique to Obama, or something he directly ordered, or even knows about yet, is a grand and lunatic simplification of the gears and workings of a massive system of federal organizations. It's like finding out through Twitter that some employee of Microsoft stepped on a butterfly twenty seconds ago, then immediately running to Paizo to demand the resignation of Bill Gates (assuming he had not retired yet).
As to how this affects Obama vs. Romney, I am laughing myself silly at the notion that you could ever imply a Republican president would not consider recorded video of events such as these masturbation fodder. At the very least, the hawks that currently dominate the party would grab a bowl of chips and a beer and sit down and laugh at the thing a few dozen times before wandering off to plan some atrocity in some backwoods country.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess that one of my main points here is that this fight is not being fought at all. When Bush started with this stuff, democrat-leaning people would complain how awful these things were. It appears that people are so afraid of Republicans in office now that they are willing to let Obama get away with pretty much anything to avoid it. This, I think, might be one of the reasons I retread this subject all the time.
You're over thinking and over complicating it. You're turning a non-issue into a conspiracy.
Listen, I am a news junky. I am online hours a day, and I watch at least three news broadcasts every 24 hours, usually four or five. This is the first I am hearing of this. If I missed it, then everybody missed it. Look at the reactions in this thread. Nobody here heard about this, either.
I think two things are happening that are a lot more plausible as explanations than is a nation-wide conspiracy of Democrats in collusion with the President.
1. You get your news from fringe sources, which you might want to double and triple check for veracity before posting stuff you know is going to make the bees buzz. (And don't always take what they say for granted as the complete or truthful story.)
2. People on both sides of the aisle are so wrapped up in the Big News Story of the day - the election - that they are not noticing the smaller stories.
What is your best evidence that both are going on? Well, if this mess were 100% true as being told to us by these fringe news outlets, the Republicans would be so all over it, jabbing the President with it, painting it on billboards to try to paint Obama as somebody who threatens their rights, not only would we have heard about it by now, IT WOULD BE THE ONLY THING ON THE NEWS FOR DAYS AND DAYS AT A TIME.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Salon.com (often a dubious source itself) seems to be the biggest "news source" carrying this. They indicate the arrests were made for "refusing to cooperate with a grand jury." In other words, they were subpoenaed to appear at a federal inquest, and basically just didn't show up.
HATE TO BREAK IT TO YOU DEPT: You can be arrested for not showing up to traffic court in this country. Anytime you are told to show up, whether it be for a traffic ticket, stealing a candy bar, or refusing to testify when subpoenaed by the feds, you can be taken to jail. It's called Contempt, or Failure to Appear. Now, cops are busy. They wait to take you in until they catch you at something else. But the feds knock down your door because that's actually what they do: that's their job - finding people who are wanted for questioning or have not shown when subpoenaed.
The real issue that sucks behind all of this is that in these sorts of cases, where you are questioned under these terrorism acts, you cannot plead the 5th. That IS something we ought to all be angry about. But that is not why these people were arrested, and there is no conspiracy here. Whatever they might have said or withheld when questioned isn't what got them landed in jail. They got arrested for ignoring the court and not showing up when expected.
Talk about a mountain out of a molehill.
Hee hee!
Workers Vanguard reported it back on September 28th.
Down with the corporate media!
An injury to one is an injury to all!
Vive le Galt!
I do get that. If I was an american, I might end up voting for Obama, but I'd have to do it with a handkerchief to the nose. But the thing is, don't you think that his base should be doing more in pressuring him about these issues? It's not like you can prevent a Republican from governing ever again. And then, all those things Obama has been putting into place will be freely available for these guys.
Doing more what? Voting for Republicans? Primarying Obama? Writing angry letters? What tools do you think are available to the average, non-rich voter? I named the only one of real relevance and laid out the problem with it last post.
Is there a point where a republic gets to big to work?
Physically? Not really. The first telegraph lines solved that problem.
There are all kinds of inevitable problems with trying to do something insane like run a modern, urban, mobile state on a system built for a tiny population of small farmers for whom the world may as well have ended about a day's ride from home, though.
Sorry, yeah, I meant population-wise, not size-wise.
Ok. I still don't think there's a necessary upward limit. The real things that make states dysfunctional have more to do with decentralization (which was made obsolete by the telegraph) and all kinds of bugs left over from the crappy pre-alpha release of Freedom 1787 like first past the post voting, the Senate, Electoral College, and the possibility of divided government.
That last destroys the whole reason for having elections. A system that permits it may as well stop having them entirely. The result would be the same.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If only John McCain had won...oh wait, he was more extreme on these positions...
If you make the perfect the enemy of the better, you only leave open worse as an outcome.
That's not my point at all. As any citizen worried about the future of our world, I pay some attention to how things transpire in your country, given the power and influence it has and that it has been known to exert abroad. In my opinion, Bush's government was disastrous and I was very, very excited with Obama's election.
The thing is, as I watched things progress, I started to see that Obama was actively pushing a number of policies I could only expect from someone like Bush. And he is being quite successful, and is going practically unopposed in pushing those.
I can definitely see why you feel you have to vote for Obama again. I just think that if you guys feel so powerless in relation to what is possible to do to influence policies in your country, maybe there is something wrong about how things are working.
This is not an autocratic state where the President will rule that far down. Plain fact of the matter is that this incident would occur no matter who's in the Oval Office. This is not a function of the executive branch but how basic law enforcement is conducted in this country.
Grand Juries are the issue, they have the power to imprison without trial, and you do not have the right of silence when facing them.
I'm aware of that. I know Obama does not micromanage everything. The problem is that, as you expand the realm of what is acceptable to do in the name of security and as you actively push policies which prey on civil liberties, you create a climate where these things become possible.
I can't find anything to corroborate this independently. Their own site has given them a name similar to that of The West Memphis Three. Giving oneself one's own cool, outsider name posted alongside drama shots smacks of fraud and self-importance.
Note they do not state what the charges are, but charges there must be. Dancing around that issue makes them sound sweet and innocent, which is quite convenient. I like the part where they cry about how the authorities are trying to make them feel alone and isolated and helpless, when that is precisely the side-effect of anarchy in the first place. Poor babies.
Thing is, there are a lot of people between the cops and the President. Acting like this is a voting point, or a direct result of some policy unique to Obama, or something he directly ordered, or even knows about yet, is a grand and lunatic simplification of the gears and workings of a massive system of federal organizations. It's like finding out through Twitter that some employee of Microsoft stepped on a butterfly twenty seconds ago, then immediately running to Paizo to demand the resignation of Bill Gates (assuming he had not retired yet).
As to how this affects Obama vs. Romney, I am laughing myself silly at the notion that you could ever imply a Republican president would not consider recorded video of events such as these masturbation fodder. At the very least, the hawks that currently dominate the party would grab a bowl of chips and a beer and sit down and laugh at the thing a few dozen times before wandering off to plan some atrocity in some backwoods country.
Where am I saying I'd like a republican on power? You appear to think that any criticism directed to a democrat, whether meaningful or not, means support for the other candidate. So, basically, you're laughing yourself silly from something your own mind came up with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess that one of my main points here is that this fight is not being fought at all. When Bush started with this stuff, democrat-leaning people would complain how awful these things were. It appears that people are so afraid of Republicans in office now that they are willing to let Obama get away with pretty much anything to avoid it. This, I think, might be one of the reasons I retread this subject all the time.You're over thinking and over complicating it. You're turning a non-issue into a conspiracy.
Listen, I am a news junky. I am online hours a day, and I watch at least three news broadcasts every 24 hours, usually four or five. This is the first I am hearing of this. If I missed it, then everybody missed it. Look at the reactions in this thread. Nobody here heard about this, either.
I think two things are happening that are a lot more plausible as explanations than is a nation-wide conspiracy of Democrats in collusion with the President.
1. You get your news from fringe sources, which you might want to double and triple check for veracity before posting stuff you know is going to make the bees buzz. (And don't always take what they say for granted as the complete or truthful story.)
2. People on both sides of the aisle are so wrapped up in the Big News Story of the day - the election - that they are not noticing the smaller stories.
What is your best evidence that both are going on? Well, if this mess were 100% true as being told to us by these fringe news outlets, the Republicans would be so all over it, jabbing the President with it, painting it on billboards to try to paint Obama as somebody who threatens their rights, not only would we have heard about it by now, IT WOULD BE THE ONLY THING ON THE NEWS FOR DAYS AND DAYS AT A TIME.
First, I have to say that, given the crappy mainstream media you guys have, being "fringe" is not that much of a downer.
Second, it's a mistake to think the Republicans would criticize anything like this, because this is actually stuff you expect from them. They want to seem "tougher" than Obama, not softer so I don't think that would work so well, not with people going crazy with "national security";Third, I'll concede the point I did not research this story so well. Maybe I already grew accustomed to what I've seen happening with the erosion of civil liberties that it did not strike me as particularly unbelievable. There're, however, the stories of Bradley Manning and Laura Poitras, which are not "small" and are being ignored by MSM. What about those?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do get that. If I was an american, I might end up voting for Obama, but I'd have to do it with a handkerchief to the nose. But the thing is, don't you think that his base should be doing more in pressuring him about these issues? It's not like you can prevent a Republican from governing ever again. And then, all those things Obama has been putting into place will be freely available for these guys.Doing more what? Voting for Republicans? Primarying Obama? Writing angry letters? What tools do you think are available to the average, non-rich voter? I named the only one of real relevance and laid out the problem with it last post.
I guess Thoreau might have an idea or two...
You guys feel so powerless to stop your government from doing things you disagree with and you argue that the other side is so bad that it is basically a non-option. It means that there is no real choice but one, right? So how does it feel to be in a democracy that is working like this?
I guess Thoreau might have an idea or two...You guys feel so powerless to stop your government from doing things you disagree with and you argue that the other side is so bad that it is basically a non-option. It means that there is no real choice but one, right? So how does it feel to be in a democracy that is working like this?
Yeah, Thoreau did great at stopping the Mexican War.
And yes, there's no even theoretically decent choice but one. It's a somewhat less than warm and fuzzy. If only the Canadians would invade and take over, but who would be dumb enough to want a bunch of Americans?
I expect it to continue like this at least until white Americans become a national minority.
I decided to do a little more of research as suggested by Bruunwald...these are letters from a mix of 10 congressmen, senators expressing their worries to Holder about FBI raids against activists...there's some interesting info in there.
link
I guess Thoreau might have an idea or two...You guys feel so powerless to stop your government from doing things you disagree with and you argue that the other side is so bad that it is basically a non-option. It means that there is no real choice but one, right? So how does it feel to be in a democracy that is working like this?
Yeah, Thoreau did great at stopping the Mexican War.
And yes, there's no even theoretically decent choice but one. It's a somewhat less than warm and fuzzy. If only the Canadians would invade and take over, but who would be dumb enough to want a bunch of Americans?
I expect it to continue like this at least until white Americans become a national minority.
Well others who were more successful in changing society spring to mind, like MLK. But yes I won't insist in this point, I understand where you're coming from.
|
There's no defense for stupid. No cure either, which is the truly tragic part.
Edit: Also, unicorns have a horn.
Unicorn comes from the protoindoeuropean for An(su)-Ker meaning 'demon horn'. The Alternative term is An-Ker Meaning: Other (of Two)-Horn aka Erect Penis. Dont you just hate it when your fantasy is filled with crude medieval innuendo.
Yeah its a bummer being arrested by an Evil regime in need of toppling.
|
|
And yes, there's no even theoretically decent choice but one. It's a somewhat less than warm and fuzzy. If only the Canadians would invade and take over, but who would be dumb enough to want a bunch of Americans?Leave us out of this! Although you're welcome to visit anytime you like. We have maple syrup and poutine.
Up your game America...maybe one day you will qualify for citizenship in our world spanning Commonwealth, like Canada.
Up your game America...maybe one day you will qualify for citizenship in our world spanning Commonwealth, like Canada.And yes, there's no even theoretically decent choice but one. It's a somewhat less than warm and fuzzy. If only the Canadians would invade and take over, but who would be dumb enough to want a bunch of Americans?Leave us out of this! Although you're welcome to visit anytime you like. We have maple syrup and poutine.
*Ahem* Sir, you may have inadvertantly made an error in thinking we want them back in the Commonwealth. Why would we want a bunch on ingrate colonial traitors who used violence, violence, sir, to throw off their duties to their lawful sovereign? They misues our great language by droping 'u's for no good reason, force all villains to be playerd by British actors and have elections that last YEARS! Why on earth would we want them back?
Tally ho!
|
|
Up your game America...maybe one day you will qualify for citizenship in our world spanning Commonwealth, like Canada.And yes, there's no even theoretically decent choice but one. It's a somewhat less than warm and fuzzy. If only the Canadians would invade and take over, but who would be dumb enough to want a bunch of Americans?Leave us out of this! Although you're welcome to visit anytime you like. We have maple syrup and poutine.*Ahem* Sir, you may have inadvertantly made an error in thinking we want them back in the Commonwealth. Why would we want a bunch on ingrate colonial traitors who used violence, violence, sir, to throw off their duties to their lawful sovereign? They misues our great language by droping 'u's for no good reason, force all villains to be playerd by British actors and have elections that last YEARS! Why on earth would we want them back?
Tally ho!
Under Commonwealth law, Sedition is Any Act causing Government, Law, Constitution, Sovereign to be held in Hatred and Contempt - 'Any Act' includes Acts of Government, Law, Constitution, Sovereign not having the consent of the whole populace and thus causing Government, Law, Constitution, Sovereign to be held in Hatred and Contempt. So what Lawful Sovereign?
All crime is an assault on the Commonwealth and thus Treason and resisting arrest under charge of Treason carries our only lawfully recognized death penalty. So Kill a King a Day until they conform to their obligations under the Law.
I do get that. If I was an american, I might end up voting for Obama, but I'd have to do it with a handkerchief to the nose. But the thing is, don't you think that his base should be doing more in pressuring him about these issues? It's not like you can prevent a Republican from governing ever again. And then, all those things Obama has been putting into place will be freely available for these guys.Doing more what? Voting for Republicans? Primarying Obama? Writing angry letters? What tools do you think are available to the average, non-rich voter? I named the only one of real relevance and laid out the problem with it last post.
Well, something like this, I suppose.
While nowhere near as dramatic as the events in Seattle, my Bostonian comrades are all in a tizzy over the latest batch of FOIA papers from the BPD detailing surveillance and harassment of anti-war and anti-Zionist activists, including Howard Zinn.
One of my Bostonian comrades guesses that he was in attendance at over half of the meetings and demonstrations the cops spied on.
Down with Police Repression!
Vive le Galt!
Sorry, yeah, I meant population-wise, not size-wise.
Mr. SCHERER: Why do you not stay in Russia?
Mr. ROBESON: Because my father was a slave, and my people died to build this country, and I am going to stay here, and have a part of it just like you. And no Fascist-minded people will drive me from it. Is that clear?
Hmmm, well I guess today's socialist educational is cancelled because the comrade who was going to give a presentation on Trotsky's Transitional Program needs to attend a meeting planning a class-action lawsuit against the Boston Police Department.
:(