JaBbA's Hut - Freedom

Schneier on Security vs. Privacy

nospam@example.com (JaBbA) — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 10:39:19 -0500

Bruce Schneier posted an article today on the false dichotomy between Security vs. Privacy:

If you set up the false dichotomy, of course people will choose security over privacy -- especially if you scare them first. But it's still a false dichotomy. There is no security without privacy. And liberty requires both security and privacy. The famous quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin reads: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." It's also true that those who would give up privacy for security are likely to end up with neither.

The American people have been bombarded with so much fear and anxiety that they have stopped thinking. And, unfortunately, for many people that's the way they like it. But I take some heart from the freefall of Rudy "9-11" Guiliani in the Polls - given enough time, people finally started looking at something other than his constant fear speech, and didn't like what they saw. He miscalculated, thinking that the security message could last almost 2 years. It's not that people are beginning to wake up - I think it's more that they have become habituated to the constant drumbeat that they are able to look past it.

But Schneier's right - security comes before social issues like privacy on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. We have to get over the fear before we can worry about civil liberties - and that's what the government is counting on. But there is a way - and that is to get people to fear the loss of privacy. Unfortunately, balancing fear of government intrusion against complete paranoia is difficult - and it's much easier to make people fear a violent attack.

This may be why I'm attracted do Obama's message of hope. If we can look forward to a future where we don't see enemies all around us, we can be more cognizant of the importance of personal liberty. I am beginning to believe that Obama sees that future and wants to lead the country there.

JaBbA says check it out.

Signs of sanity returning

nospam@example.com (JaBbA) — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 09:10:21 -0500

Republican Senators Specter and Leahy have introduced a bill in congress to repeal the parts of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that suspend Habeus Corpus.

Let's hope this begins the long climb uphill out of the swamp BushCo has sunk us in.

This is America?

nospam@example.com (JaBbA) — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 14:26:44 -0500

Just when I start to calm down, something like this happens.

I found the following email stuck in a SPAM queue. It had been forwarded into our email by one of our high-level employees. I've removed all names to protect the sheep.

It just makes me sick.

(links removed)

Dear [Sheep],

Please take a moment to read the following TownHall.com
column by Dennis Prager, who is a Jew.

OK, because the racist writing the article is a Jew, that somehow makes it OK?

After reading the column, take the suggest action at the bottom of this email.
After you have read it, please forward it to your friends and family.

America, Not Keith Ellison, decides what book a congressman takes his oath on

By Dennis Prager - Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.

He should not be allowed to do so -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.
[Rest of REALLY scary and idiotic article moved to the extended entry]

Take Action

1. Send an email asking your U.S. Representative and Senators to pass a
law making the Bible the book used in the swearing-in ceremony of
Representatives and Senators.

Don't these people understand what America IS?????

2. Forward this email to your friends and family today!

Write your Representative and Senators Now!

Sincerely,

Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman
American Family Association

P.S. Please forward this e-mail message to your family and friends!

Ok, give me a minute to calm down.

[Deep breaths. Calming thoughts.....]

The author is correct on one very small poiint - there is only ONE appropriate document for oaths of office to be taken with. The only document that EVERY elected official in this county is required to hold sacred....

The Constitution of the United States

Continue reading "This is America?"

But he'll never actually USE it...

nospam@example.com (JaBbA) — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 10:45:34 -0500

What's the problem with the suspension of habeus corpus?

Special Comment - The Beginning of the End of America

nospam@example.com (JaBbA) — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 00:53:47 -0400

Keith's Special Comment tonight was moving, powerful, and hopefully a wake-up call for the American people.

The text is at the MSNBC Site. I've copied it into the extended entry.

I'm uploading the video to Youtube as I write this. I'll update this entry with a link to it as soon as it's up.

We have handed a blank check drawn against our freedom to a man who may now, if he so decides, declare not merely any non-American citizens âunlawful enemy combatantsâ? and ship them somewhereâanywhere -- but may now, if he so decides, declare you an âunlawful enemy combatantâ? and ship you somewhere - anywhere.

...

âOne of the terrorists believed to have planned the 9/11 attacks,â? you told us yesterday, âsaid he hoped the attacks would be the beginning of the end of America.â?

That terrorist, sir, could only hope.

Not his actions, nor the actions of a ceaseless line of terrorists (real or imagined), could measure up to what you have wrought.

*UPDATE*

Full text below:
Continue reading "Special Comment - The Beginning of the End of America"

Have a Corpse?

nospam@example.com (JaBbA) — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 13:47:30 -0400

I used to think Habeus Corpus was the principle that you couldn't be prosecuted for murder unless the police had a body.

Oops.

It's nothing less than the foundation of all our freedoms, and has been a principle of western law since before the Magna Carta. (That's almost 800 years old now, folks).

And it's gone, as of yesterday. Bush is the first president to have the power to suspend Habeus Corpus since Grant did so to try to break the KKK in South Carolina. And see how much good that did.

I can't explain it all that well. But Keith can. That was before it was actualy signed into law.

Watch MSNBC Tonight at 8pm or Midnight EDT for Keith's special commentary on the death of Habeus Corpus - and what it means to you.

UPDATE Here's the Oct. 17th episode. Still, watch the Special Commentary on Wed. the 18th. I'll post a link as soon as I find it.

And they don't even have the Patriot Act

nospam@example.com (JaBbA) — Tue, 11 Oct 2005 10:36:38 -0400

Daniel Cuthbert was a Security Consultant at ABN Ambro and lecturer on Computer Security at Westminster and Royal Holloway universities. While making a donation for Tsunami Relief on New Year's Eve, he became concerned that the website he had just donated to might be a fraud site. He tried two simple tests, using his Mac and Safari Web Browser, to see of the site he had just given his credit card info to might have been hacked. Satisfied that he was safe, he stopped.

He has now lost his job and been convicted of violating England's Computer Misuse Act.

This incredible overreaction and use of a blunt instrument will make any security researcher think twice about cooperating in any police investigation - just running a simple test, using a web browser, can now result in felony convictions. A perfect example of how ignorance of the technical aspects of computer security can completely foul up any attempt to provide real protection. And America's Patriot Act is a much larger, much heavier instrument than the CMA.

I'm so conflicted

nospam@example.com (JaBbA) — Tue, 05 Jul 2005 16:44:01 -0400

A free and independent press that can use inside sources is critical to stopping governmental abuses. Not that we HAVE that right now, but it's an important principle.

Freepress.net wants us to sign a petition to pass the shield law, guaranteeing the freedom of the press.

But Damn! The ones being defended make me gag. Judith Miller is a partisan hack. I want to see Karl Rove frog-marched from the White House in FBI handcuffs. And I still don't get how Robert Novak gets away with this...for the second time!

Oh well. The principle is more important than personal satisfaction. JaBbA says sign the petition.

And hope they find the smoking gun and bust Rove anyway.

2 Seats and counting

nospam@example.com (JaBbA) — Fri, 01 Jul 2005 11:35:51 -0400

Sandra Day O'Connor just announced her retirement. Not entirely unexpected, although there was some talk that she might stick it out through Bush's term. With Renquist clearly ailing, that probably gives BushCo 2 chances to push right-wing idealouges onto the bench.

Is anyone really surprised

nospam@example.com (JaBbA) — Thu, 30 Jun 2005 10:36:07 -0400

That the Dominionist Bush administration is hostile to science?

Outrageous

nospam@example.com (JaBbA) — Thu, 23 Jun 2005 10:21:24 -0400

During debate in the United States House of Representatives on another Flag-Burning Amendment:

"Ask the men and women who stood on top of the Trade Center," said Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif. "Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment."

Yeah. I'm sure that the victims of 9/11 were thinking that restricting our freedom as Americans would have stopped the attacks as they fell to their deaths.

I propose a new corollary to Godwin's Law: If a legislator invokes the approval of the victims of 9/11, the point in question come within one vote of passing.

Are you prepared to fight the Dominion?

nospam@example.com (JaBbA) — Fri, 13 May 2005 12:16:29 -0400

Steven C. Day, in the Last Chance Democracy Cafe on Buzzflash, talks about the coming war. Not in Iraq, but the war against the Dominionist attempt to change America into a theocracy. Evidence? How about the proposed Consitution Restoration Act:

Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an element of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official personal capacity), by reason of that element's or officer's acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.

This is not a joke. This bill has been submitted to both the House and Senate, in slightly revised forms, in both 2004 and 2005. It would make any local law absolute, as long as the law states that it is an acknowledgement of God's law. So a local ban on contraceptives, or a state law against the observance of Judaism, would supercede any Federal civil rights laws.

What's the fuss about Privacy, anyway?

nospam@example.com (JaBbA) — Fri, 04 Feb 2005 13:13:11 -0500

The ACLU shows you the future.

Moral Values

nospam@example.com (JaBbA) — Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:46:31 -0500

While so many of us liberals rent our clothes in despair and wondered why we had lost the "moral issues" battle in the election, the Rev. William Sinkford, President of the UUA, clearly stated that we, as liberal religious people, hold tight to our Moral Values:

Moral values are not just particular opinions on âhot buttonâ? topics in a divisive election year. Moral values grow out of our calling as religious people to work to create the Beloved Community. Moral values instruct us to âlove our neighbors as ourselvesâ? and always to ask the question, âWho is my neighbor?â? They are fundamentally inclusive rather than exclusive, and they call on generosity of spirit rather than mean spiritedness.

In this post election season, let me express some of the moral values held dear by the Unitarian Universalist community, which I lead, and by many other progressive people of faith:

We believe that feeding the hungry and clothing the naked are moral duties, and we will continue to work on behalf of economic justice.

We believe that ensuring equal civil rights for gay and lesbian families is our moral duty, and we will continue to work for Marriage Equality nationwide.

We believe that serving as stewards of the earth is a moral duty, and we will continue to do everything in our power to protect the environment.

We believe that safeguarding a womanâs right to choose is a moral duty, and we will vigorously oppose any efforts to eliminate or significantly compromise reproductive freedom.

We believe that providing affordable health care for all Americans is a moral duty, and we will continue to advocate for medical rights for the young, the old, the frail, and all of those in need.

Fundamentalism vs. Liberalism

nospam@example.com (JaBbA) — Wed, 08 Dec 2004 13:53:30 -0500

I think I read this in my UUWorld issue when it came out, but having come across it again last night, it strikes me how important this is for liberals to reinvent how they are going to once again become the dominant paradigm.

In Davidson Loehr's article The Fundamentalist Agenda, he discusses the necessity of liberal thought to the advancement of human society, and how a conference of theologians identified the common characteristics of all fundamentalism - including political fundamentalism.

They identified five characteristics shared by virtually all fundamentalisms. The fundamentalists' agenda starts with insistence that their rules must be made to apply to all people, and to all areas of life.

[snip]

The second agenda item is really at the top of the list, and it's vulgarly simple: Men are on top.

[snip]

A third item follows from the others. (Indeed each part of the fundamentalist agenda is necessarily interlocked, and needs every other part to survive.) Since there is only one right picture of the world, one right set of beliefs, and one right set of roles for men, women, and children, it is imperative that this picture and these rules be communicated precisely to the next generation. Therefore, fundamentalists must control education by controlling textbooks and teaching styles, deciding what may and may not be taught.

Fourth, fundamentalists spurn the modern, and want to return to a nostalgic vision of a golden age that never really existed.

[snip]

The fifth point is the most abstract, though it's foundational. Fundamentalists deny history in a radical and idiosyncratic way.

The article cleary points out how successful liberal movements co-opted the language of the fundamentalists. The point is, liberals don't need to move the the center, but they do need to know how to TALK to the center.

An important message for all of us.