Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   02/03/18

      We have upgraded to new forum software as of late last year, and it makes everything here so much better!  It is now much easier to do pretty much anything, including write Trip Reports, sell gear, schedule climbing related events, and more. There is a new reputation system that allows for positive contributors to be recognized,  it is possible to tag content with identifiers, drag and drop in images, and it is much easier to embed multimedia content from Youtube, Vimeo, and more.  In all, the site is much more user friendly, bug free, and feature rich!   Whether you're a new user or a grizzled cascadeclimbers.com veteran, we think you'll love the new forums. Enjoy!
Sign in to follow this  
Rick_Sharpless

Where's the outrage???????

Recommended Posts

In the 1960’s, for the first time, we allowed the government to institute searches to determine IF a crime had been committed, instead of searching only for the fruits or instruments of crime, after there was already reason to believe one had been committed. We were scared of criminals. Law enforcement needed to be able to PREVENT crime, not just catch criminals.

 

In the 1970’s we created a “secret” court, the foreign intelligence surveillance court, to oversee the gathering of information through wiretaps and secret searches, on less than probable cause (which itself isn’t much) in the name of national security. But we said those searches and surveillances would never be used against US citizens, unless they were directly engaged in espionage, and even then, it would be used only to protect our country, but not to prosecute people (since the information was being obtained without following the rules). We were scared of foreign spies. We had to do it to protect ourselves.

 

In the name of the “war on drugs” we allowed our government and others to drug test in the workplace and in schools and in government employment, regardless of whether public safety was involved. We were scared of drugs and had to protect ourselves. We needed these tools.

 

In the name of “safety” and “security” and the “war on drugs” we raised a whole generation who when drug tested or forced to walk through a metal detector or when searched when in a public place or using public transportation says “what’s the big deal – I don’t have anything to hide.” We were scared and we had to protect ourselves from criminals, drug dealers, and domestic “terrorists.”

 

We allowed the government to seize money and property because some cop somewhere thought it had something to do with some criminal activity. If they were wrong, you had to go to court and prove it to get it back. We were scared; the crooks had too much money and we had to give law enforcement more tools to stop the crooks.

 

By the 1990’s we allowed any law enforcement officer anywhere in the country to require any ISP or telecommunication service provider, without a warrant, and without any cause, to disclose our web surfing and email correspondents, and to reveal all parties who called us and who we called, and in the case of cell phone providers, to tell where we were, and required all service providers to have the equipment to keep all of this information about all of us in case any cop anywhere wanted to ask.

 

We allowed private organizations to collect information about us (accurate or not) and all credit or insurance transactions we ever entered into, and allowed other companies to keep information about every purchase we made, when, how much, to whom and where. We had to make sure those who were “high risk” did not cost those who were “low risk” anything.

 

After 9/11/2001 we really got on a roll. We allowed the government to arrest people and detain them without charge or trial, and to brazenly refuse even to identify them, a practice condemned since at least 1215 AD. Most of us cheered the government on, They were bad guys who were detained. We were scared of them.

 

We allowed the government greater powers to engage in domestic surveillance, without warrants or probable cause. We reversed the restrictions of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. When the “Justice” Department sought to implement these powers even the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, not known to be hostile to the government, and in its first public opinion since it was founded in 1978, found the Government proposals a bit much and noted over 75 instances where federal law enforcement agents has LIED to obtain surveillance orders, and many other instances where agents had used information obtained in an illegal manner. No agent has ever been prosecuted for breaking the law, but the “Justice” Department, rather than jailing those involved who abused their office and trust to take our liberty, instead expressed outrage at the court and appealed. Citizens were not invited or permitted to respond to the appeal. We were scared of nasty people and we needed to stop them. We supported the Attorney General.

 

Not content with the powers already given our government, we passed a “homeland security” bill that, among other things, created within this new department an office headed by a felon, (former Admiral) John Poindexter, to create a new database and information system to combine all governmentally and privately collected information about our behavior, movements, government applications, licenses, statuses, employment, marriage, divorce, birth, death, driving, spending, insurance, buying, selling, etc. into one database that would allow the government to know what anyone did, who they were, and where they were. Of course, to link it all together, we use a number that we created in the 1930’s, with the assurance that it was “not to be used for identification.” My social security card still says that, the new ones don’t. In fact, those who said it would lead to a national ID system were labeled as hysterical extremists. More like prophets, wasn’t it? We were scared: How could we stop terrorists without such information. We needed a new “balance.” Has the balance ever moved the other way?

 

For those who think this a partisan rant, all along BOTH parties voted in favor of most of these things. Mush of what was in the “patriot “ act was proposed by the Clinton administration after Oklahoma City, though it then died in rancorous partisan bickering and gridlock. Only a few in both parties opposed them. And never was there outrage – and those who questioned such measures were labeled crazy extremists – by both parties.

 

History will record that the citizens of the USA did not lose their liberty to a foreign invader nor to the storm troopers of a dictator who assumed power in a coup. They happily gave it up to a nanny government through their elected politicians, who promised to protect them from the mean man that hides under their beds, or in the closet, or who did not look quite like them. Most of them cared for nothing more than to be assured of a warm bed, a hot (woman) and a cold beer. They wanted to “feel safe.” But after it all, they still were not “safe.”

 

So climbers, we know that the world is not "safe." And there are a number on this list who don't seem to want the nanny government to protect them. Is there outrage here? And what to do about it? Or so lang as we get three mountain house meals, a hottie and a warm bivi are we content?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, and now you have to have a card that tells what you purchased every time you go to Safeway or QFC. And you have to wear seat belts and bike helmets or you get fines. When will climbing be banned? I keep waiting for M.A.C.K. (Mothers Against Climber Kids) to pop up.

 

It's a dangerous world out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Rick's rant puts a name to some of my anxiety, and I'd agree that its a non-partisan issue. Even if you're a die-hard Bush supporter, those same tools pass to the next idiot to occupy that office, and you might not think of them as your friend. Its of equal concern to right wing gun owners, libertarian free marketeers, disenfranchised lefties, paranoid black helicopter conspiracy theorists, and though they might not be aware of it, that great doughy mass in the middle too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are right and it goes way deeper than bike helmets. seat belts. we are talking about survellance, who you speak to on this computer. about being afraid if you hits are too :leftest" . There are meay things going on no one complains abotu., How coem no one asked , where in fact was the ice On Paul Wellstones airplane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just kidding about Safeway and bike helmets and seat belts, those things are minor annoyances. There is a lot more going on and I believe that we as citizens and voters have truly and completely lost control of our government. Who would run for office on the campaign of a less safe America? Everyone has their tragedies and few would be willing to vote for de-regulation I think. But I would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Off White:

I think Rick's rant puts a name to some of my anxiety, and I'd agree that its a non-partisan issue. Even if you're a die-hard Bush supporter, those same tools pass to the next idiot to occupy that office, and you might not think of them as your friend. Its of equal concern to right wing gun owners, libertarian free marketeers, disenfranchised lefties, paranoid black helicopter conspiracy theorists, and though they might not be aware of it, that great doughy mass in the middle too.

I'll have to agree with you (mostly, anyway) on this one. Although I don't think the current administration will abuse this power, I would not trust the likes of the Bill & Hillary with it. Or any future left leaning administration.

 

So in the name of objectivity and the consistency of my past arguments, I am forced to agree with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're not discussing what other countries are doing or saying Mike, we're talking about this one. You might believe that the curtailment of freedom and liberty is justified by the need to protect said privleges, or you might just be stirring the pot for your own amusmement, but either way you are wrong.

 

This situation reminds me of the scene in the Mel Brooks' movie "Blazing Saddles" where the black sheriff, when beset by the townpeople, throws his own arm around his neck, pulls his revolver, points it at his own head, and bellows out to the crowd: "Everybody back or the * gets it."

 

Fairweather, I appreciate your post. The question is do we trust government with this much power, and I know I'd be no more comfortable with it in the hands of my "side" than yours, and it would alarm me just as much if Al Gore was at the helm right now as George Walker Bush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

I think Rick's rant puts a name to some of my anxiety, and I'd agree that its a non-partisan issue. Even if you're a die-hard Bush supporter, those same tools pass to the next idiot to occupy that office, and you might not think of them as your friend. Its of equal concern to right wing gun owners, libertarian free marketeers, disenfranchised lefties, paranoid black helicopter conspiracy theorists, and though they might not be aware of it, that great doughy mass in the middle too.


Yep, ditto dat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by mikeadam:

here's how Muslims show their outrage:

 

 

Kill these savages with prejudice...Crusade.

No, that's how Muslim extremists show their outrage. Hopefully you're not so deluded by fear and nationalist propaganda that you think all or even most Muslims act that way.

 

Nice troll, by the way! [Razz]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by mikeadam:

 

Kill these savages with prejudice...Crusade.

Isn't this formally known as an "oxymoron"?

(Besides also being known as a "bad troll"?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by mikeadam:

No, I'm not *stirring the pot for my amusement*.
[Mad][Mad][Mad]

Its a reasonable question given past posts of yours in which you've fessed up to doing just that, and I thought your post had a whiff of Eau de Troll around it. [Roll Eyes]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by freeclimb9:

Rumor is that Dick Cheney is held in cryostasis at his "undisclosed location", and is only thawed out to balance the liberal (everything is relative) stances of Powell during Cabinet meetings and for sunday talkshow parades. He's mostly formaldehyde at this point.

Sounds like Brezhnev in the 80s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"An evil exists that threatens every man, woman and child of this great nation. We must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our homeland."

 

Adolf Hitler announcing the creation of the Gestapo, quoted in Preussische Gesetzsammlung of 26 April 1933, Page 122

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the long rant

 

While in the field I am completely in favor of three mountain house, a hottie and a warm bivi.

 

I do not trust the current administration, the immediate past administration, or any of the other past or likely future administrations.

 

I doubt any politician will ever run for office on the platform "I'll give you back your freedom but you will have to solve some of your own problems and take your chances."

 

If any of us give a hoot we will have to raise cain with our elected reps - early and often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rumor is that Dick Cheney is held in cryostasis at his "undisclosed location", and is only thawed out to balance the liberal (everything is relative) stances of Powell during Cabinet meetings and for sunday talkshow parades. He's mostly formaldehyde at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ray, it's a noble idea but you'd never be able to target the libs. through all the flower camouflage and peace signs and shit. A congregation of libs. and a claymore may be more effective.

 

shootin' skeet

 

This journalistic attempt to condemn "sniping" as a criminal act must be shouted down. A sniper is a highly qualified technician, and only the very best individuals may qualify. A dim-witted murderer who happens to use a rifle should not be dignified by referring to him as a sniper. A creep is a creep, but a sniper is an expert. c

 

[ 11-23-2002, 02:11 PM: Message edited by: Son of Caveman ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

I'm down with that. Just got my new rifle yesterday. Like to put a few of them and some people here in the crosshairs. Fuckin losers.


Dam, that's pretty harsh. But, since population is the root cause of environmental degradation, maybe...

 

What'd ya git?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×