Re: the post below...just ask the Cherokee what happened to them even after they won their court battle in the hands of Andrew Jackson...slow mass murder on the Trail of Tears.

---

Account frozen...

Victoria's Secret

lol

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Deflating the organic mythology

BY BETSY HART
SCRIPPS HOWARD NEWS SERVICE

August 25, 2007

Occasionally, I will buy “organic” fruits and vegetables or other food, supposedly meaning food grown without pesticides or fertilizers or other chemicals.

But when I buy the stuff, it's always by accident.

(Ditto for “fat-free” foods, like ice cream or half-and-half or cookies. Once in a while I'll buy the “fat-free” varieties without realizing what I've done, only to gag when I put it in my mouth. I mean, if I want to eat a goodie, I want the satisfaction of the real thing.)

Other people feel virtuous when they buy expensive organics. I feel I've been had.

A recent piece in Time magazine backs me up. In “Rethinking Organics” by Dr. Sanjay Gupta, the doctor writes that while few things make people feel more “virtuous” than eating organic food, there's little evidence that they are either more nutritious or any safer for our bodies than traditionally grown produce with their fertilizers and pesticides.

Gee, you mean “organics” won't save the world after all?

For starters, the doctor notes, correctly, that researchers just haven't made any connection between our ongoing trace-pesticide consumption from food and a long-term negative effect on our health. In fact, given that life expectancy is up by decades in the United States from the turn of the last century, and that cancer rates (not just death rates) have been dropping across the board since the early 1990s, one has to say that that just makes sense on the face of it. Could it be that since now fruits and vegetables are cheap, luscious-looking and available year-round (Strawberries in January? Once unthinkable!) thanks largely to chemicals and fertilizers, it means people are eating more of them with incumbent health benefits? Answer: yes.

Ah, but aren't organics, grown in the heart of the earth Mother Nature's way, just loaded with extra vitamins and nutrients? Think again, says Gupta. Studies have shown no or sometimes a very tiny difference between organics and conventionally farmed produce when it comes to nutrients. There may be one exception. Tomatoes. The problem there is that while organically grown tomatoes were shown to be higher in anti-oxidants than traditionally grown tomatoes in one study, the organics in the study were grown in highly controlled settings that might not be replicated at all in the real world.

(By the way, here's a little health nugget that may also seem counterintuitive: Frozen vegetables – yikes – will typically preserve their nutrients more than fresh ones, of whatever organic or non-organic stripe. Like any living thing, vegetables start to break down once they are no longer living.)

It's true one objection I have to organics is that they are typically more expensive, sometimes far more expensive, than traditionally grown produce. They even appear in processed foods such as spaghetti sauce, which is completely ridiculous. (Gupta says processing takes away any benefit of organics.) But if a family is so convinced by the organic crowd that they offer such amazing health benefits that the family has to splurge on organics, even including organic milk and eggs, well, they might be eating fewer fruits and vegetables and dairy overall, and that does have negative health consequences.

But what most bothers me is that some of the claims of organic advocates almost resemble a crusade about saving family farms, and the environment and maybe next our souls by eating organic. Hence the slogan, “Think locally, act globally, buy organic.”

But it seems it's actually thoughtlessness that's so typically involved, in what has become a sort of feel-good moral crusade for organic foods. It's so easy to think of organics – or, rather, feel about organics – as some kind of cure-all and inherently virtuous along with things like recycling. (Never mind if the newspapers we self-righteously lug to the bottom of the driveway typically sit in huge warehouses before they're finally burned or buried.) It's no fun to have to think through a cost-benefit analysis. That requires, well, thinking.

And in our culture, it's just easy, it just feels good . . . to feel good.

Well, this is one gal who “thinks” it's just fine to buy lots of cheap, luscious-looking produce from the conventionally farmed food aisles at the grocery. I'm thinking locally, all right. About what's best for my family.

---

me@rescam.org

He forgot the E. Coli from animal crap used as fertilizer which ends up on organic food.

---

Account frozen...

He forgot the E. Coli from animal crap used as fertilizer which ends up on organic food.

Actually, it's people crap, and it's called biosolids, and our government has approved of its use... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

to those who are against governments:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Do you know this text?

---

Account frozen...

This paragraph, a part of one of the most important documents of the USA: the Declaration of Independence, is my favorite part of all political American scripts I've ever read.

...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...

So no person is superior to other persons

--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness...

That people have the right to get rid of a government which is unjust and destructive...
And the most important part, and more actual than many do think (see the "Patriot Act")

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

That people have not only the right, but also the duty to get rid of an unjust, abusive, despotic government.

Which makes me wonder: How comes that people like GWB can still rule and are able to reduce freedom by laws like the Patriot Act among others?

---

Account frozen...

A bit old ( from 1961), but still actual nonetheless: Eisenhower's farewell adress

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
[...]
During the long lane of the history yet to be written, America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect. Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.

Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent, I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war, as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years, I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.
[...]
To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuing aspiration: We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its few spiritual blessings. Those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; and that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth; and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.

---

Account frozen...

This paragraph, a part of one of the most important documents of the USA: the Declaration of Independence, is my favorite part of all political American scripts I've ever read.

...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...

So no person is superior to other persons

You know, this was written and signed by many slaveholders.

--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness...

That people have the right to get rid of a government which is unjust and destructive...
And the most important part, and more actual than many do think (see the "Patriot Act")

The Patriot Act, for all the complaints about it, does indeed protect the fundamental freedoms in the Constitution. It was, in fact, passed by an overwhelming majority of Congressmen from both parties. If they were wrong, then perhaps they should be voted out of office for incompetence . . . but they were not wrong.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

That people have not only the right, but also the duty to get rid of an unjust, abusive, despotic government.

Which makes me wonder: How comes that people like GWB can still rule and are able to reduce freedom by laws like the Patriot Act among others?

Because GWB was elected TWICE. King George, at whom the Declaration of Independence was aimed, was never elected. And though all laws reduce freedom to some extent (to protect citizens from lawlessness and anarchy), when properly applied the Patriot Act does not violate rights guaranteed by the US government.

Gonzales lessons - Successor should put focus on Constitution

UNION-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL

August 28, 2007

Historians will judge departing Attorney General Alberto Gonzales sternly, for the singular reason that he put his loyalty to President Bush above his duty to defend the Constitution. In the process, he subverted the vital American tradition of the attorney general standing above politics and administering justice without favor.

Bush certainly is not the first chief executive to appoint a close friend to oversee the Justice Department. But in Gonzales the White House got an attorney general who was subservient to Bush's every conceit – whether it was concocting a legal rationale to violate international protections for prisoners of war or trampling on the Constitution through warrantless surveillance of Americans' phone conversations.

Gonzales was a Bush protege of long standing. He owed every public position he ever held to Bush, from the Texas Supreme Court to White House counsel to U.S. attorney general. At critical moments, he unfailingly tied the law into knots to suit the president's desires. Indeed, Gonzales was a champion of limitless executive authority, the dangerous view that if the commander in chief chooses to do something – anything – the Constitution empowers him to do so.

Accordingly, one of Gonzales' first acts as attorney general was to declare to Congress that Bush had the authority to eavesdrop on Americans without warrants or judicial oversight. Gonzales' audacious assertion was made only after The New York Times revealed details of the administration's secret spying program. The attorney general's sweeping affront to the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures was so untenable that the administration itself ultimately abandoned it.

Even hard-liner John Ashcroft, who held the attorney general's post before Gonzales, rejected from his hospital bed Gonzales' late-night attempt to coerce him into approving a constitutionally dubious surveillance operation. At the time, Gonzales was serving as White House counsel. Later, as attorney general, he denied under oath that he pressured the ailing Ashcroft. But FBI Director Robert Mueller and former Deputy Attorney General James Comey directly contradicted Gonzales' testimony. This was only one of many occasions when the attorney general's truthfulness came into question.

Clearly, the conflicting versions Gonzales offered of his firing of eight U.S. attorneys, including Carol Lam in San Diego, did little to bolster his credibility. In the end, it was clear that the attorney general blithely went along with White House adviser Karl Rove's desire to create openings for GOP political cronies, regardless of the performance of the U.S. attorneys who were removed.

Gonzales is a historic example of cronyism at its worst. We urge President Bush to find a replacement who will put the Constitution ahead of political or personal loyalty.

---

me@rescam.org

You know, this was written and signed by many slaveholders.

And yet it promotes individual freedom... 'Do as I say not as I do' ???

The Patriot Act, for all the complaints about it, does indeed protect the fundamental freedoms in the Constitution.

Who are you trying to kid?

Because GWB was elected TWICE.

Lets not forget the TWO 'miscounts' and TWO 'recounts'... Chaos and confusion seem to be mighty effective election tools...

when properly applied the Patriot Act does not violate rights guaranteed by the US government.

Are you trying to convince yourself by means of repitition? ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

I loved the rumored reports of Osama asking the American people not to vote for GWB just before the election of his second term. Pretty much guaranteed a win.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

The Patriot Act, for all the complaints about it, does indeed protect the fundamental freedoms in the Constitution. It was, in fact, passed by an overwhelming majority of Congressmen from both parties. If they were wrong, then perhaps they should be voted out of office for incompetence . . . but they were not wrong.

I'm afraid I must disagree with you on this one, Qui-Gon. The PATRIOT Act is EVIL. In another post you mentioned 'when properly applied'. Maybe so. But, I do not trust the Government to 'properly apply' it, and they have ALREADY overstepped the bounds of 'proper application' on multiple occasions. And yes, I am in favor of voting EVERYONE in elected positions in the Federal Government out of office, though not for incompetence (in most cases). Most are supremely competent in what they are good at: screwing the American People. Get rid of them ALL (too bad it would take 6 years to get all of the Senators).

Thats one advantage of the Mexican Federal Government's system. EVERYONE is up for election at the same time (every six years) and their lower house of Congress (the Chamber of Deputies) is additionally up for election on the 3-year mid-point. Additionally, the Mexicans have some nice Term Limits. Members of the Mexican Senate and Chamber of Deputies cannot serve more than one consecutive term. They must sit out one term (6 years for the Senate, and 3 years for the Chamber of Deputies) before they can run again. The Mexican President gets one term (6 years), without possibility of reelection. Furthermore, their system allows a better chance for minor parties (other than the big 3 -- PAN, PRD, and PRI) to gain seats in their Congress, giving them a voice. Perhaps we could learn a few things from the Mexicans.

The Patriot Act, for all the complaints about it, does indeed protect the fundamental freedoms in the Constitution. It was, in fact, passed by an overwhelming majority of Congressmen from both parties. If they were wrong, then perhaps they should be voted out of office for incompetence . . . but they were not wrong.

I'm afraid I must disagree with you on this one, Qui-Gon. The PATRIOT Act is EVIL. In another post you mentioned 'when properly applied'. Maybe so. But, I do not trust the Government to 'properly apply' it, and they have ALREADY overstepped the bounds of 'proper application' on multiple occasions. And yes, I am in favor of voting EVERYONE in elected positions in the Federal Government out of office, though not for incompetence (in most cases). Most are supremely competent in what they are good at: screwing the American People. Get rid of them ALL (too bad it would take 6 years to get all of the Senators).
[snip-references to Mexican government]

I happen to support the American system of government. We elect representatives to run the government: pass laws for our benefit and protection, set taxes and spend money on things that give comfort and security to our citizens. We have an executive that enforces our laws and provides for security. And we have a judiciary that makes sure the laws are in keeping with the constitution and fundamental rights.

At any given time some percentage of people will not agree with Congress, the president and/or the Courts, but these three branches keep each other in check with the periodic input of voters. If you don't trust government, in one sense you don't trust the system that has worked so well. If you don't like a particular person in the government (or party or philosophy) then take the time to get people in there who will do it right, i.e. your way.

As for the Patriot Act, the Courts are there to say if it is "evil" or unconstitutional. And though overzealous government agents (working with a new law, I should add) have done things beyond the powers granted by the Act, that is not a problem of the law but of improper application.

The Patriot Act, for all the complaints about it, does indeed protect the fundamental freedoms in the Constitution. It was, in fact, passed by an overwhelming majority of Congressmen from both parties. If they were wrong, then perhaps they should be voted out of office for incompetence . . . but they were not wrong.

I'm afraid I must disagree with you on this one, Qui-Gon. The PATRIOT Act is EVIL. In another post you mentioned 'when properly applied'. Maybe so. But, I do not trust the Government to 'properly apply' it, and they have ALREADY overstepped the bounds of 'proper application' on multiple occasions. And yes, I am in favor of voting EVERYONE in elected positions in the Federal Government out of office, though not for incompetence (in most cases). Most are supremely competent in what they are good at: screwing the American People. Get rid of them ALL (too bad it would take 6 years to get all of the Senators).

Thats one advantage of the Mexican Federal Government's system. EVERYONE is up for election at the same time (every six years) and their lower house of Congress (the Chamber of Deputies) is additionally up for election on the 3-year mid-point. Additionally, the Mexicans have some nice Term Limits. Members of the Mexican Senate and Chamber of Deputies cannot serve more than one consecutive term. They must sit out one term (6 years for the Senate, and 3 years for the Chamber of Deputies) before they can run again. The Mexican President gets one term (6 years), without possibility of reelection. Furthermore, their system allows a better chance for minor parties (other than the big 3 -- PAN, PRD, and PRI) to gain seats in their Congress, giving them a voice. Perhaps we could learn a few things from the Mexicans.

...veery interestink...

---

Account frozen...

Let the economic blame game begin

ROBERT J. SAMUELSON
NEWSWEEK

August 29, 2007

We are now in the “blame phase” of the economic cycle. As the housing slump deepens and financial markets swing erratically, we've embarked on the usual search for culprits. Who got us into this mess?

Our investigations will doubtlessly reveal, as they already have, much wishful thinking and miscalculation. They will also find incompetence, predatory behavior and probably some criminality. But let me suggest that, though inevitable and necessary, this exercise is also simplistic and deceptive.

It assumes that, absent mistakes and misdeeds, we might remain in a permanent paradise of powerful income and wealth growth. The reality, I think, is that the economy follows its own Catch-22: By taking prosperity for granted, people perversely subvert prosperity. The more we – business managers, investors, consumers – think that economic growth is guaranteed and that risk and uncertainty are receding, the more we act in ways that raise risk, magnify uncertainty and threaten economic growth. Prosperity destabilizes itself.

This is not a new idea. Indeed, it explains why terms such as “the business cycle” and “boom and bust” survive. But it gets overlooked in periods of finger-pointing: now, for instance. The housing downturn and credit fears are undeniable. Someone or something must be held responsible. Here's a rundown of popular suspects:

- The Federal Reserve. It allegedly held short-term interest rates too low for too long. From late 2001 to late 2004, the overnight Fed funds rate was 2 percent or less. Credit was supposedly “too easy.”

- The Chinese. They funneled their huge export surpluses (mostly in dollars) into U.S. Treasury bonds. That kept long-term interest rates low even after the Fed began raising short-term rates in 2004. China's foreign-exchange reserves now exceed $1.3 trillion.

- Mortgage bankers. They relaxed lending standards for weak borrowers, leading to numerous defaults. In 2006, about 90 percent of new “subprime” mortgages had adjustable interest rates. That exposed borrowers to future rate increases – which many now can't afford.

- Wall Street. The mortgage bankers got giddy only because they could sell the loans to pension funds, hedge funds and others as mortgage-backed securities (bonds created by bundling loans).

- Credit rating agencies. Moody's and Standard & Poor's – which rate the creditworthiness of bonds – allegedly weren't tough enough on subprime mortgages. That fanned investor appetite.

Lending standards were clearly too lax and rating agencies too uncritical. Still, the rating agencies have downgraded fewer than 5 percent of subprime mortgage-backed securities issued in 2006 (by dollar volume). This suggests that many investors knowingly bought risky mortgage bonds, thereby inflating the housing bubble.

Just why they did this is less clear. Did the Fed foster easy credit for too long? Maybe. But economist Mark Gertler of New York University argues that if this were so, inflation would have exploded. It didn't. From 2003 to 2005, it rose modestly, from 1.9 percent to 3.4 percent.

What seems to have happened was a broad and mistaken reappraisal of risk. Bonds that were once considered highly risky were judged much less so. China's appetite for Treasury bonds may account for some of this. It may have lowered interest rates on Treasurys and sent investors scurrying into riskier bonds with higher rates (corporate “junk” bonds, mortgage bonds, and bonds of “emerging market” countries such as Brazil).

But that can't fully explain the extraordinary drop of interest rate “spreads” – the gap between rates on riskier bonds and safer Treasurys. In early 2003, junk bonds carried rates eight percentage points above Treasurys; early this year, the gap was less than three percentage points. Somehow, junk bonds were no longer so risky; therefore, it was OK to accept lower rates.

Paradoxically, the fact that the U.S. economy grew in spite of so many daunting obstacles – corporate scandals; the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks; higher oil prices – may have created a false sense of confidence that it could overcome almost anything. Sophisticated investors and ordinary consumers alike seem to have fallen under the spell of this logic.

Believing risks had declined, the first group actually adopted ever-riskier investment strategies – and unknowingly increased financial risk. The second, believing in continuing economic growth and rising home prices, assumed ever-heavier debt burdens – and created potential obstacles to future spending. In 2000, household debt was 103 percent of disposable income; in 2007, it's 136 percent.

Mistakes and misdeeds do not occur in a vacuum. The ultimate culprit here may be irrational exuberance. As economic expansions lengthen, people become more complacent and careless. The very fact that the economy has done well creates conditions in which it may – at least temporarily – do less well. Prosperity inevitably interrupts itself with losses, popped bubbles and recessions. This produces recriminations and promises to do better, but there is always a next time.

---

me@rescam.org

...and those markets were at least secured by real estate...just wait until the unsecured loan market crashes...I can smell the plastic burning.

---

Account frozen...

The Patriot Act, for all the complaints about it, does indeed protect the fundamental freedoms in the Constitution. It was, in fact, passed by an overwhelming majority of Congressmen from both parties. If they were wrong, then perhaps they should be voted out of office for incompetence . . . but they were not wrong.

I'm afraid I must disagree with you on this one, Qui-Gon. The PATRIOT Act is EVIL. In another post you mentioned 'when properly applied'. Maybe so. But, I do not trust the Government to 'properly apply' it, and they have ALREADY overstepped the bounds of 'proper application' on multiple occasions. And yes, I am in favor of voting EVERYONE in elected positions in the Federal Government out of office, though not for incompetence (in most cases). Most are supremely competent in what they are good at: screwing the American People. Get rid of them ALL (too bad it would take 6 years to get all of the Senators).
[snip-references to Mexican government]

I happen to support the American system of government. We elect representatives to run the government: pass laws for our benefit and protection, set taxes and spend money on things that give comfort and security to our citizens. We have an executive that enforces our laws and provides for security. And we have a judiciary that makes sure the laws are in keeping with the constitution and fundamental rights.

Ok, perhaps what I said was not exactly what I meant to say. It is not so much that I find fault with the SYSTEM of government here in the USA as it is that I DO find fault with the various snakes and lizards that we have occupying ALL the elected offices in government (and a great many of the appointed ones as well).

Things would be different if we had honest men and women of virtue in these offices, but that particular sort of person DOES NOT EXIST in Washington, DC. Or at least not for very long. If the people elected and/or appointed to office are not already corrupt, they very soon will be.

At any given time some percentage of people will not agree with Congress, the president and/or the Courts, but these three branches keep each other in check with the periodic input of voters. If you don't trust government, in one sense you don't trust the system that has worked so well. If you don't like a particular person in the government (or party or philosophy) then take the time to get people in there who will do it right, i.e. your way.

I am VERY familiar with the structure of the Federal Government, and its system of checks and balances. I know well the way it is *supposed* to work. The problem isn't in the institutions of Government, the problem is in the PEOPLE that are/have been elected and/or appointed to the positions in these institutions. And yes, I AM very active in 'taking the time to get people in there who will do it right'...

As for the Patriot Act, the Courts are there to say if it is "evil" or unconstitutional. And though overzealous government agents (working with a new law, I should add) have done things beyond the powers granted by the Act, that is not a problem of the law but of improper application.

Yes, the Courts (specifically the Supreme Court) should have ALREADY tossed the PATRIOT Act out as unconstitutional. However they are not doing their job. The Supreme Court is too busy 'inventing' new 'rights' that the Constitution is silent on, just as the Congress is too busy trying to buy the votes of the electorate so that they can retain power, and the Executive is on a power-hungry binge. And all three Branches have been doing this for Decades. Our system of government might look good on paper, but in practice it is BADLY broken. And it is so broken because the people in elected office are so corrupt,and The People so easily misled.

This is why I said 'vote them ALL out of office'. The reason I brought up the Mexican Govt. was that their term-lengths and election scheduling make it much easier to do so. And their term-limits are nice as well. While it may be impossible to prevent snakes and lizards from getting elected, the least we could do would be to limit the damage they could do by limiting the time they could spend there.

If we had to send someone new EVERY election, maybe we could keep the corruption in Washington, DC down to a more manageable level.

I am sorry that we disagree on something as important as the police-state powers and authorities the Federal Govt. is accumulating for itself...

Perhaps we should all do what the Federal Govt. (and yes, BOTH major parties are in on this) wants us to do and be 'Good Germans... err.. Americans', follow our orders, and STFU about it...

But as for me, I have a strong aversion to Jack-Booted Thugs. My dad was wounded in action fighting them in Europe during WWII, and I'll be DAMNED before I let it happen here and now in the USA without at least speaking up about it.