"Amber Alert" signage in California

In article >,
"L. Ron Waddle" > wrote:

> > If someone thinks that I'm important enough to expend all those
> > resouces...and then take the time to actually sort and analyze the data
> > that results, more power to them. I'm flattered!
>
> Don't be flattered. As long as you properly bow in praise to the Party
> and its Supreme Leader and Jesus's second cousin, George W. Bush, you
> will be fine. It's only "those" people -- you know, THOSE people, got
> opinions that you don't agree with, maybe a different skin color,
> maybe they're queers or something, you know, THOSE people -- who have
> anything to worry about. What do you think we should do first about
> all those untermenschen, build the concentration camps then the gas
> chambers, or just build the gas chambers first? Should we make them
> wear the pink triangles to differentiate them from good right-thinking
> fellers like you BEFORE we round them up, or AFTER we round them up?
> Interesting logistical question, eh? Banality of evil, indeed...

You see...you don't have a clue. I guess I have to cut you some slack
here since you don't know me or anything about me. First, I'm a member
of not one, but two of "those people" groups. Second, I'm a charter
member of the EFF (a VERY subversive organization if there ever was one)
and have been active in legal cases on behalf of defendants ranging from
minor civil cases brought about by big corporations to major criminal
cases. I'm "known" in the system, believe me. And I'm on the wrong side!
Do you suppose that "they" know that I didn't vote for Bush?

> The problem with State surveillance is that it squashes free speech
> and open debate because it means that if your opinion differs from
> that of the Party, the entire power of the State can then be used to
> squash you. But hey, you're a good right-thinkin' feller so I'm sure
> that's all fine with you, after all, THOSE people ain't real Americans
> like you, they're just untermenschen, sub-human, thus it's only
> right....

No, actually I'm a very wrong thinking fellow who has poked a stick in
the eye of the establishment far more than the vast majority of the
chanting demonstrators you see on the evening news and I've been doing
it for over four decades. While I'm well aware that so much as being
charged with a crime can be a life-ruining experience (remember, I've
worked on defense cases), I'm not going to waste my time with your
mindless, clueless paranoia.

> Sarcastically yours,
> -Elron

Enlightenment is far better than sarcasm. Try it sometime.

--
John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS
+1 408 264 4115 | San Jose, CA |

On 2005-02-17, John Higdon > wrote:
>> The problem with State surveillance is that it squashes free speech
>> and open debate because it means that if your opinion differs from
>> that of the Party, the entire power of the State can then be used to
>> squash you.
>
> it for over four decades. While I'm well aware that so much as being
> charged with a crime can be a life-ruining experience (remember, I've
> worked on defense cases), I'm not going to waste my time with your
> mindless, clueless paranoia.

The question is not paranoia, but, rather, the chilling effect of
State surveillance upon public discourse. There is a *REASON* why
police departments send cops armed with video cameras to rallys of
Greens and other left-wing groups in order to videotape the faces of
those present. It is to intimidate those who would dare dissent from
the Party line. You may be able to afford to have your name and face
presented to your employer as one of "those" people. Most people are
not so fortunate. The "right" of free speech is useless if using said
right means you starve to death. Just ask any actor or musician who
survived the McCarthy era what it means when you've been tagged as an
Enemy of the State.

You are correct that, in the vast majority of cases, the State's
surveillance tools are not used against ordinary people. But a
chilling effect does not require that this be done. All it requires is
that a few high-profile cases show that it *can* be done. Much like
the chilling effect that causes most people voluntarily pay their
income taxes correctly despite the fact that the IRS would be utterly
incapable of auditing over 100 million income tax returns. Yes, the
IRS is unlikely to audit you if you are a regular person with nothing
unusual on your form. But they *could* audit you, and if they do, you
don't want to end up like one of those people on 60 Minutes who had
their cars and homes seized at gunpoint to satisfy an IRS judgement
against them.

One final thing. I find that people in the Bay Area are incredibly
naive about how people think in the rest of the country. People in
most of the country view you as vermin either because you are gay or
live and work besides gay without condemning them as abomination, and
would not mind exterminating you. I suspect that it will not be until
gays are required to wear pink triangles after Chief Justice of the
United States Roy Moore upholds the Abomination Act of 2007 that the
lesson that THESE PEOPLE HATE YOU will start to sink in. What happens
when they take over the apparatus of government power at a more local
level after disenfranchising everybody who opposes their rule? There
is a sickness out there that people in the Bay Area are totally
clueless about, and that sickness is now spreading. Putting the
apparatus of a police state at their disposal is exactly the *wrong*
thing to do.

- Elron

>What happens when they take over the apparatus of government power at
a more local
>level after disenfranchising everybody who opposes their rule?

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniont...17jenkins.html

jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
"Fatigue makes cowards of us all." - Vince Lombardi

John:

Earlier in this thread someone mentioned FasTrak, and I think there is
a real problem both with the gummint and private companies that take
over gummint functions. See
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...a?dmode=source
Innocent people can and do get caught up in surveillance, with
difficult recourse. There is a serious difference between now and the
past, viz., computing and bandwidth allow snooping on a Big Brother
scale, automated. While I would hope the result would be more Brazil
than 1984, the reality is the reverse.

jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
http://www.spymaster.com/product188.html