When did America become a nation of cowardice?

[YokaI]

Please Read First:
Link To Original Article.

Though I wouldn't say that Americans (including myself, Irish American) have become too cowardly in their actions toward fellow countries, in fact I believe that we have become even more attacking to countries that do not deserve to be attacked.

I must say that this article brings up a good descusion question, is it good to give up freedom for security? When and why is this acceptable?

Though security is nice, I personally believe that freedom is something that helps us move on and keep going forward. I don't think it is good to alienate yourself from what you like because of unknown consequences.

[dragonfliet]

Ugh. He misquoted the Ben Franklin quote. I freaking hate people that misquote people. The quote is: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

His inability to get straight a simple, commonly used, easily researched quote pretty much sums up his arguments.

Police have ALWAYS been allowed to smash into private homes, and no-knock warrants have been allowed in cases where it's demonstrable that the culprit would make themselves a greater danger to all involved if they announced themselves. If they can catch them unaware, less chance of weapons needing to be used. The fact that it was the wrong house is called a MISTAKE. I know we get mad about them, but it happens. It's sad, but it happens, we shouldn't get too grumpy about it, well, we should, but not disproportionately. Also, "Nazi style uniforms"? WTF? They were black uniforms so as to throw off split second indentification of body parts, thus making it harder for them to target non-armored parts of the body. Godwin's Law anyone?

When did we decide it was okay to bring in drug dogs (ignoring the German Sheppard's implication) in to schools? When kids started dealing in school. Remember kids, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in a government building. Whoever owns the house decides whether or not the police can come in, and the school is more or less theirs. That's called property law. Thanks for playing.

When did we decide it was okay to strip search people? I don't know, when people started killing others perhaps? I didn't realize that unimpeded air flight was a right to all people. In that case, what right does the government have certifying that airplanes are safe or not? They're impeding budding amateur plane builders rights! ZOMG!

When did we give 10 year sentences to adolescents having sex? For freaking EVER. The problem is that it's a dated law and that it didn't get around to being fixed. It's not some vast right wing conspiracy, it's an old, stupid law that the girls parents took advantage of. Not a racist thing (perhaps the parents are, I don't know, I don't care) not a current issue, an old, poppycock law that people didn't even believe in, though they upheld it because that's their job. Remember, it's not the role of a policeman to choose what to enforce, the laws were crafted by people who were elected to office for that job, therefore they are the will of the people (by logical extension), should a policeman decide to throw aside the laws for his own personal reason would be an act of tyranny. We may not like it, but upholding that stupid law until it's finally stricken (and it will be) is the most democratic thing that can be done. Sorry kid, sucks for you, but that's the problem with any large society.

Parents aren't more paranoid than before, they're more informed. Geez, what's so horrible about parents being frightened for their kids? Is it silly? Certainly, but is it horrible? No.

I think that there are plenty of problems in our society, and there are even a few that were mildly touched on in this article, but for the most part it's bullcrap, formed on misconstrued information with wild, tangental, poorly formed arguments. Feel free to talk about these subjects, but always remember, if someone can't get a quote straight, yet uses it as a direct quote anyways (rather than say ben franklin said something like:...) they are obviously not capable of simple, easy fact searching and are going on foolish first impulses. Blegh.

~Jason

[Persol]

His inability to get straight a simple, commonly used, easily researched quote pretty much sums up his arguments.

I agree that this guy is grasping at straws in some cases, but not all.

Police have ALWAYS been allowed to smash into private homes, and no-knock warrants have been allowed in cases where it's demonstrable that the culprit would make themselves a greater danger to all involved if they announced themselves.
They were black uniforms so as to throw off split second indentification of body parts

Agreed

Remember kids, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in a government building. Whoever owns the house decides whether or not the police can come in, and the school is more or less theirs.

Not quite. You have a reasonable expectation of privacy, anywhere.

Now, it's perfectly fine for private residents/owners to require you to strip down and put on a clown nose before entering their house... but not government buildings which are mandatory to enter. Government buildings are 'ours'.

I don't know, when people started killing others perhaps? I didn't realize that unimpeded air flight was a right to all people. In that case, what right does the government have certifying that airplanes are safe or not?

How often do airport strip searches save someone's life? Why not just randomly strip search people driving around? There is a certain level of reasonability that is required. Current mass transit security is assine in that it's a huge waste of money, in some cases an invasion of privacy, and in almost all cases... worthless.

They're impeding budding amateur plane builders rights! ZOMG!

There are special exceptions for amateur plane buildings. Thanks for playing.

Commercial planes are regulated because society realizes that corporations don't hold human life paramount, and we WANT that to be regulated. There is a huge difference between you being strip searched because you might be smuggling something, and requiring inspection records for something that can kill hundreds of people if unmaintained.

It's not some vast right wing conspiracy, it's an old, stupid law that the girls parents took advantage of.

Agreed.

Parents aren't more paranoid than before, they're more informed.

They may be 'more' informed, but not 'better' informed. Paranoia is being more fearful of something than is reasonable given the facts. The fact is, parents are whipped into a hysteria for incredibly stupid things by the media. Yeah, maybe a lawn dart can poke your eye out... but if that's the most dangerous thing for your kid, you are lucky. It's more dangerous to drive your kid with you to the store.

Being paranoid isn't a huge deal but, much like airport security, it IS a big deal when it results in regulations/laws/whatever being enacted which are stupid, wasteful and restricting.

but for the most part it's bullcrap, formed on misconstrued information with wild, tangental, poorly formed arguments.

Ironically, THAT is the real problem.... not people being cowards. The things the article are complaining about are the result of certain threats being blown out of proportion, and government trying make people 'feel' safe rather than addressing things in proportion to the threat.

[dragonfliet]

1) reasonable expectation of privacy: Is it unreasonable for someone to check for an illegal substance in a non-intrusive way? I'm not advocating every single child get probed, I'm saying that a drug sniffing dog is perfectly legal in a government building.

2) How do airport searches save peoples lives? Do you not read about the occasional explosives caught? Yes? Do you remember WHY these people had explosives? Oh yeah, to kill people and to create a sense of panic. Also, keeping people from smuggling things is a perfectly acceptable reason to stop them. It's our country, we get to say what comes in and out.

3) Yes, there are special exceptions for PRIVATE, amateur planes, but they are regulated none-the-less. Planes are required to meet standards for safety reasons and people are inspected to make it more and more difficult to hijack a plane (hence metal detectors after the wonderful 70's and 80's) or blow it up.

4) agreed on more not better informed, but this is simply human behavior. The media whips gives these facts because people demand them, people get frenzied and the media covers it. They are driven by ratings and by their own personal fears as well.

I agree on the regulations/laws in many cases though. Lawn darts weren't outlawed because they were sharp but because they were marketed towards kids, used by kids, and MISUSED by kids. One must keep context in mind.

Again, there are some actually decent arguments in the piece, but only tangentally. This guy is worthless and his ideas are supported by horrible arguments which undermine anything he has to say. If someone would wish to discuss a topic (such as zero-tolerance policies being used on super soakers), please, let's, but not under the banner of this inane tirade.

Are we giving up freedom for security? Yes, and it's frightening. The freedom we are giving up is most certainly not someone being strip searched because they have caused a reasonable amount of suspicion (in 99% of cases), it's our libraries forwarding information to the FBI. It's not in parents being overly afraid of child molesters, it's detaining someone for years without accusing them of a crime. There are, indeed very important issues to discuss, but the ones argued in his rant are not the ones, and his methods are not the methods that should be employed.

~Jason

[Mr. Happy]

To be completely honest I don't think anything you said really applies to the message of the article. Who cares if he misquated franklin, or if unreasonable searches have been legal for years (although we've made some progress there), none of that really matters to the heart of what he's saying: that Americans let the government act like a parent rather than an event coordinater, and that this is wrong.

I disagree with alot of your specific ideas, but I'll talk about that later as I have to go to bed, but really, I think he's absolutely right. There are too many rules and regulations and laws that restrict what we can and cannot do, or let people into our personal business. And that's what he's saying, regardless if you think this is poorly written.

Dragonfliet, your a parent right?

[Sorrow]

I'm not really good with words I'm sorry (hey it ain't my language, double sorry) but I'll try to convey what I think, I think the US is way too much focused on those few mass-media-hype-words, words like : (lol C&C Generals haha) Freedom, Terrorism, Liberty(okay that's the same but w/e) and all that stuff you seem to care about such a great deal, without actually knowing what it all means, yeah I'm sure you all do round here but the majority of the people... meh.

freedom for me is doing whatever I want as long as I don't hurt my environment with it, and that's pretty acceptable ain't it? Well in the US certain things don't even have to be suppressed by the government because the population already frowns on things that aren't respected by the church community/overal population of a city.

yeah you're with almost 300 million people atm and I don't want to generalise, but apart from the more well.. 'educated' regions (and I don't know what those regions are but I'm guessing the east coast), well most of the upper regions anyway.
and some of the west coast.
The midlands in my imagination is full of people who've lost it
but feel free to correct me on that.

few examples, am I free to use soft drugs in the US? no. (ha your evil med corporations stuff you with them anyways though oeeehh irony )
Am I free to be whatever I am in the US? well yeah probably but I'll get refused jobs, get frowned on alot, get beat up >> for example being black or more present-day stuff, being a muslim, wearing my muslim stuff that muslims do, being gay/lesbian, being... whatever.

oh and the "we need to get out there and kick people's arses because then and only then are we protecting OUR freedom" is a load of crap.
As well as that your guys in the military are doing a "good job" I suggest recalling them to the homeland and use them for little projects across the country helping people everywhere or whatever cos demolishing stuff in other peoples' countries isn't helping your own and is just a diversion tactic (that works everytime btw! wake up plz) to keep the attention focused on someplace else

oh and you're so full of violence btw, you always need an enemy, indians, communists, present day Iraq + muslims.
most of the population knows jack shit about the rest of the world but who cares, everybody's up for some ass kicking right?
gegen die mauer with half of the population please.

blehg.

[Darchibold]

I think America turned to cowardice when president Reagan stepped down...

http://www.superdickery.com/oneshot/44.html

[looie]

Security and Freedom are just words that the US administration use to pull on emotional strings.

If Americans were less smug, full of themselve, self rightious and self serving (of course I'm not talking about all of you, I know a lot of great americans, unfortunately they are almost a minority) they wouldn't need so much security to defend there 'way of life.'

Which equates to, using far more resources than they should be allowed too, not adhering to the UN, or kyoto treaty, being fat, high levels of depression + suicide, voilence is commonly acceptable but seeing a black womans nipple is THE WORST THING EVA!!!!111!!

Why do you think you have so many school shootings?

I think Americas very moral fibres have been kidnapped, 'saving' two world wars went to your head.

If you think you didn't lose the Vietnam war please read a history book.

If you don't think the current Iraq war is a tragedy born by a damaged few shake your head and look at the facts.

If you believe this is the state America (which even I would agree was a great nation) should be in, please wake up and stop living in this FNC bubble.

Look at what the rest of the world thinks of you...

Even your allies will talk shit about you, or was that your 'coalition'. gah!

Security? You cant defend against the rest of the world, stop being pricks and you won't have to.

Freedom is nothing if the preacher (bush and his administration) are not free. Free from xenophobia, racism, fear and prejudices.

I won't even point out how much of a genuine fool he is, I don't have to.

America is a bad example of democracy.

I could go on for longer, but I won't - too much negativity.

Plus Australia is partially guilty as well. But I hate our prime minister he's a complete tosser.

Thanks.

[dragonfliet]

Happy, it's not that he misquoted franklin, that's merely a symptom of his inability to form proper arguments. The result of the inability to argue correctly is he ends up destroying any possible cases he has.

Police being able to arrest people is not a bad thing. A no-knock warrant is not a bad thing. They still have a warrant, they still have a right to burst into the house. The fact that someone wrote the wrong address on the warrant does not make the police to be evil government stooges, it means the person who wrote it made a clerical mistake. You and I make them all the time, it's just their mistake had worse consequences.

I agree that there have been times of over-regulation, such as the current continued pushes to criminalize game sales to minors (for M rated games) zero-tolerance policies, etc. but again, that's not the point that he's making, he's trying to say that our government is taking away our freedom, but he argues this using fallacious arguments. Like I said, talk about a real issue and you'll have something to go on, but no-knock warrants and security measures are not bad things.

~Jason

P.S. No, I'm definitely not a parent.

[Rick_D]

This forum is still lol, I see.

[zombie@computer]

When do worries turn into paranoia?

Paranoia is an excessive anxiety or fear concerning one's own well-being which is considered irrational and excessive, perhaps to the point of being a psychosis.

Considered by who? The people? What if all the people turn paranoid at the same time? How can you distinguish rational fear from irrational fear in such cases?

Not trying to make a point really. Just think about this: is it really possible to call the fears of an entire (sub)population rational or not?

From my point of view indeed the entire Us of a are paranoid. I've never seen criminality worse than stealing, say, some stuff at a supermarket. I've never been searched by cops/other people before entering some area. Never seen a real live gun in my own country not hanging from an officer's belt. Murder is still nationwide frontpage news, as is any accident with more than 2 wounded. Do you see why i think the usa is paranoid?

What im trying to say is that this is all a matter of perspective. To you bodyguarding a three year old to school is paranoid. To the kid's mother its normal. Who is able to see the big picture? Who is unbiassed enough to say "to here, and no further?". I cant. I doubt you can. I just hope the people that do can.

[Mr. Happy]

...post...

I know, and that's what I mean. I was jsut picking a couple examples for my sentence, and it's not like I was going "mmm-hyep-bub" at everythng he said. But none of this....yes, it's hard to get behind a poorly formed arguemet....means that what he's trying to say is wrong.

About the entering people's homes thing, I know we've made a lot of progress. Police used to break in to places, rifle through peoples stuff, take it, photocopy it, put it back, and use the photocopies in court or to get an warrant. Still, I've that doesn't mean there aren't problems. I agree there's nothing wrong with no-knocks, but there is something wrong with the P.A.T.R.I.O.T act no-warrants. And there's something wrong when police feel free to do this:

1. Push your door open and enter
2. When asked "who's" there fail to identify self as a police officer
3. Grab you and pull you out into the hallway twisting your arm behind you back
This is illegal and happened to me.

1. Knock on someone's door, covering the eyehole
2. When asked "who's there" give a completely false name
This is illegal and happened to dozens of people in my old dorm.

No warrants.

I don't think you can make a distinction between over-regulation and the marginalizing of freedom when the issues are the same. AND, well, alot (not all) of the issues he brings up that are not about over-regulation when they are wrong as well.

"Parents aren't more paranoid than before, they're more informed."

Completely and whole-heartedly disagree. Hearing about an issue from the news which has blown it way out of porportion is not being more informed. Uh oh! You mean, a kid dies when an elevator cable broke? KIDS ARE NO LONGER ALLOWED IN ELEVATORS!!!! (an over-the-top and fake example but one that is easily imagined in today's climate)

For example, you said "When did we decide it was okay to bring in drug dogs (ignoring the German Sheppard's implication) in to schools? When kids started dealing in school." NOT TRUE. Go watch some of the old propaganda films from the twenties, although they are blown out of porportion there were kids selling and getting sold HEROIN in school, in the 20's-40's. Did the parents bring the dogs? NO. Did they make it illegal? YES. Although there was alot of misunderstanding and extremely harsh laws made, they didn't infringe on people's privacy.

There are laws now (thanks Bush) that say "any kid in a club or sport at school is subject to random drugtesting" and there is no way you can say that is right. Children have rights too. Simple as that. And we don't go around testing adults just because they are members of the rotary club. I think people should experience these things for themselves before they make laws about it, have YOU ever had to take a drug test? Had a 300lb sweaty guy breathing down your neck while you stand at a toilet with your pants and boxers pulled to your ankles with mirrors all around? Think that is un-cruel and usual? Try it sometime.

Anyway, let me re-iterate. Although a poor argument is hard to get behind it is NOT a reason to dismiss it out of hand. He's right, no matter how poor his writing is.

If I said "Nazi's are the bads becuae the curency dropped value alot after left power" are you going to disagree with me that the Nazi part was bad? (higher-up's, I know 90% of Nazi's just joined because they had to).

...
The midlands in my imagination is full of people who've lost it...

YOUR GOING DOWN BIATCH



I have lived and live in these three places (dot's, not circlesd regions).

and I'm better than you

[Sorrow]

Okay I forgive you, but you're close to the danger zone

[Persol]

1) reasonable expectation of privacy: Is it unreasonable for someone to check for an illegal substance in a non-intrusive way? I'm not advocating every single child get probed, I'm saying that a drug sniffing dog is perfectly legal in a government building.

A drug sniffing dog is a far cry from "you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in a government building". I'm also assuming the dogs are well trained/behaved and don't start barking because a kid has steak for lunch. (I believe the dogs are reliable, otherwise why use them)

2) How do airport searches save peoples lives? Do you not read about the occasional explosives caught? Yes? Do you remember WHY these people had explosives? Oh yeah, to kill people and to create a sense of panic.

Where exactly are they hiding these explosives that a strip search would be needed to find them? Lets be realisitic, taking off your shoes doesn't help much if you can just tape the stuff under some fat guy's gut. And the chances of searching the right person are miniscule. 99% of weapons confiscated would be perfectly legal to have, except for the fact that they are getting on a plane.

Also, keeping people from smuggling things is a perfectly acceptable reason to stop them. It's our country, we get to say what comes in and out.

It's my life, I get a reasonable expectation of privacy. I think you'd agree that it isn't acceptable to have all passengers strip down upon entering the airport and fly to their destination nude. Saying that we have a right to decide what comes into our country is completely different than saying we can use any means possible.

Additionally, this isn't an issue of things being brought into our country. Strip searches and bag searches are done on domestic flights as well.

3) Yes, there are special exceptions for PRIVATE, amateur planes, but they are regulated none-the-less. Planes are required to meet standards for safety reasons and people are inspected to make it more and more difficult to hijack a plane (hence metal detectors after the wonderful 70's and 80's) or blow it up.

Again, there is a huge difference between saying that we should try to stop bombs, and then saying the current means are reasonable.

Metal detectors are amazingly non-intrusive and don't stop you from taking metal onto a plane. Searches are intrusive. Searches and metal detectors are used to stop you from carrying items which (other than the fact you are on a plane) are completely legal.

Are we giving up freedom for security? Yes, and it's frightening. The freedom we are giving up is most certainly not someone being strip searched because they have caused a reasonable amount of suspicion (in 99% of cases), it's our libraries forwarding information to the FBI.

Agreed that there are more pressing concerns... but the fact is most people don't give a shit. When you make it personal by saying "YOU may be strip searched or arrested because some dog barked", people tend to pay a little more attention.

When you point out that you forfiet your rigths simply by walking into a government building (which almost everyone has done), it is a little more understandable.


Mr Happy, about 7 years ago random searches (by resident admins and police) were happening at my univ dorms. They'd knock, unlock and then push their way in. It continued to happen until a student pepper sprayed the cop and RA that pushed into his room, and then he called the police. He was arrested for 'assaulting an officer', but charges were dropped and (after being escalated enough to catch people's attention) they stopped doing random searches.

[Sacul15]

He misquoted the Ben Franklin quote.

You mean "quotation." "Quote" is a verb, "quotation" is a noun. Not too many people (or websites for that matter) know this. I should inform the people who make forum systems like this one.

When we impose such extreme levels of security, haven’t the terrorists already won?

I hate this saying. I would much rather have to spend an extra twenty minutes at the airport than be blown up, as most people would.