Has Orwell's '1984' Come 22 Years Later?

gabec asks: "This weekend my mother bought a grille lighter, something like this butane lighter. The self-scanner at Kroger's locked itself up and paged a clerk, who had to enter our drivers license numbers into her kiosk before we could continue. Last week my girlfriend bought four peaches. An alert came up stating that peaches were a restricted item and she had to identify herself before being able to purchase such a decidedly high quantity of the dangerous fruit. My video games spy on me, reporting the applications I run, the websites I visit, the accounts of the people I IM. My ISP is being strong-armed into a two-year archive of each action I take online under the guise of catching pedophiles, the companies I trust to free information are my enemies, the people looking out for me are being watched. As if that weren't enough, my own computer spies on me daily, my bank has been compromised, my phone is tapped--has been for years--and my phone company is A-OK with it. What's a guy that doesn't even consider himself paranoid to think of the current state of affairs?" The sad state of affairs is that Big Brother probably became a quiet part of our lives a lot earlier. The big question now is: how much worse can it get?

Am I just accustomed to old ways? Does the new generation, born with these restrictions, feel the weight of these bonds and recoil from my fears as paranoia? What can I, a person with no political interests--a person that would really rather think that the people in office are there because they're looking out for us, our rights, and our freedoms and not because their short-sightedness is creating a police state--do to stem the tide?"

Re:Go Fig

My view is this. If we had a perfect government with perfectly just and compassionate laws, then I would submit to total observation by the government. But we don't have a perfect government or a perfect world. Therefore, I do not want total observation.

Re:Go Fig

"Ghandi and King both worked in the open against unjust laws, and they won--by being in the open. If you're too cowardly to do whatever it is that you do out in the open, then you shouldn't be doing it."

Neither Ghandi or King masterbated in public.

Re:Go Fig

Sheeze, a little bit of an over reaction. Here we go again. I just meant that the only way I'd want to submit to total observation would be to an entity that I can trust without question to do the right thing. There is no such body, so I do not willingly submit to total observation. I am not, however an idiot. I do know that the influence that society has on an individual is very important. This is why I submit to some observation.

As far as your example of Gandhi. What the hell are you talking about? Gandhi was a public figure, yes, but he didn't peek into everyone's bedroom did he? No. I think you are confusing the issue.

Re:Go Fig

Obviously, you didn't read it carefully enough either. This is interesting, since you seem to feel quite superior to the rest of us that think it's a very relevant piece of work.

Surveillance and control are intimately linked. Once you remove the barriers against observation, you also remove the barriers against control. This would be one of the main themes of that entire book.

It is very relevant because in our hyper-informational society, it is becoming easier to surveille people than ever, and information is being used *against* us as opposed to *for us*.

The government should not be able to leverage what you do in your private life, what you do with your property, what you do with your money, against you, as long as you're not harming anyone else with your actions - and even when we do harm other people, we have institutions in place to protect ourself against the government - habeas corpus, the right to not incriminate ourselves, etc. It's the government that should be transparent and open to surveillance - not the populace. This is, after all, a *democracy* where the people, not any autocratic police government, are in power.

If at any moment it is possible that you are being observed by someone - anyone - aren't you less inclined to exercise your freedoms? I certainly am.

Re:Go Fig

(This is one of the surprisngly modern parts of Christianity, btw -- "and what you whisper in shadows will be shouted from rooftops" and all that.)

If you are less inclined to exercise your freedoms when you are being observed, well, then you probably are confusing "excerise your freedoms" with "break the rules of good behavior". Please go back to kindergarten, I think you missed a few lessons on how to operate in civilzied society.

Spoken like someone for whom "civilized society" has always been synonymous with "my own cultural mores". Ironically, that culture only survived to become a mainstream belief by carefully protecting its privacy amidst a larger, often hostile society. The fish symbol which car owners and companies use to advertise their Christianity today was originally intended to do the opposite, as a passcode to help Christians keep their beliefs secret from observers who might do them harm.

Peaches?

I don't think you can claim that the store told you that four peaches was a "restricted item" without at least explaining the situation a little bit further.

Re:Peaches?

Interesting thing about peaches is that they contain cyanide. [cdc.gov] From that respect I could see why the scanner would go off...

Re:Peaches?

FTFA: cyanide is found in a number of foods and plants. In certain plant foods, including almonds, millet sprouts, lima beans, soy, spinach, bamboo shoots, and cassava roots (which are a major source of food in tropical countries), cyanides occur naturally as part of sugars or other naturally-occurring compounds.
 
C'mon. I'd like to see you take all of this stuff up to the self-checkout and get a deep rooted anal search for it.

What a day to shop.

Re:Peaches?

I think if I were confronted with that same situation, I'd say, "Excuse me?" I'd then say nothing more, leave the entire order there at the checkout, and leave the store.

I refuse to shop with merchants who agree to help our currently corrupt government turn American into the Home of the Paranoid and Land of the Caged.

Re:Peaches?

I think if I were confronted with that same situation, I'd say, "Excuse me?" I'd then say nothing more, leave the entire order there at the checkout, and leave the store.

That wouldn't do any good, you'd just get the person working the checkout calling you a crazy. If you're going to make a point, explain why you think it's stupid to the manager, and do it at the checkout queue.

Re:Peaches?

I don't think you can claim that the store told you that four peaches was a "restricted item" without at least explaining the situation a little bit further.

Maybe they were underage? :)

Re:Peaches?

Maybe they were underage? :)

That's cherries.

SORRY, YOU ARE NOT CLEARED FOR THAT

Please strip to your underwear and sit with your hands folded behind your head in preparation for a courtesy visit from your friends and fellow Class 1 citizens from Homeland Security's Produce Control Division.

And stop thinking about goats when you play with yourself.

Re:Peaches?

Besides peaches being a source of cyanide, also note that the only source of ricin [wikipedia.org], one of the most deadly poisons known to man, is castor beans.

Re:Peaches?

Speaking of Ricin, US Patent 3060165 "Preparation of Toxic Ricin" is a famous example of a redacted patent. It is available from European sources [espacenet.com], though not from the USPTO.

Although ricin has been prepared in crystalline conditions in the laboratory in small quantities, it becomes necessary for purposes of toxological warfare to prepare relatively large quantities in a high state of purity. This neccesitates that as much as possible of the nontoxic material present be removed in the process.

This document [globalsecurity.org], however, implies that the production method described in the patent results in a impure mixture of various denatured proteins.

Re:Peaches?

even 1/2-strength ricin is more lethal than many toxins.

"half -strength" may be an exceptionally optimistic yield. The patent doesn't address the efficiency of the process.

Re:Peaches?

What's really interesting is that I would know about none of this if the scanner hadn't gone off and led to that anecdote.

Not saying that that was why the scanner went off, or that steps must be taken to protect us from the fruits, but that high profile reactions to items perceived to be inoccuous can spread around information you'd rather stayed put.

Re:Peaches?

after oranges, peaches are known to be the second most popular weapons in Drive-by Fruitings [urbandictionary.com].

Re:Peaches?

But what if he has a point-ed stick??

Re:Peaches?

A pointed stick, and when someone comes at you with oh oh oh getting all high and mighty eh? Well let me tell you something, when some great homicidal maniac comes at you tonight with a bunch of loganberries, don't come crying to me!!!

I'm guessing it's one of two things

1) Register error. There are things like alcohol that will flag a stop and check for ID situation, and of course it's controlled from the central inventory software. It's not like the register is concious of what you order, it just checks to see if item #X has an ID flag set. If it is, it stops the sale and asks the clerk to check ID.

2) He's making shit up to try and be dramatic.

I mean peaches certianly aren't globally restricted. We just bought some the other day, no problems, as I imagine millions of people did. You would hear about it if they were sending flags up all over.

As for check ID items, it's up to the store how far they go. Like with alcohol I've had the entire range. Some simply dismiss the warning assuming fomr appearnace I'm over 21. Some check my ID each time. At grocery and convience stores they are usually more carefuly. Some check the ID and enter the birthdate in the register, some have you scan it in a little machine that checks. The most extreme case I saw was at a Frys which is near the university and a couple of high schools, thus lots of underage purchaes. They check your ID, record it, and make you sign the book they recorded it in.

Basically it's the levle of CYA they feel necessary to not get fined/shut down. Fact of the matter is, someone will fool them and buy underage. Well if a fuss is made of it, the liquor board investigates. They then have to prove they took steps to stop that from happening. The liquor board deicded based on that if they were really trying and it was an honest mistake, or if they are being delibratly lax.

thus the response depends on the store, it's not government mandidated, the government just says "You can't sell to minors and you are responsable for taking steps to make sure you don't." Up to you to determine the kind of steps and the proof you keep of them so you can defend yorself if need be.

But ya, I am not seeing any federal peach crackdown here. If that's the case, we'd probably hear about it on CNN.

Re:Peaches?

Peach seeds: ~40 ppm cyanide. Apricot seeds: ~500 ppm. Lucky you didn't buy apricots, or you'd be in Guantanamo by now.

It may be too late...

"What's a guy that doesn't even consider himself paranoid to think of the current state of affairs?"

First thought...more educated and informed than the masses of sheeples?

Seriously, I think a lot of us feel the same way and see that we aren't on a slippery slope any more. We are plummeting down a sheer drop off. The way I see it the government and big business will control more and more of our every day life as we lose more and more privacy and individual choices. Some of us will get sick of it and cash out and go live off the grid in the most remote boondocks we can find and some of us will suffer in relative silence and reminisce over the "good old days" before we lost so much of our privacy and constitutional rights. Others will never notice they lost anything. Maybe there will be another American revolution some day to try and put back into place a government whose altruistic ideals can be effected indefinitely. Hell, 200+ years is pretty good when looked at in the big picture of history but eventually power and money corrupt those who should be looking out for the good of everyone. I guess this sounds kind of defeatist but take the federal minimum wage as an example. How come 30 million people have to try to live on $5.15 an hour? How are their voices not heard? How are our voices not heard?

Money talks and the politicians and big business have the money.

Something wrong with $5.15 an hour?

Suppose we raise it to $60 an hour. Better? Would you still have a job?

OK, that's too much. Well, how many lost jobs are acceptable? Can you give a number? If we raise the minimum wage to $12 an hour and lay off 15% of the workforce, is that good?

More money is great as long as YOU don't lose your job. Everybody, even those already on minimum wage, thinks it'll be the other guy who loses his job or that some rich guy won't be so rich. Sure, and pigs fly really well.

To pay the cleaning people their new minimum wage, we can get rid of one web developer. The other guys can work overtime to make up the loss. Then again, maybe it's just time for the company to go bankrupt and get rid of EVERYBODY.

It goes the other way too. A smelly drunk isn't likely to get hired at $5.15 an hour, but his value might be above zero. He deserves a chance to work. The same goes for the fat girl with acne that makes people feel ill, the guy who stares inappropriately, the lady who has conversations with her knuckles... They all deserve a chance to work.

Re:Something wrong with $5.15 an hour?

I've got a better solution, which will also address the outsourcing issue: how about we raise the minimum wage in all countries outside America to $10,000,000,000/hour.

And if they refuse to comply, we nuke them!

There, solved it for you.

Re:Something wrong with $5.15 an hour?

Well, something has to be done. Take for example the poor man who can't afford health insurance: he waits until his health problems escalate, then goes to the emergency room. Not being able to pay, the hospitals increase their rates, and the insurance companies pass it on to their paying customers. So, those who can afford it will end up paying for the poor guy ANYWAY. Furthermore, if his problem stems from microbial infection, he may have the opportunity to spread the misery through the workforce before getting treated. This costs people and businesses even more money.

The variance of the payscale needs to be reduced. The janitor's function in society is just as important as that of the CEO of Exxon, and he should be compensated at a level that enables him to pay for housing, utilities, health care, transportation, and a little extra for some fun. Why should extremely gifted or the extremely lucky be the only ones to partake of what life has to offer? It's a sad commentary on the history of human civilization that after 5,000 years we still haven't evolved beyond exploiting one another.

Re:Something wrong with $5.15 an hour?

Are you stupid? The man did not say that all pay should be equal. He said that the variance, the difference, between the low end and the high end should be reduced. Everyone in the wealthiest nation in the world should have enough to "pay for housing, utilities, health care, transportation, and a little extra for some fun." Basically, we should not be complete slaves to our economic conditions. In other words, we should be FREE and have the full rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

These ideas are not communist. They're as democratic and American as mom and the flag and apple pie.

The CEOs that run the corporations decide what people get paid. In fact, the CEOs even decide their own level of compensation since they control the board of directors and who gets accepted on there. You want a raise? Ask your boss. He'll look at his budget, which was handed down to him from his boss, which was given to him from his boss, all the way up to the CEO. You have no control over this organization. You did not vote in your boss. The CEO takes the money that you earn and gives most of it to himself. The corporation is not a democracy. It's a dictatorship.

In fact, the corporation is so decidedly undemocratic since they decide what you can or can not say, even in your time off. They decide who you can or can not associate with, even in your time off. They decide what you can or can not do, even in your time off. The corporation is so undemocratic and so un-American that's it's completely laughable that anyone uses the "Communist" card to defend corporate policies of screwing the janitors making minimum wage in order to give the CEO another million dollars.

Re:Something wrong with $5.15 an hour?

Once you decide that anyone has a right to the product of another person's labor, yes, it's communist.

then I suppose the CEO's are communists, and the oil companies, and ESPECIALLY the **AA organizations, and of course the republican government who thinks its their right to take our hard earned money for their pet wars.

Re:Something wrong with $5.15 an hour?

"then I suppose the CEO's are communists, and the oil companies, and ESPECIALLY the **AA organizations, and of course the republican government who thinks its their right to take our hard earned money for their pet wars."

No, becuase CEO's and oil companies are not forcing their rules upon us with the power of police and prisons and the military. If I choose to work for a company I follow their rules. I can choose to work somewhere else.

This is what people mean when they call your idea communism. You want the govornment to make these decisions for everyone.

If you'd check your history you would see that communism does not work. Why do you think it would work in the U.S.? Do you think a govornment that coddles corporations and does not care about the little guy would all of the sudden completely turn around? Do you think an apathetic populas will all of the sudden forge a utopia?

Re:Devil's advocate objects:

Ahahh. You're right that studying hard/working hard should produce a nice compensation. FYI, janitors work very hard, as do flight attendants, cooks, checkout clerks, delivery folks, and machinists; just about any profession as a matter of fact. What you're describing is the market place of labor. Its always been the case that those in highest demand get paid more. That's why CEO's get $50mega bucks per year. Its not because they work any harder or have studied any harder than the construction worker (ye olde Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard in the first year). But is it fair? Of course not. Life isn't fair. Communism was a pathetic attempt at making life more fair. The minumum wage is a reasonable attempt at making life more fair.

I resent your implication that janitors have kids on welfare. Get that silver spoon and troll out of your lower class hating mouth.

Here is a reason to support making life more fair: If you don't, then poor people who have been taken advantage of will eventually stop listening to southern accent affecting Presidents and their church preachers and will burn your rich ass into a pile of ash in that brand new exurb of yours. Its happened in many many places when the wealth balance gets too whacked. That's why rich folks should support the minimum wage. Its also why they should pay more in taxes, because they benefit the most from a structured society. Its called nobility, and only snobs don't have it.

On the other hand if your going for the revolution - then by all means, get rid of all work place protections and put those 7 year old WICK program/AFDC kids to work in a debtor's prison. I'm just one of those terrible libral's who's studied history and would like our society to go on another 200 years.

Re:It may be too late...

Let me play Devil's advocate here:

The 'free market' ended in 1930's for the same reason 'anarchy' ended in the stone age: a single strongman will fuck up the playing field for everybody by assimilating, subjugating, and repressing everyone else (while getting even stronger in the process). To take it to extreme, in a 'free market' there is nothing to stop some asshole buying a nuclear weapon, then collecting 'protection' money from you and me. There is nothing to stop GSK from patenting antibiotics as a concept, then charging $10,000,000 per pill. So what that 50% of children will not survive to adulthood (a la 19th century America), that's because they are too lazy to do anything else.

Yes, the free market is the best possible scenario, except that human nature being what it is, the market will quickly degrade into something horrible if completely uncontrolled.

Re:It may be too late...

There is nothing to stop GSK from patenting antibiotics as a concept, then charging $10,000,000 per pill.

Sure there is: If they price themselves out of the mass market, they wouldn't make any money that way.

In any event, a patent is a government-enforced artificial monopoly. In a libertarian paradise (which you appear to be substituting for "free-market economy"), they wouldn't necessarily exist.

Re:It may be too late...

The 'free market' ended in 1930's for the same reason 'anarchy' ended in the stone age: a single strongman will fuck up the playing field for everybody by assimilating, subjugating, and repressing everyone else (while getting even stronger in the process).

Wrong. I'm tired of the old Great Depression "free markets failed" bullcrap that many history books spew and a lot of people believe. The Great Depression was a normal recession made much worse by the Federal Reserve's mishandling of the money supply. Getting off the gold standard and switching to fiat money didn't help situations, as well as higher tarrifs.

But free markets did end in the 1930s, or at least became much less free. We have fiat money that inflates often. We implemented socialistic programs that didn't really help with the depression and arguably made it worse (World War II is what got us out of the depression, not the New Deal). Government went from very small to very large. We now mired in massive federal debt that only increases every year. Classical liberalism was thrown out in place of socialism and fascism, and now whenever people believe in classical liberal and libertarian ideas, they're written off as silly people.

Now, interestingly enough, some of the problems that you have stated are caused by the government, not by free markets. Patents, for example. Patents (and other "intellectual property" like copyrights and trademarks) are a governmental creation. I don't advocate getting rid of copyrights, patents, and other "IP," but don't blame the free market for that. I am a staunch free market supporter who also supports anti-trust legislation and other similar measures; they help keep the market free. (Being controlled by mega-corporations is just as bad as being controlled by big governments, in my book. However, governments hold a legal monopoly on force, which makes them worse, IMO.). But I don't believe in redistributionist policies. Perhaps we should focus on helping the poor in the marketplace instead of welfare. After all, if you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day; but if you teach a man how to fish....

Re:It may be too late...

30 Million People live on minimum wage because they are too lazy to do anything else.

Because everyone knows all the minimum wage jobs are the easy ones... Strawberry picking, aspalt laying, etc aren't hard at all

If you want to make more money do better in High School

You should visit some public high schools in poor areas some day. Hard work won't change that drugs are rampant, gangs rule the hallways, and you can't get a real education.

Maybe you should go talk to real people that are poor. Two parents working two full time minimum wage jobs have trouble supporting a family. It may open your eyes that even though hard work can often result in success, for those in impovershied areas, or for those who are born with disadvantages or into a disadvantageous situation, hard work is necessary for survival, and that is often barely achieved.

You're the one that needs to get real and realize that not everyone is born with a bevy of opportunities, and it's not easy to succeed, even with hard work.

Re:It may be too late...

Others will never notice they lost anything.

You can't lose something that you give away.

Most of those things he mentioned people think are great, because those things mean that they either get a bargain, or that they're protecting 'the children'. The rest of them people either don't notice or wouldn't care about even if you managed to successfully get them to understand why it is that you care about them.

Maybe there will be another American revolution some day to try and put back into place a government whose altruistic ideals can be effected indefinitely.

Yeah, right. Most of that stuff in the post didn't even have anything to do with state or federal govenrment. It was mostly corporate and people giving their privacy away under their own accord.

The best part was where he described journalists as 'the people who are supposed to be looking out for him'. What a hoot. Somebody needs a lesson in capatilism, and some friendly advice not to be so trusting lest he look in the mirror and find out he's one of the people giving away bits of himself for no good reason.

How come 30 million people have to try to live on $5.15 an hour? How are their voices not heard?

Here's a hint: More than half of them aren't even old enough to vote if they wanted to (and if they were, they'd be statistically unlikely to vote anyway). The minimum wage is a heart-string issue. The Democrats tote it out to get emotional votes out of the section of their base that hasn't engaged their brain. It's the Democrats' version of school prayer.

Not everybody needs to earn a living wage. Some people are dependents to other people, or are children. It is important that low wage jobs exist, or it would be difficult to get that first job that lets you start climbing the ladder. Stop and think, and read a bit. You will find that politicians and armchair economists are the biggest supporters of a minimum wage hike. It's never the people who are supposedly harmed by the low minimum wage crying for an increase, and most of the groups that advocate for those very same people think it's dumb too.... All those people want an expansion of the EITC [irs.gov] instead.

that leaves 15 million people there pal..

Here's a hint: More than half of them aren't even old enough to vote if they wanted to (and if they were, they'd be statistically unlikely to vote anyway). The minimum wage is a heart-string issue. The Democrats tote it out to get emotional votes out of the section of their base that hasn't engaged their brain. It's the Democrats' version of school prayer.

wow.. you just trod all over your own argument.

that leaves 15 million people who are earning below poverty wages who are NOT dependents of others... in other words they NEED a living wage and are not getting it.

I have news for you people who complain about welfare leeches... half the time these people are pushed into that because if they make above a certain level of income.. they will be denied welfare, but their jobs will make them less than welfare!

maybe if you raised the minimum wage, their jobs would make them more than welfare and they would not feel compelled to remain unemployed.

So no.. it's not "the democrat's version of school prayer", it's a valid issue of exploiters paying sub-poverty wages, then lobbying for a "free market" whenever there is a push to raise those wages to a point where people can.. i don't know.. buy food AND a pay rent at the same time?

Re:that leaves 15 million people there pal..

There are lots of arguments against rising minimum wage [house.gov], but let me give you mine:

Money isn't free. If wages are raised (and it's not only the minimums that will be raised. Anyone with a half-decent employer or union will also get a raise) then everything has to go up in price so that employers can pay the new wage. It will provide a temporary respite for minimum wage earners, but in the long run, it provides nothing. Everything will balance back out, and in a capitalist economy, it will happen pretty fast. If the raise is announced beforehand, it might even drop before the wage hits so that it is balanced WHEN the raise hits, instead of after.

I fully agree that something needs to be done about the millions who cannot earn a living no matter how hard they work. But maybe the problem is at the top instead of the bottom. Sports and movie stars that earn 10 million dollars per year ... Hmm, maybe that's a problem.

Or maybe tax reform? I keep hearing about this 'flat tax' ... Assuming it's as fair as its proponents claim, maybe that should happen.

Or quite a few other things that actually improve the situation for the people we are trying to help, instead of just looking like it improves the situation.

Re:that leaves 15 million people there pal..

That makes very little sense. Raising the minimum wage just slides the imbalance, it doesn't reduce it. If the low end makes more money, prices will rise, the increase will make its way back up to the higher wage workers, and in the end, the wage paid on the low end is not really any higher when you factor in the inflation.

If you want to really help the poor, then try to reimagine the economy as a whole. Think about the fact that we have created a system by which the rich make their money by exploiting the poor. Think about the fact that when earnings reports are king and share price is all important, then a company is forced to constantly squeeze every penny out of every place, and that means paying lower wages, paying suppliers less, and charging customers more. The goal becomes to screw others so that you can get more money. The economy needs to be about the fact that as a people, we all have needs (food, shelter, etc) and we all have skills or resources. Instead of focusing entirely on profit and greed, we need to focus on having an efficient and effective system.

Of course, that's not the American Dream or the American Way - it's much more desirable to just get really rich, and try not to think too much about the fact that we have a broken system that isn't going to be fixed by welfare or minimum wages.

True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.
-Martin Luther King Jr

Re:Chill out

First : "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! " Patrick Henry

Second : "These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph." Thomas Paine

Third : "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions" --Samuel Adams, Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of 1788

Fourth : "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin

FYI, I am not a liberal. I did not like clinton, But I detest Bush. He has IMO clearly vioalted his oath of office
to preserve protect and defend the constitution.

Lastly,in response to your " I paraphrase the Administration spokesman here, I would rather the government collected my call records than my remains"

Patrick Henry was right, and americans today have become complete pussies to the point that most probably do not deserve freedom because they don't like the cost.

Just walk away

Id for grille lighters and peaches, huh? And why didn't you just walk away loudly commenting on the store's idiotic policy?

Re:Just walk away

Id for grille lighters and peaches, huh? And why didn't you just walk away loudly commenting on the store's idiotic policy?

The peaches incident was probably a register mistake. But in a number of states you need to be 18 or older to purchase a lighter by state law. I tried to purchase one once when I was 17 so I could burn the trash out back like I had done every week for nearly a decade, and I was denied. Apparently the law presumes that lighters will only be used for smoking, and couldn't be used for things like, you know, burning trash, or making smores. It's another classic example of lawmakers restricting a wide spectrum of basic freedoms to fight a single pet cause of self-endangerment.

This is the same mentality as occurs in sweeping laws to fight "child pornography", and sweeping laws to fight violence in video games, and sweeping laws to protect people from the internet, or the prevention of pseudophedrine purchases for fear of meth labs getting it. If we could get people to stop asininely voting for politicians on the basis of those pet causes, then freedom would not be encroached nearly as much as it currently is.

What we are living in is a culture war between people who want personal freedom, and people who are immersed in irrational emotional fear.

Re:Just walk away

It's another classic example of lawmakers restricting a wide spectrum of basic freedoms to fight a single pet cause of self-endangerment.

That's like blaming lawsuits on lawyers, not on the people who hire them. Government by definition will try to expand its scope and power. The problem is when you have a population that is too stupid, or is ideologicaly polarized, or has too short of an attention span, or is too ignorant, to think of it as a problem. The U.S. is a bit strange right now, because the very ones expanding government power the fastest are saying that they believe in small government, even as they expand government. You have a nation of people who are failing to notice the blatantly obvious. Even when issues like the NSA wiretapping case, or torture in Iraq, shine a glaring, flashing, bright light on the issues, people just refuse to talk about it. People just don't deal well with complexity. They can't reason out a position, because they have been cornered into a black and white, good-vs-evil worldview where there is just no nuance to be had. People are discontented, but most of them are going to vote Republican anyway because of abortion or gay rights, so their objections to the deficit, or to Iraq, are irrelevant. But they have to be internally consistent, so once they've decided to vote Republican, they can't really object with any enthusiasm to the wiretapping case, or to torture in Abu Ghraib, or anything else. The same applied to Clinton supporters, and probably applies to politics everywhere, but it's always galling to witness.

The book Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion by Robert Cialdini has a great chapter on how people can be made to agree to big things they wouldn't otherwise support by getting them to agree to little things that seem innocuous, and even unrelated, earlier on. Once people are brought on board via their objection to gay marriage or any other social issue, they can be expected to buy the rest of the platform, bit by bit, because they don't want to abandon their original committment. Well, that and the fact that they don't want to be associated with Michael Moore, which I can completely understand.

Re:Just walk away

and wanted to buy an AA battery for my alarm clock. I was out in the suburbs and the only shop I could find selling batteries was an electronics shop specialising in larger items, like stereos et al. So to buy my AA battery I had to fill in two forms, give address and phone number, etc etc...

Let me guess: the small, poor country you were in was the United States, and the store you went to was the local Radio Shack.

Bring out the tin foil hats...

IT'S GO TIME BABY!

I have a better question.

"The big question now is: how much worse can it get?" Wrong. The big question is what are we going to do to stop this. It's our government, dammit.

Vote for a party that values human freedom

No, I'm not a libertarian.

I would be if they were balls-out scrappers for freedom and liberty for all humans. But too often they stop at property rights, and assume that a good round of deregulation and tax cuts will fix everything else.

Freedom and rights have to be fought for. The enemy isn't just the government; it includes corporations.

Human rights must come before corporate rights. Too many Libertarians I know seem uncomfortable with that.

So, which party to turn to? Right now, there's no clear choice. But for now, the first step is denying Bush the convenience of a rubber stamp congress.

That means holding your nose and voting Democratic this fall.

And stop being afraid.

Re:I have a better question.

"The big question now is: how much worse can it get?" Wrong. The big question is what are we going to do to stop this. It's our government, dammit.

The only way is to clean house, senate, and white house all in the same general election. Otherwise the old boy network continues uninterrupted because at the end of the day, the party affiliation doesn't mean as much as just maintaining the so-called elite group in power.

The last time around I couldn't stomach either of the republicrat parties candidates, gave it a bit of thought & voted libertarian. ISTR My wife felt the same way & voted green. So they got one vote each in our home county. Big fscking deal. OTOH, if enough of us have had it with these lying jerks to do something about it, THEN WE CAN FIX IT. BUT, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO GET OFF OUR COLLECTIVE FAT ASSES AND DO IT! DON'T JUST VOTE IN THE LESSOR OF THE 2 MAIN EVILS, VOTE IN SOMEONE WHO HONESTLY THINKS AS WE DO, THAT THE POLICE STATE GEORGE ORWELL DESCRIBED IN '1984' HAS GONE FAR ENOUGH AND ITS TIME TO SWING THAT PENDULUM THE OTHER WAY. And I frankly don't give a damn if a few wanna be Ken Lay's jump out of 40th floor windows as things get back to an even keel.

Go talk to the candidates face to face, and if you cannot get that close, then they are too damned paranoid and don't deserve your vote. I've stood literally nose to nose with the govenor of this state, telling him his pet project was going down in flames (and it did) but neither of us had any worries about that nose to nose confrontation. He is an honest, approachable human being that despite our differences, got my vote the last time based on his performance in that situation.

Participation in the political process is what this country was founded on, and those that sit as couch warmers, and base your votes on party lines, what Bill OReilly says, or other mainstream media propaganda artists, fully deserve the traitorous, sell out to the highest bidder, representation you'll get. This may be the last time we get a chance to fix things because if it continues with the present erosion of private, personal freedoms at the present rate, you won't recognize the election as a democratic process by 2012 unless you are one of the sheeple we denigrate here on /. so often...

The choice is ours to make, and we should make it as wisely as we can. We, as a whole, voted ourselves into this box, and hopefully we can vote our way out of it. We at least owe the republic a try at fixing it.

--
Cheers, Gene

Re:I have a better question.

yeah right...

#begin redundant Thomas Jefferson Quote

"When the Government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the Government, there is tyranny"

#end Thomas Jefferson Quote

I fear the government. It is no longer ours.

It's not just about privacy

Don't forget that it's not just about privacy. The government basically has to create a state of perpetual fear, stir up hatred of the enemy, torture people, have an ongoing war, control information, and basically convince you to willingly see things that are false.

Now, don't get me wrong, but I don't think we've come to that yet.

cough cough fake terror alerts hussein abu ghraib war on terrorism fox news wmd in iraq cough

Re:It's not just about privacy

Now, don't get me wrong, but I don't think we've come to that yet.

How will we recognize it when we do?

Perpetual war

The government basically has to create a state of perpetual fear, stir up hatred of the enemy, torture people, have an ongoing war, control information, and basically convince you to willingly see things that are false.

In terms of the American government making their whole country's citizens paranoid that even their neighbours could be some kind of enemy against their ideology, wasn't this achieved in the fifties using the buzzword "communist" a long time before it was done using the buzzword "terrorist?"

Listen closely

This isn't a real question, this is a thinly veiled attempt at getting a conversation going about how terrible the US government is.

Yes, there's a lot of censorship and surveillance going on. Yes, we have to be vigilant about everything we've heard.

My fear is, the fact that we find out about these domestic wiretaps, secret European prisons - means that the people put in charge of these things are morons. Most people in the position to be doing important secret 1984-type dealings are smart. The things we know about are pretty bad - how much worse are the things we don't know about?

Re:Listen closely

My fear is, the fact that we find out about these domestic wiretaps, secret European prisons - means that the people put in charge of these things are morons. Most people in the position to be doing important secret 1984-type dealings are smart. The things we know about are pretty bad - how much worse are the things we don't know about?

So are you proposing that we should or should not keep electing morons? Your argument could go either way...

Veto history

Bush is the first president in modern history who has never vetoed a bill

Flat-out false. Given that, how much of the rest of the article can I trust?

http://clerk.house.gov/histHigh/Congressional_Hist ory/vetoes.html [house.gov]

The last President who never vetoed was James A. Garfield, elected in 1880. I'd call that non-modern history. So the article was accurate at the time of publication.

In my fact checking, I see that Bush now has 1 veto [msn.com], rejecting additional funding for stem cell research, just over a week ago. The Globe article was written in April.

So the article was correct.

defend

Defend freedom of information from government and corporate influence.

That's what really protects freedom, liberty, democracy, and people's rights. If you're lucky.

Bush and his cronies are to blame

The sad state of affairs is that Big Brother probably became a quiet part of our lives a lot earlier.

Disagree.

Most of these things came from the Bush administration. The last 6 years has been a cancer eating away at the very fabric of what it used to mean to be american.

Phrases like 'truth, justice, and the american way' ring very hollow these days...especially to the rest of the world.

State v. private interests

1984 was about the state controlling everything. In the current situation, the state is peering more heavily into everything we're doing because a lot of people are so afraid of Islamic terrorists that they're willing to give the state more power. This may or may not be a temporary situation, but the state obviously hasn't reached the level of control that Big Brother did in 1984.

As for corporations watching what you do, the real question is whether Microsoft checking to see if you're using a pirated version of their software is somehow going to affect your political rights, or if it is just a stupid move on their part that will only push customers away from their products. After all, you only have one state. You can choose software vendors.

Re:State v. private interests

I'm not a huge fan of sippery slope arguments (although I do think the sentiment is often in the right place), but do you think we need to wait until things are as bad as they are in 1984 before reacting? The real government may not be as authoritarian as the one in the book, but a major element that allowed that in the book to enforce its rules was the existence of the surveillance technologies. We are clearly at or very near a point that matches the technical sophistication in the book.

We need to be careful to keep this technology from being used for ill. When something that's "kind of bad" is proposed, we need to react STRONGLY. Rights have a way of being chipped away and it's usually through violent conflict that these rights are regained. Better to protect them in the first place.

Further, it doesn't really matter who it is that's doing the surveillance. If Walmart has the information, it's only a subpoena from being in Uncle Sam's hands...

Admitting you have a problem is the first step

What can I, a person with no political interests--a person that would really rather think that the people in office are there because they're looking out for us, our rights, and our freedoms and not because their short-sightedness is creating a police state--do to stem the tide?

It should be obvious, but I'll spell it out:

Get some political interests

Sticking your head in the sand will not help. So pull it out, shake out the sand, and get involved. And I don't mean you should flip a coin, pick the red team or the blue team, and blindly follow them.

I mean that you should get active in holding your elected officials accountable for their actions, regardless of their party affiliation. Keep up on the issues and be vocal about them. Read and listen to opposing points of view and try to form and propagate valid opinions. Make sure your representatives know that someone is watching them, and follows what they do. If they lie, cheat, steal, or sell you down the river, nail them. Vote them out in the primary if you can, and in the general if you can't. Cross party lines if you need to, because you are far better off with an honest member of the opposing party than one of "your own party" who is willing to sell you to the devil for a few hookers.

And, for that matter, do the same with your news outlets. And your local ballot boxes. If we paid half the attention to keeping the system honest that we do American idol or celebrity babies, we wouldn't have this problem.

--MarkusQ

And for the second step...

If you're interested in reading the account of someone who started out pretty much where you are, except that he's an attorney specializing in constitutional law, you might want to check out How Would a Patriot Act [amazon.com]

From the back cover:

Glenn Greenwald was not a political man. Not liberal, not conservative. Politicians were all the same and it didn't matter which party was in power. Extremists on both ends canceled each other out, and the United States would essentially remain forever centrist. Or so he thought.

Then came September 11, 2001. Greenwald's disinterest in politics was replaced by patriotism, and he supported the war in Afghanistan. He also gave President Bush the benefit of the doubt over his decision to invade Iraq. But, as he saw Americans and others being disappeared, jailed and tortured, without charges or legal representation, he began to worry. And when he learned his president had seized the power to spy on American citizens on American soil, without the oversight required by law, he could stand no more. At the heart of these actions, Greenwald saw unprecedented and extremist theories of presidential power, theories that flout the Constitution and make President Bush accountable to no one, and no law.

--MarkusQ

Look! I'm running a meth lab!

I particularly enjoy how I can't shop for good deals on my doctor-recommended loratidine with decongestant that I take every day for my allergies. Apparently, if I purchase more than 15 pills of 240 mg pseudoephedrine each in one day I am obviously running a meth lab.

I never knew. I guess the government knows me better than I know myself. Thank you, government, for stopping me from creating a narcotics lab that I never knew I wanted!

The peach situation baffles the hell out of me though.

Your Attention

Your attention, please! A newsflash has this moment arrived from the WalMart front. In honor of the massive overfulfillment of the ninth three-year plan... it's been announced that the NASCAR T-Shirt ration is to be increased to 3 per month!

DoublePlusYeeHaw!

Some of this is true...

I was ID'd for a lighter the other day. Now, I am a bit younger looking, and I know that restricting lighter sales is the first step to restricting consumption of other products. In California, and at a Walmart, at that. The real issue that would make me start to worry is data aggregation. And that is where I think it all falls apart (knock on wood). If they could aggregate all the data of my purchases, communications, etc, I would be a lot more worried. If you ARE paranoid, a major step to eliminate tracking is to go cash only. Stop using electronic payments of any kind. Stop using grocery discount cards too. They track spending habits.

But again, data aggregation is key, and they don't have that yet.

at least we can still talk about it

just about the only freedom left is the right to free speech and even that is at times questionable. I used to concider myself a libertarian but leaned republican in elections, now im so ticked off at the state of the world my friends all think ive gone all Che Guevara. I'm just sickened by all the steps taken to "secure" me, what good is it without freedom? I guess im in the majority but I would rather take my chances a bit than deal with some of the BS that is going on now.

The constitution isnt perfect but its alot better than what we have now.

We're at 1983

1984 is when the authorities catch a clue.

Or, as Benny hill once said in a sketch, "My dog likes to chase cars, but if he ever caught one, he wouldn't know what to do with the damn thing!"

Right now, the powers that be are dogs chasing cars, but they are close to figuing out what they'll do when they catch one.

Enjoy this moment while it lasts.

What privacy?

Let's take a way back machine a little bit. Way back before big faceless corporations, people shopped at corner stores, where the manager knew them by name, knew what their regular order was, and for the habitual customers even had the order ready before the customer came in the store. You couldn't get yourself into too much trouble because everyone in town knew you on sight and all of your local relatives. More often than not the cops knew you by name, and not because you were in trouble but because they were as much a part of the community as you were. Privacy hasn't gone anywhere. If anything the world today has given us MORE privacy than ever before. The difference is not the level of privacy but the range of interested people. Before you worried about the local cops. These days, you only wory about them because they can pass the information to the feds whom you're really worried about. Privacy really honestly does not exist, unless you act in a way to preserve it. In the old days that meant shutting your blinds and not leaving your house. Well you have to do the same thing these days, just electronicaly. Sorry, you can't have a credit card if you want privacy because it isn't your money, it's theirs, and so they have an interest in what you buy. Likewise for your internet and phone connections, use a public service, expect it to be public. The only way to have privacy is to keep to yourself. People don't keep to themselves because it's anti social and destructive. But like it or not, there really wasn't ever any such thing as privacy.

eightyfour

It wasn’t really about the surveillance. That was merely a plot device. It was about a state of mind and the means to achieve that state.

In the superficial sense, i.e. electronic surveillance, much of what you mentioned has fallen into place over the past ten to fifteen years. And most of it has been implemented by commercial interests. As for the mindset? I, and I’m sure a whole lot of others around here, would say that the overwhelming majority of it has sprung up in the body politic within the past 58 months.

May you live in interesting times, comrade.

1984 was not about the future

Orwell was writing about contemporary society. We have been living 1984 for a long time.

How is free software important now?

Everytime you play the proprietary software game, you lose a bit of your freedom and get nearer to Orwell's world.

How can you be sure your software is not spying on you? For 1 caught Sony case, how many lesser known applications violate your privacy? Not even counting keyloggers and other obvious malware. XP phones home. How many other apps do that?

Even in the political world, proprietary software brings us closer to 1984. Seems every voting machine provider uses closed software, supposedly for "security". How can we trust these black boxes?

In the good old days of desktop computing without a network, closed source software could be trusted to keep your privacy; there was not any way to transmit the information anyway. But now, any trivial program is able to report your activities to the whole world.

Seems to me proprietary software is a dead end when privacy is involved.

If I told my great-great-great-great-grandmother that in the year 2006, most homes would have a box spying and reporting people activities, backed by the richest company in the world, she'd probably laugh. I'm not.

Begin fighting back now

What needs to happen now is for people to understand what is going on. This kind of activity has a draining effect on society, basically sapping them of their notion of "freedom." Ask your neighbors, your parents, your kids, your peers: many of them will tell you that they don't mind that they are being treated like criminals. "Why worry if you're not doing anything wrong?" is the typical response. These people don't understand what "freedom" means. These days the word has come to mean "freedom to love America" when in fact it's the opposite we need to allow. So you can start by making sure the people you know, and others if you can, that if our freedom does have a chance of disappearing, and you need to educate them as to what that means.

I'm not saying that this is happening now, though. We're getting closer, but the real danger comes from people who will welcome it when it comes. The single most important battle to be won is in the battle of ideas - that's politics these days.

The other thing you can do is begin securing all aspects of your life. Try and use encryption over the internet; encrypt your emails and messages. Start using cash to buy stuff - the Japanese do it all the time; paying with credit or debit at a store is pretty much rare in Japan. Refuse to buy from the grocery store if they require your drivers license to prove you won't make cyanide when you buy peaches (are peach trees illegal now??).

But important: if you DO make a fuss, DO NOT LOOK LIKE AN ASSHOLE. This is probably what most of you are capable of doing. If you do "fight the man," please do so in an orderly, respectful, and unannoying manner. If you get asked for your license at the grocer's, don't scream about it - people want to get through the line. Simply refuse to purchase from the store, and explain to those around you that you are being asked for your driver's license to buy peaches. The worst thing that can happen is for your ideals to be tied in with obnoxious behavior (this is what happened to liberals).

Re:Begin fighting back now

"Why worry if you're not doing anything wrong?" is the typical response. These people don't understand what "freedom" means.

The kind of argument to which you refer is really kind of fascinating, when you probe into it. It is often given by otherwise intelligent people, and yet it belies an astounding trust and faith in remote authority figures who are presumed to be always honest, diligent and conscientious. Our overseers always have our best interests at heart, and would never seek to harm us for their own greed or avarice.

Wherever do you find that kind of blissful relationship with authority? Why, with your own parents, of course, when you were a small child.

The "intelligent" people that give this argument often don't literally believe in the incorruptibility of authority. But what they are doing is to create a comforting fantasy for themselves in which unseen government officials take the place of mommy and daddy, watching over us all and guaranteeing their safety. Once this fantasy womb has been created, it becomes unimaginable that they might ever be the target of abjectly malicious government authority. It would be like your loving parents turning on you with no cause or warning.

It is ironic that this most often afflicts conservatives, who otherwise like to rail on about the "nanny state" in economic contexts.

The more we are fearful, the more likely we are to construct this parental fantasy around our government. This is something that people like Karl Rove understand all too well.

Wrong dystopia

When's the last time you read 1984? The fact that you can post this question on Slashdot, that you can go to a store and have a selection of products (and have the money to pay for them), even the fact that you have a girlfriend suggests we aren't living in the totalitarian "future" of Orwell's book. Orwell was reacting to Stalinist Russia, and we're about as far in the opposite direction now as you can get from that-- it's a lot more like the capitalism-run-amok chaos of a Gibson or Dick novel.

Hell, many of the examples you gave are about corporations trying to peg exactly who you are to market to you, not some Big Brother entity who wants to enslave you. I would even venture to say that the powers-that-be aren't really afraid of outspoken political speakers any more. It's become so easy to express your thoughts to the world, and there are so many people doing so, it's almost impossible for one person (no matter how charismatic or persuasive) to sway enough opinions to matter.

I could be wrong, and the jackbooted thugs and black helicopters could be waiting around the corner... But I don't think so. I think the reality is everyone just wants your money. And they want your data, but only because it will lead them to your money.

Re:Wrong dystopia

The analogy was correct with respect to newspeak, "Healthy Forests Initiative", "Clear Skies Initiative", "Operation Iraqi Freedom", surveillance, indoctrination, militarism, "The US has always been at war with Al-Qaeda", nationalism, political use of fear and hatred and institutionalized ignorance, "Intelligent Design", "Stem cell research is murder". The only aspect that doesn't fit the analogy is socialism but you can have both right and left authoritarian societies. For every Stalin and Saddam, there's a Pinochet and Franco.

If you are comfortable living in a space 10' a side, then you'll never notice the 12' square cell that you're in. American statism has been so successful precisely because controls are hidden since overt controls foment discontent. People are indoctrinated with American exceptionalism from birth. It is a very powerful myth and the backbone of control. Conformity is constantly being reinforced by your employer, church, school, college, customers and the media. Commercial consumerism is the modern day soma, to borrow from another dystopia.

The main difference between 1984 and 2006 is that the state doesn't bother dealing with those who try to affect it rather than submit to its power because it only needs to neutralize effective dissidents. So, Noam Chomsky, for example, is allowed to do his thing because his message is neutralized by lack of access to mainstream media and the media's noise thrown up against it. Those who can't be reigned in by typical controls are incarcerated, disappeared or killed, "suicided" is the CIA term, as in any traditional authoritarian regime.

* WAR IS PEACE

* FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

* IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

People have the power. Stand up.

If EVERYONE refused to comply with such absurd rules when purchasing stuff at stores, the stores would lose business.

The wisdom of Cereal Killer

"FYI, man, you can do like absolutely nothing... and your name goes through like, 17 computers a day, man. 1984? Yeah, RIGHT, man, that's a typo. Orwell's here now and he's livin' large. We have no names man, no names! We are NAMELESS.... Can I score a fry?"

Am I the only one who isn't paranoid?

Am I the only one who isn't very alarmed by all of this? Everytime someone claims that 1984 has arrived and Big Brother is here (which seems to be about once a week) I have to ask myself, "Have any of these people read 1984?" Our society is so much better than 1984. I also highly doubt that it will ever get to that point. While our actions are monitored by everyone, we still have civil liberties. I'm sure that if anyone cares to look into the records, they would be able to learn that I hate Bush. Even so, I have yet to receive any knocks on my door from guys in black suits. We still have the right to assemble. No one is going back and changing the past ala the Ministry of Truth. No, 2006 is a long way off from 1984.

Does anyone else believe that life now is better than it has ever been in history. We have less war, less disease, people seem to be friendlier, open source is flourishing, crime is down. It's about time people stop being such pessimists and simply open their eyes to how wonderful the world is now.

Re:Am I the only one who isn't paranoid?

OK, keep in mind that 1984 was *fiction*. It was not a prediction, prophecy, fate or destiny. If the society we live in isn't a complete duplicate of 1984, that doesn't mean that we don't have less freedom, or that the government isn't spying on us without proper oversight, or even illegally. We could come into a police state that bears little resemblance of 1984.

What you should be looking at is how actual, real dictators came to power and how real police states were formed. Yes, things are pretty good right now. No, that doesn't mean that it will stay that way, or continue to get better. Yes, we still need to work hard and remain vigilent to make sure that things continue to get better. America is not a magical place where all is good and must be that way. The same evil personality types that became dictators and created hell on earth in other countries exist here, and they are working mercilessly and without conscience to gain ever more power.

Learn the Art of Living!

Visit the link in my .sig. By learning the Art of Living, you can bring more awareness into your own life and into our own world. Ok, we probably got too much awareness now you might say, right? There doesn't go a day we don't hear about something awful about this world.

Right awareness is focusing on what is good, positive. Around you and otherwise in the world. Media is filled with negative awareness, which we should fight actively to turn both in our daily lives and globally. Of coure, for this to happen also, we need something positive _action_ to happen :-)

First you have to strengthen the individual, so this can go as a positive force out in the world. Every human has capacity to love and nurture eachother, but our stress is a layer in our body and consciousness.. Deprive a man of sleep for 3 days, and even the most harmonious and joyful being will become the worst... So we need to find ways to relieve stress and come back to ourselves again.

With breathing excercises, precious knowledge about life and much more, the Art of Living course is just fantastic in my experiences. It is unique in that this volunteer organisation is handling the very issues that we're facing in the world today: erosion of human values, how to rebuild faith in humanity and bring every religion and faction together instead of destroying this beautiful world. We're all in the same boat, let's start acting like it.

First rate. Just do it while you can!

Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, the founder of Art of Living Foundation and International Association for Human Values, has been nominated for the peace price many times. However, just like with Mahatma Gandhi, there seems to be a strong resistance to letting Indians getting the peace price.

Karma is excellent. If you really care about the world, maybe it's time to shift a bit of perspective?

Re:The answer to this question is, "Duh."

the idea that for the last couple of years America in particular has been headed for a total repetition of Nazi Germany is a forgone conclusion so utterly obvious that it barely even warrants mention.

If that were the case, then you'd be cooling your heels in a cell somewhere, wouldn't you?

My grandfather did time for protesting a war by handing out leaflets at an induction center in Atlanta. in 1915. If GWB were even as much as an authoritarian as Wilson, let alone FDR, then most of the people denoucing him as a would-be Nazi would be unable to do so. What do you think would have happened to someone who marched down the street in 1944 with a sign that said "FDR = HITLER"?

There are things that this country has done in overreaction to 9/11 which will eventually be reversed, but you're not going to help that process by going off the deep end with rhetoric that makes you easy to dismiss as a fool.

-jcr

license numbers

If i was required to enter that information just to pay in cash at the self-chekout, i would have been leaving the item on the scanner and be going to another store.

I realize what they have when you pay with CC, but in a case like that, they would have lost the sale, with me at least.

Is the poster a fucking moron?

What can I, a person with no political interests--a person that would really rather think that the people in office are there because they're looking out for us, our rights, and our freedoms and not because their short-sightedness is creating a police state--do to stem the tide?"

You would rather think that X is true -- even if you know that X is not true?

As Dilbert once said to a girl while on a date after she said she believed in something that most of us know to be crazy, "since when did belief become a substitute for fact?"

Why should elected officials give a damn about you? Look at Congress: they have a 92% re-election rate. If you had an "A"-grade chance of re-election, would you be particularly-concerned with what a few of your paranoid, nuttier constituents think? Of course not. If you care at all about your constituency, you follow what the majority wants and give it to them: pork-barrel projects and security from whatever boogeyman-of-the-week may be.

Elected officals have very little incentive to look out for you or your freedoms. The history of the U.S., to say nothing of the history of virtually every other nation in the world, ought to be evidence of that. And the history of un-elected officials is even worse.

Go start a religion if you cannot handle reality. You can't handle the truth. But to answer the question: there's nothing you can do. See below.

Am I just accustomed to old ways? Does the new generation, born with these restrictions, feel the weight of these bonds and recoil from my fears as paranoia?

I am between the ages of 18-25. Do I qualify as a member of the "new generation"?

If I do, then I can say that the sort of post-9/11 pro-security, anti-privacy, anti-freedom paranoia is rampant among my generation. We saw 9/11 and said "where's Big Brother to save us? We've got to do whatever it takes to stop all terrorism!!" (yes, I actually had one person my age say this to me) -- as if that is somehow an achievable goal. I make my usual libertarian arguments, and I occasionally find people who are sympathetic, but by and large, people my age don't give a rat's ass about privacy, and will routinely make fun of privacy-minded people (like me, natch).

Terrorism is the new communism, and it's easier to be blinded by emotion than to run life through the filter of rational, critical, unemotional thought, and so the fear of terrorists overtakes the fear of information abuse that results from invasion of privacy.

Of course, over time -- and by that, I mean over the course of 3-4 years or more -- I find more and more of them very-slowly coming to the conclusions about privacy I came to a decade ago; only, I came to them deductively and predictively, not reactively; I haven't yet been severely-burned by a lack of privacy, whereas some of them have. ("The best revenge is living well", I suppose.)

But none have approached my level of distrust for authority (whether government or business), and I'm not nearly as paranoid as many people on Slashdot: I don't wear tinfoil hats, I don't route my Internet traffic through Tor, I don't reject the advancement of RFID chips in ID cards (although I vehemently oppose national ID systems, such as the U.S.'s REAL ID Act, and the national IDs of most other nations around the world). I no longer GPG-sign my email, and no longer run a node for encrypted, application-layer-routed P2P network. I use encryption whenever possible, but I don't demand that friends and family use PGP/GPG, nor that they use encrypted IM clients. They will never adhere to such demands, and requiring them would leave me friendless.

All my most privacy-conscious friends/family are computer geeks; all my least privacy-conscious friends/family are (largely) computer-illiterate. I do not believe this to be a coincidence.

The truth of the world is that you cannot trust anybody until they prove themselves

from a british perspective

it's not much different here either, except perhaps the ASBO or antisocial behaviour order. These didn't seem to bad as they were applied to individuals, well some were farcical asbo to stop someone with tourets swearing. asbo to stop someone going in thier garden in a bikini. perfect for every niggling little nieghbor dispute...

however there is another side to the asbo, the asbo that gets applied to an area
I bring you skegness's asbo
http://skegnesstoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?Secti onID=809&ArticleID=1652470 [skegnesstoday.co.uk]

now whats the big deal, well for one it gives police the powers to arrest anyone within that area for anything - you do not need to break any law. If they think you might break a law at a later point its enough, more than enough to satisfy the conditions of the asbo order. To be honest there is no restriction on the police at all because legal illegal it doesn't matter, since enter the asbo controlled area and you could be fined £5000 or go to prison for 6 months. It all depends on the individual police officer.

saving britain for decent folk thats the excuse

now how more 1984 do you get than that, when there are no criminals you make them. what is even more alarming is that this is just not being reported. The skegness standard is not widely read even in skegness. This is a complete change in the rule of law and no one appears to give a damn everybody assumes it will not apply to them but they don't see that before the difference was they broke the law and you didnt. now that distinction doesn't apply.

The future is made today.

Does the new generation, born with these restrictions, feel the weight of these bonds and recoil from my fears as paranoia?

Yes. Whatever status quo will be by the time those new born citizens is when they are age of 6 ot 7 is what they accept as normal and standard. Changing little by little, the system can change considerably over long period of time, and most of the people don't even realize what has been changed, or are already accepting the status quo. All it takes a small change per year and over long period the change is huge.
All it takes is generation or two and the standard of whats normal personal freedom could be changed completely from what it is now to something totally different. Computer is your friend. And what kind of invasion of privacy and personal rights we consider now unacceptable will be perfectly normal in 2100 and majority have accepted it as a normal practice, and consider our fears about that kind of future just Paranoia.

History repeats itself.

Right now we are on the verge of our society (internationally, not US only) collapsing, historically speaking: there are many conflicts around the world, and the potential for a global war breakout is big.

But this has happened again. In history of Greece, Athens was the mighty superpower that dominated the rest of Greek cities; but the Greek civilisation died a slow and painful death with the Peloponnisian war that lasted 30 years and destroyed everything (and it was a war filled with hate; no rules obeyed).

But then a new world emerged. After a few centuries, it was the Roman empire that fell: divided in two, conquered by Islam and the tribes from the North. Kings reigned Europe and the rest of the western world, for a long period of time; people were opressed by religion and the various kings that had a right of life and death over their people. But this world collapsed too: the French revolution, the American revolution and others brought down the old world.

And then another new world emerged. The world of capitalism...the world of enterprises. The world of profit, where profit is God and machinery is King. Democracy and human rights were given a stronger presence in this new world...it is the world we are today.

But it is not gonna last long. It will fall down, just as the previous worlds. Greed and hunger for power will destroy this world too. People want to control other people, and technology helps them to to do.

The future holds great revolutions, by the people who have nothing to lose; by all those living in the gutter, in the streets, under bridges. Right now these people are a minority..but when they are a majority, the dawn of a new world will be close.

Wrong question

Cliff [mailto] writes The sad state of affairs is that Big Brother probably became a quiet part of our lives a lot earlier. The big question now is: how much worse can it get?

That is completely the wrong question. The question is NOT how much worst can it get, the question is when are we going to doing something about it! When are we going to stop accepting and starting refusing?

Asked for identification when buying peaches?!?!? Fucking blow me, Bitch! Raise a fucking stink, in a very loud voice tell the clerk you won't provide ID so you can buy peaches. Make the clerk get the supervisor/manager and explain what an asinine policy they have. Show up every day with a shopping cart full of stuff plus eight peaches, then when asked for ID say no and just walk out.

Fucking Christ on a crutch! Get a god-damn backbone, America!

From the Dick files...

Freck: "I got a lot of problems no one else has."

Barris: "More than you think, and more every day. This is a world becoming progressively worse, can we not agree on that?

"What's on the dessert menu?"

[[ Welcome to Rome 2K. Welcome to the Brave New World. Welcome to the Animal Farm. Welcome to 1984. Blind, unrestrained capitalization naturally tends to squeeze every drop of humanity out of its core machinery to achieve its primary profit objective. Humans who seek to co-exist peacefully, cognizant of their environment, in order to achieve their ethical social aims in the course of their personal and professional lives, are free to expend energy and affect material gains and losses with impunity.

Defense spending makes no one wealthy except reptilian industrialists whose profits from war and disaster are used to effectively prop up a puppet government: Now they can effectively appoint the rulers, compose the rules, shape the debate with poison pills and straw men, and to write the official history. They have placed themselves in control of Government, and in getting away with so many overtly illegal actions have at last proved that their formula works.

And once in control, what's their vision for Humanity? Well, they haven't got one. Every ounce of energy goes into developing strategies, getting money, currying favor, and making deals in order to remain in power, ad nauseum. They have no plan for the general improvement of the body politic. These are cattlement and ranchers, intermingling with reptilian wealth.

Whereas a Human despot might take over the country and start instituting a mandatory educational program -- as Saddam Hussein was wont to do -- American despots would prefer a generation of mindless sycophants, kneeling to salute the American God Machine, drugged, diabetic, deceived, and dimly fleeing (in blessed petrol-powered vehicles) to state-mandated churches and recruiting stations.

Our lives go on, largely unmonitored as long as we comply. Every year over 45 thousand Americans die in automobile accidents. We die in vast numbers, ground up by a capitalist machine that doesn't even pay into the system that maintains the roads. And yet, instead of rationally fearing the drive home, they would have us fearing terrorists, dirty bombs, and Saddam Hussein.

If we want to end the cycle of power, surveillance, despotism, totalitarianism, the way is clear. Remove the influence of the corporate wing. Just as the constitution bans the marriage of Church and State due to its irrational tendencies, it must ban the marriage of Corporate and State to insulate government from usurpation by a machine of rampant, heartless exploitation. In other words, to insulate we the people, the body politic, from Fascism.

Do we already have Fascism in America? I think it is clear that we do. Right now in the United States hate-mongers who demonize intellectuals, spread lies and propaganda daily, parrot one another ceaselessly, and bury all meaningful discourse have become well-known -- even popular -- media figures. This Executive branch has been unprecedented in giving an air of validity to these figures, appearing on their programs (where they won't be challenged or questioned) while pretending that they are in a rational, impartial, and objective forum.

Meanwhile, everybody knows what's going on. We know the game they're playing. We know everything they say is on a propaganda track, and not a track of rational inquiry. We know they are going around the world, sending the people's military to foreign lands to act as human targets, to guard the bases and pipelines they're building for themselves. Everybody in the solar system knows George Bush has no real opinions, interests, or power, that he's just a good lackey who can do what he's told, that the real policy-makers are unknown and unaccountable.

Substance D. Deception.

When we finally care enough to do something about getting screwed-over by the powerful, what will we -- you and I, Joe Citizen -- be al

USA National ID Card: Real ID Act - H.R. 418

Without this National ID, you won't...

• Drive your car
• Board a plane, train, or bus
• Enter any federal building
• Open a bank account
• Hold a job

This bill was passed into law on May 11, 2005 by President Bush. It's to be fully implemented by May 11, 2008 at the very latest.

Don't believe me? Have a look at the official congressional documentation on the Real ID Act - H.R. 418 [loc.gov]. Are you wondering how they got this past everyone? They attached it to the Emergency Supplmental Appropriations Act - H.R. 1268 [loc.gov] bill, a bill for funding our troops in Iraq. It was passed into law as US Public Law 109-13. I mean who would want to have voting against support of our troops on their voting record, right?

Interested in more information [nonationalid.com]? Want to join in the fight? Take the No National ID pledge [nonationalid.com]. Regardless of your "religious" affiliations, this is certainly a worthwhile cause to contribute to [endtime.com], so they can continue to fight this law.

The National ID card will grant the ability for the Government to apply economic sanctions on an individual level. I hope you find this as disturbing as I do.

Re:Big "OH Brother"

So if there are many other real-world, "legitimate" examples of our freedoms being eroded how can you not have sympathy? Are your examples more important than the ones he considers important?

Re:Big "OH Brother"

And it's not even on the shelf. You have to take a card to the pharmacy and then show your ID. They want your phone number too. Like I need all that extra hassle when I feel like shit from having a bad cold.

Re:Big "OH Brother"

In Delaware, they've spent a lot of time and money getting products containing pseudoephedrine and ephedrine out of the hands of teenagers who might use them to make methamphetamine.
* Most meth doesn't come from these sources.
* These sources are hard to use if they have a lot of other ingredients (like dayquil does)
* It's much easier to make things like methcathinone than methamphetamine, and methcathinone doesn't have a big market.
* Methamphetamine production requires a lot of other reagents and laboratory equipment, and these are already on DEA watchlists...
* Only an idiot would attempt to run a meth lab by grinding up Sudafed. It's way too expensive. It's better to just order a bunch of ephedrine from a chemical supply co.
They're trying to "stop a problem before it starts" or something.
* The last time a "source chemical" was regulated, meth lab chemists found an alternate, cheaper, easier-to-obtain source which produced much stronger product (I believe it was levorotatory versus dextrorotatory, and had much more recreational potential)---the DEA's actions backfired (*coughcoughPROHIBITIONNEVERWORKEDcoughcough*) before, why won't they backfire now? (Actually, it's a collection of state governors that are doing this, not the DEA, afaik.)

We don't have a needle exchange program here, despite having tons of HIV+ needle users and a huge heroin market (and a significant number of people who shoot coke). That *IS* a problem that is right in our faces and nothing seems to be happening. Of course, when it's a bunch of low-income, inner-city folk from run-down areas that are at stake, versus potential problems for "our children, our future", maybe one group gets precedence.

Re:Big "OH Brother"

You have no idea what you're talking about:

Only an idiot would attempt to run a meth lab by grinding up Sudafed. It's way too expensive. It's better to just order a bunch of ephedrine from a chemical supply co.

Maybe you haven't made meth recently, but you can't do this anymore, unless you want an unmarked van suddenly following you around.

...teenagers who might use them to make methamphetamine...

Teenagers don't make meth, organized criminals make meth.

Most meth doesn't come from these sources

The source components used to be easily bought via chemical supply companies until the government wisely closed that loop. In response, many millions of cases of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine-containing pharmaceuticals were suddenly stolen off trucks, shoplifted, and bought...across the entire country. You think teenagers were behind that? Wrong. Organized crime. The US drug czar recommended that these drugs be put behind the counter, but the pharmaceutical industry lobbied otherwise. They finally lost that battle, but in the meantime, they were making tens of millions of dollars and they knew goddamned well that the population of Podunk Kansas wasn't legitimately using 100 cases of Sudafed every week.

In the late 90s a journalist from Seattle was investigating the rise of meth-related crimes in the region and discovered in charting them, that the rest of the US was mirroring the rise and fall over the course of a few years...upon investigating further with the FBI, he found that this pattern matched the availability of meth, based on wholesale supply, organized disbursement, etc. In other words: lots of cheap quality speed = lots of crime from the desperate junkies.

The reason this is different from crack, heroin, etc, is that a junkie can smoke $10 of crack in 1 minute, but $10 of speed can get you high for a day or so. It's easier to establish a habit at cheaper prices. I've never heard of methcathinone junkies, so something tells me that even though it's easier to make, it doesn't hold the same allure to speedheads.

They're trying to "stop a problem before it starts" or something.

The problem started 15 years ago. Perhaps you prefer pumping millions of dollars into the pharmaceutical industry so MORE junkies can come steal your TV and sell it for $10.

coughcoughPROHIBITIONNEVERWORKEDcoughcough

In this case, it has, as it's harder to mass produce meth and fewer people are turning into meth junkies. Are you suggesting the all drugs be legalized?

Make it add to their cost of doing business.

Big Brother lives by the same rules as the rest of the world. The most important of these is that manpower is expensive. This means that if people, on an individual basis, take extra time (only a minute or two) to fufill requests for information or call and ask some questions of a live person, then modern management will go nuts. Companies and organizations concentrate hard on reducing headcount and making things work more efficiently. Managers up and down the line are evaluated by these measurements. Bottom line employees are too. If you are in a grocery store and the checkout person wants some personal identification for some peaches or anything else, take an extra minute or two to give them the information. It's not hard, just ask a couple of questions about why they want it and make sure the explanation is clear.

This type of behavior causes lines to grow a little bit and things to run a little slower. Computers will notice this sort of thing and flag it. Does it mean the store has a lackadaisical manager who isn't hiring good people or is letting them slack off? The same applies to government organizations.

Much data is collected automatically. There is not much that can be done about that. However, the government has a different, but similar weakness. If you find the government is collecting some piece of information and you wish they would stop, call your representative or senator. Don't complain, just ask for an explanation about why it is needed. Insist on a good explanation. Elected officials have staffs and they cost money. As in most things some staffers are better than others. If voters start chewing up more staffer time the elected one will become unhappy. Hiring more staffers reduces quality which tends to give callers more bad experiences which leads to bad publicity.

Big Brother's weakness is that of every other organization, the bottom line, whether it be money or influence or elected position. Every organization stares at its bottom line for lack of a navel. It takes very little change to catch their notice.

Tristfardd

Re:Big "OH Brother"

And so what? Why is it any of their business what you choose to put in your body? Whether it's meth or tide with bleach or patté (banned in many places now, ISYN,) it's no ones business but your own. Forgetting that basic principle and accepting the nanny state and the endless 'wars' (the war on (some) poverty, the war on (some) drugs, the war on (some) terrorists) is what's gotten us into this mess.

So far as the original posters question, no, 1984 didn't come late. 1984 was simply 1948, with a bit of embellishment. Today is even worse than you think.

Re:Big "OH Brother"

must avoid starting a tangental flamewar... must avoid starting a tangental flamewar... must avoi... oh, screw it.

How come 30 million people have to try to live on $5.15 an hour?

Because 29,999,999 other people also have a similarily qualified skill/opportunity/motivation set and will work for $5.75/hr.

If a minimum wage exceeds the real value of a minimum-wage worker, especially in the case of a nationally-enforced minimum wage, you'd just be playing leapfrog with inflation that constantly creeps up to drive the real income of a minimum wage worker back down to what their work is actually worth to the market. That inflation would also have the effect of making everyone's savings worth less and less (not taking into account interest, which would mitigate the effect to some extent.)

This is not to say I'm for throwing out the minimum wage or other such "minimum" labor laws. If you cut out the floor, you end up screwing people over throughout the chain by allowing people willing to be underpaid to undercut, and thus lessen the value of trades and push out more qualified workers who actually wish to make a living. (Okay, so I do have somewhat of a protectionist streak to me as well.) Until some better structural solution (and don't give me any fulla'-holes 'isms) comes along, the only real solution is to keep the minimum wage at the realistic value of minimum wage work. At the moment, folks seem to think "$5.15".

(No, I'm not an economist, and yes, I welcome you to shoot these arguments full of holes, especially if you can provide links to informative material.)

Wait... what were we talking about?

Re:Big "OH Brother"

Okay, I've got to respond to this. When I was in high school, the minimum wage was $3.35, and all of us gas-money burger-flippers bitched about how little that was. I couldn't imagine trying to manage monthly expenses for even a single person, much less a small family, on less than $550 a month gross, which would be no more than $510 after SS/Med tax withholding (rent alone on a one-bedroom apartment would have eaten up more than half that).

Assuming a very conservative 2.5% annual inflation (and believe me, it was much more than that in the first decade) over the last 23 years, that $3.35 would have to be about $5.90 just to keep up. With a (probably more accurate) 3.5% average, it would have to be $7.40. And now Congress is debating a raise to $5.75? I'm not entirely a bleeding-heart liberal (although I do consider myself relatively progressive), but that's just pathetic.

You can argue that minimum wage isn't supposed to be a living wage, it's just a starting point, blah blah blah, but the point is, there are a lot of people who don't see the point of even trying for a minimum wage job because they can't afford the child care or transportation or whatever that it would cost them to hold the job in the first place.

Re:The only time I was flagged at "self-checkout".

The cash went into a scanner which picked up your fingerprints too. It now has a picture of you, your voice, and your fingerprints.

"OH Brother" ...

It's really nothing to worry about until you wake up in a bathtub full of ice, missing a kidney.

Re:Big "OH Brother"

I was going to moderate. (4) points about to expire today. But I just cannot let this example of ignorance sit at the top of a story.

Have You ever heard of CYANIDE?

Suggestion: think before you open type and demonstrate how ignorant you are.

http://www.google.com/search?q=Cyanide+peach+pits [google.com]

Don't tell anyone but pressure treated wood contains arsenic.

Re:Big "OH Brother"

Pressure treated wood used to contain chromated copper arsenate (CCA).

The EPA banned it since 2004 for most anything other than industrial or agricultural use.

There are several other alternatives available. They use significantly more copper than CCA, or they use borate. Both are more expensive than CCA.

I'm pretty sure the EPA gave the lumber companies enough leeway to move their existing stocks of CCA treated wood. The majority of wood available to the avg Joe nowadays should not have CCA in it.

Re:Big "OH Brother"

It's simple, its profiling or random checking for criminals.  Even criminals have to buy food, and if they scan in their license there is a general known area s/he frequents.

The funny thing is that people are totally happy with letting companies and goverment track them.  Every purchase with your CC is tracked.  Every purchase with an "awards card" is tracked, and people are totally fine with this type of tracking.

Personally I think it will get to the point where you no longer just punch in for a job.  You punch in to leave your house, enter your house, enter buildings,  ride public transit and so on. it will be so simple, we all ready have a trackable ID on us.  It would be simple too since they all ready do it with people on house arrest (talk into the phone and a device).

But with RFID it will be even easier, and less noticable.

Probably doable right now

It's closer than you think; many public transit systems already have the capability.

The only thing stopping them from doing it right now is allowing people to purchase with cash. Cash is a problem, because it's harder to trace cash than it is to trace credit cards.

I'll use for example the metro system near where I live, in Washington DC. It's an admittedly sophisticated system compared to a lot of other places, but it's nothing that futuristic. You can pay to use the metro (including buses) in one of two ways: you use either a credit card or cash, and you put the amount onto either a semi-reusable cardboard mag-stripe card, or a reusable RFID card. The RFID cards aren't (I don't think) stored value; they just chirp a serial number. So if you use one of those, it's fairly trivial to track you throughout the system, particularly if you load it with a credit card. Find the transaction where you added money to it, get the serial number of the card you put money on, and then follow that serial number around as you use it.

With cash the problem becomes one of identification. You can still track someone around the system using their stored-value mag-stripe card, but identifying someone as they come into the system if they pay with cash is still a significant problem. The way to get around this would be either by requiring everyone to use some non-anonymous form of payment to get in (which might mean scanning a government photo ID when paying with cash) or automated face recognition. Since most public transport is filled with cameras as is, the latter might be the way to go.

Of course none of this keeps you from buying a ticket (RFID or regular) and handing it to another person, so it wouldn't be foolproof, but I would be surprised if the police haven't used the electronic ticketing systems to figure out where suspects under pursuit enter and leave already. It's such an obvious use of the technology I can't imagine that they haven't, especially given the very high-crime areas that public-transport systems tend to run through.

Personally, I feel that it won't be very long in the future when using cash is the mark of someone suspicious. (It already is, in large quantities and in certain places -- bought an airline ticket with cash lately?) That is, anyone using cash to purchase anything from food to movie tickets will be forced through additional scrutiny, not to mention odd looks from "honest" people (using their Visa cards as God intended).

Re:Probably doable right now

The only thing stopping them from doing it right now is allowing people to purchase with cash. Cash is a problem, because it's harder to trace cash than it is to trace credit cards.

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/0,39020645,213507 4,00.htm [zdnet.co.uk] and http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,59565,00. html [wired.com] come to mind, everytime I pull a fresh crisp note from the money machine. In Amsterdam (Netherlands) public transport is switching to a mag-stripe card system. Things are getting worse and worse, every failure of law inforcement results in stricter regulation for the rest of society. Internet, phone, transport: nothing is excluded from spying and prying eyes.

Ira Levin wrote a nice story, This Perfect Day, describing a society in which every action is attached to a person, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Perfect_Day [wikipedia.org]. I said nice, not brilliant, but entertaining.

Re:Big "OH Brother"

maybe the peaches issue was just a data entry glitch, but the rest of the items are true. I myself am very angry at the absurdity of age/license checks for purchasing cough medicine. As if the big drug dealers will be buying 6 oz bottles of cough syrup to make the hundreds of gallons of narcotic. "But a few high school students made small amounts of drugs with this!", cry the Nanny-State bleeding hearts! "Look at me, I care about the children, so I voted for this law", says the power-grubbing dirt bag politician. For that matter, I was recently at the grocery store behind a 50 year old man who was refused the sale of a bottle of gin because he forgot his ID. This society is going to get a big punch in the reset button real soon, as the rewards of this increasing collective stupidity are reaped. For the simple truth is, the government has neither the competence nor resources to protect everyone from themselves, from each other, and from the realities of life.

Re:The only time I was flagged at "self-checkout".

I smell BS. An ID for a lighter? Bah.

Where do you live? perhaps I'd like to move there.

When I used to buy cigarettes in NJ, they'd card me and jot down my license. When I purchase alcohol, some stores jot down my license number on paper or punch it into their cashier devices. I bought a set of markers a couple weeks back and they did the same thing to me. They asked for ID and wrote it down.

Shit's going down, but I think it's regional. It's stupid.

Re:Big "OH Brother"

My refrigerator ratted on me: I bought too many peaches -- (the pits have poison in them) My car told Homeland Security That I drove through all those decivilianized zones My credit card was found to have Exposed itself to unauthorized stores My cellphone text messaged blasphemies to the Pope My computer -- well, my computer I thought it was my friend But its firewall let the CIA, the NSA, the RIAA It let anyone with consecutive letters Ransack my random memories My cat, even my cat turned out To have implanted chips Can I turn to My germanium geraniums?

Re:Perspective

"Already many jobs require good credit."

As someone who recently got refused a job that I went to school for on the basis of my credit rating, I agree with you that things have gone too far.

Bork!