You know what is hysterical?

[nadinbrzezinski]

The NSA scandal (and disregard of any privacy of citizens) has a lot in common with the war on women. Both are part and parcel of totalitarian states.

And what s amazing is that most don't realize it. We are not becoming something ugly, we already are.

There is more, disdain for international law and norms are also part of it.

What can I say? We are well down that rabbit hole...

[JaneyVee]

1. True, but terrorism is an actual threat, my uterus isn't.

But I can see what you're saying.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. Terrorism usually is handled as a police matter.

[DesertFlower]

3. i agree. nt

[Egalitarian Thug]

5. No, neither of them is.

And before you go all 9/11! 9/11! 9/11!

That was not a brilliant terrorist attack, that was a colossal, perhaps unprecedented fuck up on the part of the three stooges government we have still to this very day.

[JaneyVee]

10. It's not just about 9/11, it's global, with money flowing through charities and

Financial sectors to support terrorism around the globe.

[truebluegreen]

12. Terrorism is a tactic, not some kind of "ism"

like communism, socialism, capitalism etc. It is something the weak--who can't afford, for example, a heavily-armed, large and technologically-advanced military--will use against that type of military.

Especially when that military, and the country it represents, is offending and oppressing the weak (their belief, not yours, is what matters).

Or to put it another way, terrorism practiced by the strong is war; war practiced by the weak is terrorism.

Since we are apparently so concerned about terrorism, maybe we should try to determine what is inspiring it.

[JaneyVee]

14. I get it, terrorism is an "idea", but threats of it to the international community

Are still very much present. And it is very well funded. For examples see here: http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&geopolitics_and_9/11=terrorismFinancing

[truebluegreen]

15. No, it is not an "idea" like a philosophy or

a way of looking at the world. It is the disenfranchised fighting back, by whatever means is available to them. They will keep it up, as long as they can see some benefit, however misguided.

Saudi billions finance terrorism? Sure. The Saudis would much rather have their disenfranchised citizens directed at an outside enemy than inside at the royal family in all its despotism.

Andif we actually fostered the things we claim to value in our dealings with other countries, instead of the simplest way to further our own selfish interests, terrorism around the world would diminish.

But of course that would leave our obscenely-bloated military and surveillance complex with very little to do.

[JaneyVee]

20. I agree, but can't counter-terrorism actually be productive in preventing war?

And by counter terrorism I in no way mean drones or war. Even if we are ever a Nation at peace there seems to be a place for counter terrorism, although I believe it could be greatly reigned in.

[Hydra]

35. What would we need it for?

If we weren't stealing everyone's stuff in the Mid-East, there wouldn't be an issue.

Keep in mind how many people we killed and stole from in Latin and South America. They could easily have come here and done the same things...but mostly, they tried to fight it peacefully in their own countries.

As the poster further up said, 9/11 and the Boston Bombings used to be an anomaly- the people doing the police work were ignored and things happened. Other events were sponsored/coerced by own gov't so they could still cash their billion dollar checks.

Terrorism is a bogeyman that law enforcement could and should deal with- instead we're using Military, Secret Police(CIA) and unlawful laws to fight it. Isn't that strange, using a hammer the size of Texas rather than a magnifying glass to fix a problem(that they are creating)?

[truebluegreen]

64. Well we tried practicing counter-terrorism in Vietnam, and Afghanistan.

We called it winning hearts and minds. Based on the evidence I would have to say that it is not something the military could or should do.

"Counter-terrorism" as a police action I'm OK with but not if it includes blanket surveillance. There are some things I am not willing to give up, especially since, even in our current state of "war", in this country you have a better chance of being struck by lightning than killed by a terrorist. And I don't attribute that to our friends in the NSA, or the CIA, or the FBI. Ending the "war" would only lengthen the odds imho.

I have traveled a lot, and lived in other countries at various times in my life (like now) and for the most part I don't find the world a scary place. Mostly people just want to live their lives in peace and it is not until their lives become intolerable that they take up arms. I think the best way to radicalize a population is to run roughshod over their beliefs or laws, or to exploit them economically, all for our own (or "our" corporations') selfish purposes.

But I fear we don't really want peace, only compliance, and wealth.

[RedCappedBandit]

46. This post and your response preceding it are brilliant

thank you

[truebluegreen]

65. Thanks.

[reusrename]

56. "Terrorism" is the new apartheid.

We are creating a new sub-species of non-humans to whom basic human rights do not apply.

We call them terrorists.

This road is a return to slavery.

You mentioned the drone attacks. Remember the "double tap" drone strikes? Terrorism, plain and simple, by anyone's definition, and a war crime under US law.

Do you really believe that the "War on Terror" is about fighting crime?

[HardTimes99]

44. "terrorism practiced by the strong is war; war practiced by the weak is terrorism" - that aphorism,

my friend, is the most insightful I have read in a very long time. You have my sincere compliments and utmost respect.

[truebluegreen]

66. Thank you, but I can't claim credit.

It is a re-statement of something I read some years ago and it struck me just the way it did you.

[Egalitarian Thug]

13. Please. You seem like a rational, thinking human being.

Quit being a sucker.

We (well not we per se, rather the parasites that have accumulated the gains from the global looting that has gone on over the last 30 years) created the terrorists. The terrorists are made up of what is probably the only collection of humans on the planet stupid enough to play the part of Wile E. Coyote to the parasite's Road Runner. Don't fall for the absurd nonsense. None of us, including you, are in any significant danger from these fools.

[JaneyVee]

16. My life has already been effected by terrorism. Not looking forward to it happening again.

[hrmjustin]

19. Mine too!

I lost friends on 9/11

[Egalitarian Thug]

32. Then just like Garp, you are that much safer than the rest of us. Quit being a sucker. n/t

[hrmjustin]

33. Why is it being a sucker to worry about terrorism. I live in NYC and take the trains all the time.

It does not stop me but it is in the back of my mind at times.

[Egalitarian Thug]

39. Because you are not in any imminent danger. You are far more likely, living in NYC,

to be killed, if that is your fate as you apparently imagine it, to be killed for the $60 bucks in your wallet than by a terrorist attack.

Because the mark of a mark (a sucker) is falling for the hook, a fact that you, as a New Yorker, should be well acquainted with.

[hrmjustin]

40. Well I agree it is unlikely and it does not rule my life. I also agree that the fearof terrorism has

led to garbage from out government, but it still is an issue.

[Egalitarian Thug]

42. So is contracting the West Nile Virus. The point is that worrying about it,

never mind pouring millions and billions of dollars into it, curtailing the rights of citizens, and advancing the progression toward a police state over it, is just plain stupid.

[hrmjustin]

43. Point taken!

[HardTimes99]

48. You are 8 times more likely to be killed by a domestic law enforcement officer than

by a foreign terrorist.

Sorry, the actuarial tables do not lie.

For more information, check out this interesting read that cites stats from the National Safety Council, CDC and other organizations:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/06/fear-of-terror-makes-people-stupid.html

[sabrina 1]

57. Because there are far more imminent and real threats to the average American than terror. If

being harmed is the cause of the fear, then statistics show that terror is nowhere near the top of the list of what people should be fearful of.

Eg, while nearly 3,000 people were killed on 9/11, in the 12 years since then, more than half a million Americans were killed because they did not have access to Health Care.

At least 250,000 Americans, maybe more as I don't have the exact numbers, have been killed by other Americans in places all over this country.

Then we have our own domestic terrorists except we don't call them that. We've already forgotten the entire first grade class murdered by an American. Why are people not worried that THAT could happen again? Because it has, and it happened just moths before and will again. The reason people worry more about 'terror' is because of the propaganda 'catapulted' by the war machine.

If the same level of propaganda were to be used regarding dying of lack of HC, people would experience the same fear.

That is three quarter of a million Americans killed by Americans, politicians and criminals.

Even as I'm writing this somewhere in this country people are being shot to death or dying for want of medical attention.

I was in NY on 9/11, not in the city, but many of my friends were. I don't worry about terror, I worry about the terror we are creating all over the world, causing more terror to keep up the trillion dollar excuses for 'war' for profit.

[ErikJ]

17. So you dont think our imperialists smacking the hornet's nest with drones bombings is going to be

paid back in the future with something that trivializes 911?

[Egalitarian Thug]

31. No. They are justifiably enraged and have been egregiously harmed, but the bottom line in this case

is that they are illiterate, poor, and utterly powerless. They are the warm bodies that the agents of parasitism will use to scare the suckers into giving the parasites even more power.

[zeemike]

18. What you said.

It is a convenient war to have because it is never ending and no one knows when it is won.
And cheep to maintain too..just find a nut to plant a bomb and you can get the governent to spend billions to protect us...and the contractors will line up to take the cash.
PT Barnum would be laughing his ass off right now.

[Egalitarian Thug]

55. And these fuckers are making more money from it than old Phineas could even imagine. n/t

[BlueStreak]

52. Basic question. Does the "security state" make us safer or less safe from terrorism?

[Egalitarian Thug]

54. Much less. It's not even honestly debatable. n/t

[MotherPetrie]

4. K&R

[DirkGently]

6. Conservatives require an underclass or three to abuse.

Every "issue" for them seems to be a fight to put some entire class of people down into a substrata where they can be mistreated. Classified as less than people. Jailed, stripped, PROBED.

We know there is an ugly tendency for some people to view their own happiness or success more in terms of being better off than someone else than in being okay themselves.

Undocumented immigrants are "illegals" -- like that's a kind of person, who have no civil rights and can be grossly underpaid / mistreated. Not really people, you know. Punish them. Break up their families. Ship them back.

They framed preventing gay people from marrying as "defending traditional marriage." What they meant was their marriages would mean less if they couldn't deny them to others. It makes them sad to see other people happy.

"Terrorists" and "traitors" are now anyone who rocks the boat. Again, no civil rights. That's VERY important. No jury trial. Imprison them forever. Strip them. Blow up their children from a distance.

And women. Women are apparently the last, most ancient, most cherished underclass. Their sex is a constant temptation and danger to us all. Their cries of rape are to be mistrusted. They are guilty of depriving men of their sons on a whim. They must be taught shame, over and over again.

Who's the next underclass? Who's going to be redefined as subhuman? Teachers, maybe? Certainly low-wage workers.

These are cowards who think so little of their own worth that the only way they can face life is if someone else is made to suffer more. For their skin color or their religion or orientation or gender or their ideas. There's always a justification for them -- some "those people" who don't count, who have no rights, who exist to be abused.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. This is not just conservatives.

At this point it is well bipartisan. We are now something I no longer recognize, but beacon of freedom...hardly

[DirkGently]

21. It's a conservative mindset, I think.

That monkeybrain thing where they are defending the Tribe by keeping others from being equal.

Might be shared with people calling themselves something else, of course.

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. Slightly disagree

It is an authoritarian mindset

[DirkGently]

26. There's an overlap I expect.

The underclass thing I was reaching for is more than just "follow the rules or pay the price," which is kind of how I think of authoritarianism in general.

There's something more to some of this. A need to classify and oppress. The entire flavor of the abortion bullshit is that old, old thing where women are not to be trusted because of their sex. The vicious conceit of the probe for an "informed decision," because, oh yes, women are also kind of stupid. It's a leering, unapologetic dishonesty that puts me in mind of the Jim Crow antics.

We're gonna get you, girl.

More chillingly vicious than, say, smearing whistleblowers. It's an embrace of making a whole class powerless; implying they are LESS.

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. Women need to be in their place...

Is truly an authoritarian, some are conserves, biblical mindset

I hate Bronze Age thinking, but it is with us

[DirkGently]

36. Authoritarians & bigots play well together.

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. Exactly

[hueymahl]

27. You are correct!

The opposite of liberal is not conservative, it is authoritarian. Unfortunately, the democratic party has its fair share of authoritarian leaning pols. Not as many as the rethugs, but that is kind of like saying a prison has more criminals than a police force.

[JeffHead]

8. You nailed it! +1000

Nice post!

[TheJames]

53. "The Gate to Women's Country" by Sheri Tepper

I highly recommend this.

[allin99]

9. i def. realize it, they both leave me with...

same vile feeling of being oppressed. It leaves you feeling f'g helpless. Your gov't has control and you have millions and millions of people on your side, but the gov't still gets to take away your rights. It's a really weird feeling, esp when we're raised to believe that here we have rights that prevent the gov't from doing the very things they're currently doing. It's such an awful feeling.

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. Like walls closing in

Indeed

[allin99]

74. To me it feels like a cloud hanging over....

it's the exact same feeling i had under guilliani when he went off the deep end. I so looked forward to it not being like this after Bush left office. My god, people were literally, and i mean literally, dancing in the streets. I noticed pretty early on that it wasn't changing but i figured that that was the economy. But now i realize, it's not just that.

i live in an area where people are pretty expressive, in the arts, into politics, and people here notice it and you see literally see the effect it has on people. clinton dlc'er or no, it did not feel like this. after 8 years of bush that mother fucking fuck, all that shit continued and the fog never lifted....killing the u.s. citizen with the drone was when it became clear to me this oppressed helpless feeling was not about the economy. If an election were held today, you could not pay me to campaign for a president. no way, jose, and i pretty much always have.

[L0oniX]

23. K & R

[Honeycombe8]

24. I see that. nt

[marions ghost]

25. yes people want to compartmentalize,

wall things off as though they are not interconnected. But there is a pattern, there are links between the strategies of oppression. People want so much to think, "it can't happen here.' I want to think that too, but the reality keeps seeping in....

Yes the disdain for international law, and rejection of the concept of human rights (that can trump a state's rights, depending on circumstances)--this is also part of the downward spiral. I guess people don't want to see this because they hold onto the fond idea that the US always acts nobly and correctly in international spheres. How anybody can uphold that after the Bushites I don't know.

[bluedigger]

28. American Exceptionalism, Patriarchal Entitlement

It's all "We are better than you, and we know better than you, so do what we want".

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. And it is fraying now

[dtom67]

34. it is funny to me ,too....

because I am at a loss to explain the War on Women's Rights. I don't understand the motivation behind it. Who really supports these ridiculous attacks on Women"s Freedom? I have never believed the argument about the return to" traditional " values. If they were truly pro-family, they would support higher wages so that parents could spend more time with their kids and less time at work.

NSA spying, on the other hand, makes perfect sense to me. The goals of domestic spying have less to do with terrorism and more to do with the interests of the Elites. I'm sure such data is used to further Corporate interests,and as such, is nothing less than government -subsidized industrial espionage.
The True purpose of domestic spying, however, seems clear; to prevent mass dissent. It is part of an all-out attack on organized protest. Spying lets the government identify organizers and can provide pretext for pre-protest arrests.

Attacking Unions gives the benefits of a lower standard of living ( which is quite useful in maintaining control of the masses ) and the removal of the organizational skills of such groups.

Patriot act and ndaa are part of the attack; changing constitutionally protected Rights into Privileges that can be granted or withheld at the the whim of those in control.

The militarization of the police force is another anti-protest move. Anyone that says this is about terrorism is full of it.

Corporate media is part of the attack; peaceful protests can only be effective with a free Press.

Right here. Right now. We are a fledgling totalitarian State.

There are professional spin doctors out there that will say that my " hair is on fire", but don't worry; that smoke is just something they are trying to blow up your ass....

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. Exactly.

All this is connected.

[questionseverything]

71. ...

24. abstract "Matters of Principle".

in roe vs wade the sc found that a woman could have an abortion before viability because of the right to privacy in the 4th amendment

if these rep controlled states get their way that will be challenged in front of robert's sc...roberts is same guy appointing all fisa judges,the same judges that actually changed the law by determining "relevant" means everything...do you think the same conservative judges that think every communication on the planet is free game to be collected will side with a woman controlling her own body?

the right to privacy promised in the 4th is all we have between us and state-sanctioned reproductive slavery

[Hydra]

41. I can give you a little insight into the war on women

It's to control breeding rights. I understood that when I read an article about how Kissenger, asshole and troll look-a-like that he is, gets various hot women into bed with him.

Disempowering women gives men that are not good mates the opportunity to continue spreading their genes. Even "traditional" marriage fights and abortion rights are about that. If women had more choices and opportunities, a lot of men would be out of luck. I think that's a good thing, but this is how it's worked for a LONG time. This may even be the foundation stone of Patriarchy.

Also, if women were in charge, a lot of the worldwide crap would stop. The boys don't want to give up their toys.

[curlyred]

45. I can count on Nadin to post something thought provoking

Whether I agree or not, it's a wonderful thing.

[RedCappedBandit]

47. It would be hysterical

if it didn't seem that we were so powerless to combat the corporate powers that be that propagate their neoliberal agenda around the globe.

[nadinbrzezinski]

49. See that union label

Gompers had a solution...never realized...think international.

[RedCappedBandit]

50. Looks like I have my homework for the evening

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. Samuel Gompers

1880s

[Pretzel_Warrior]

58. It's funny you would use "hysterical" in a post about war on women

Considering it's etymology

[nadinbrzezinski]

59. Yup, I did That on purpose

I guessed you missed the connections though..not surprised.

The choice of language *was* on purpose b

Why? Read the OP.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

61. I see. I did read the op which is why

I referenced war on women. I don't see your connection really.

[nadinbrzezinski]

62. I guess you will have to live through it

[bobduca]

60. nationalism is a poison

it rots and addles the mind, and strives to convince you that people outside an arbitrary line drawn before you were born, are sub-human.

[nadinbrzezinski]

63. Yeah, but we are going from the garden variety

Which is bad...to the totalitarian police variety.

[hobbit709]

67. Bread and circuses

As long as TPTB can distract the one issue voters on the one side and the easily outrage on the other side, they can keep getting away with their real agenda-which is to return us all to a condition of serfdom.

[Motown_Johnny]

68. "disregard of any privacy of citizens" is inaccurate

You/we still have the right to privacy within our own homes, and to an extent within our cars (or other vehicles).

The fact that the NSA has gotten private companies to disclose information about what goes out over their servers and phone lines is not an invasion of your home. Those companies own those servers and phone lines, we don't. If you are expecting your right to privacy to extend to someone else's property then you are going to be disappointed. It doesn't. It never has and it never will.

Privileged information is just that, privileged. We use a different word than "right" because it is something different.

I agree that the NSA is going to far and that The Patriot Act needs some serious changes, but making statements like " disregard of any privacy of citizens" is inaccurate, irresponsible and counter productive.

[nadinbrzezinski]

70. And the truth...

Inverted totalitarian states are funny that way. We are one

[great white snark]

72. Agreed.

Although it won't stop President Obama's supporters from being called totalitarians.

And you think it's bad now...just wait until elections get nearer. Defeatist OP's telling us how beyond repair we are so why work for any candidates. Or even vote for that matter.

[carolinayellowdog]

69. Russians seem to be our closest parallels in some ways

Most of my life I hoped that the US middle class might reach levels of security and progress comparable to those in western Europe, Australia, Canada, New Zealand. Now it seems inevitable that we won't, that our wealth disparities will always be more like Latin America's, and that the people we have most in common with may just be our Russian frenemies. Disdain for international law and norms, going down a rabbit hole, ruthlessness toward dissidents, energy sector domination, bad public health compared to western Europe and Japan...

[felix_numinous]

73. Exactly-- both issues are about personal space

and the insult of experiencing some privileged self empowered group taking it upon them self to redefine it!!!

Edit: Well 'hyster' ical is an interesting term to use, as it's roots have to do with out of control women....