On Wednesday 28 September 2005 10:51 am, Alma J Wetzker wrote: > > If I may add one more, well known, from B. Franklin: > > "Those who sacrifice essential liberty for supposed security, deserve > neither security nor liberty." > > I would stipulate, without proof, that the security measures that are > visible as a result of 9/11 are an infringement of essential liberty and > provide no more than supposed security.
I know and agree with BF's quote here. I wish I could disagree with your assessment. Unfortunately, we are more a knee-jerk fire-and-forget people than a libre people. It's called sheepdom. We would rather see a drastic immediate move so we can forget about it all and move on with our lives. Politicians give us that... that's the meaning of politics in the 21st century US. This is a bipartisan deception. It doesn't matter which president would be in office, the truth is the same. That's probably why I have more faith in Arnie than the whole lot of Washington. I actually have faith in my local Rep more than all others... but that is through time-tested, action-proven integrity (and common values to my own). Since I've had to resend this, I got to read Keith Antoine's response. He seems to have come to the same conclusion I have... plausible deniability. I have a friend at work. Pretty bright, pretty well versed, but when he gets frustrated he'll sandbag, and do stupid "troubleshooting" steps in the effort to be able to claim having done everything possible to fix things. I simply cannot understand that line of thinking, but recognize that it is common among high-visibility jobs like politics. _______________________________________________ [email protected] Unsub/Pause/Etc : http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
