> Having said that, we need better oversight. NSA employees have coined a > term for the misuse of the NSA infrastructure for "romantic" purposes > (LOVEINT). This is not a problem unique to the NSA. The RCMP officer > likely abused his position of power and this is exactly why we need > oversight of our military and policing institutions (well actually all > of our institutions, even the religious ones).
Sorry Gustin...fail on your part here. I can only really effectively speak for the Christian side of things, but I would imagine that most religions would be similar with relation to governance. There should be no governmental oversight of religious institutions as there are specific regulations against such thing. To coin the popular phrase "separation of church & state" in this instance IS NOT I repeat emphatically...IS NOT for the protection of society or the government from the church but the exact opposite. It is to protect the government from interfering in religious institutions & deciding how they are to be run. This is not to say that there is no oversight for religious organizations. Pretty much every denomination has sometimes multiple levels of infrastructure in place (i.e. local, regional, denominational, etc. boards, committees, etc, etc.) to oversee the doctrinal & other activities of that denomination. Part of this is to ensure that abuses of power DO NOT happen & DO NOT go unpunished if they do. There are deliberate & intentional safeguards, checks & balances, etc. put in place to avoid not only the appearances of but the perpetration of evil. This does not mean that these things don't happen...they do...but statistically they are the exception to the norm. This does not in any way excuse them as abuses from any agency to anyone for any reason are unacceptable...but there are specific things put into place. This is one thing I think society can...regardless of their theistic inclinations...can actually learn from religious groups in general. And please...no one even attempt to bring up the whole catholic thing...because they do not represent all Christians. > One comment for Budda. Ad hominem attacks on individuals (aka name > calling) does not actually lend any weight or legitimacy to your > arguments. Always focus on the topics and arguments that people are > making and not the people themselves. This is a common logical fallacy > that humans are pretty much wired to make. Having said that we are > smart enough to be able to recognize this and do better. A related > fallacy are the class of arguments known as "straw man" (or Aunt Sally > for our UK visitors) arguments. > > In your specific example, there is functionally no difference between > Obama and Bush as these programs and their abuses transcend both > presidencies and their political parties. There are a large number of > people involved and you cannot pin it on one person. You also cannot > fix the problem by running a popularity contest every 4 years. You > certainly can not have intelligent and productive debate with name calling. With all due respect I neither asked for nor require your correction of my statements...nor do I require what I will choose to accept as a friendly explanation of logical discourse & not a demeaning pat-on-head rebuke. I call them as I see them based on careful examination of the evidence. While I respect the various positions in government office I do not necessarily respect the people that hold some of those positions. In the case of the POTUS he is well deserving of the moniker(s) I (and others) ascribed as he has done more to screw & potentially cause irreparable damage to not only his country but others including Canada as well. He has set the causes of privacy, liberty, industry, the economy, equality, race relations, safety & myriads of other aspects of society back decades if not centuries. Yes...I agree...no party/individual is infallible & perfect & can have elements of blame ascribed to their administrations, but the truth on the matter is that whoever sits in that particular seat of power (wherever it may be) IS responsible & MUST BE held account...even if they had nothing to do with it. Yes...appropriate blame for certain things must be prescribed to the appropriate people. It is like buying a used outhouse...you may not have filled it up, but you own it & it is your responsibility now. The key difference is that as much of a moron (as he was called & is still called today) as Bush was he still took ownership of the position & tried to effect positive change. O's entire administration has been built around blaming Bush & instead of trying to create positive change has done even more damage on a global scale. Case in point...the current administration in the us has added more debt to the country since 2008 then ALL of the previous POTUS's since the creation of the us. To relate this all back to the original topic. This has now made everyone who holds particular views; uses particular technologies; voices certain opinions; etc. in effect a criminal. A quote I heard recently...and I don't know the exact words but the idea is the same...was "I certainly do not view Snowden as a hero, but I do have a problem viewing him as a traitor." He exposed & brought to light what was going on with our blessings for who knows how long. It was the kind of thing that everyone acknowledged but no one did anything about. The argument could be made if privacy actually does exist & if it is nothing more then a concept. But because we have let it go on so long, does that mean we loose our right to challenge it now? I think almost everyone can agree that the answer is emphatically...NO! I could go on....but I imagine most people have already deleted this message & written me off anyways...sooo...why bother. :-) Ok...last thing...I think at the core everyone is saying the same thing, we are just coming out it from a different frame of reference & with out own set of filters. I can't recall the name but there was a movie out a few years ago that had eight people who all saw the same event but each had different versions. Something to do with an assassination. _______________________________________________ clug-talk mailing list clug-talk@clug.ca http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) **Please remove these lines when replying
