Mairin was taken back to F'burg before the hurricane hit, and is attending class on her own two feet, although she is very sore and still taking medicine to deal with it.

Hard not to believe in miracles after such an event...

k

Here's to the resiliency of youth.

Stubborn little bastids!!

This is an issue which will not go away until the guvment makes it go away. The new National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) not only provides for the infinite detention of civilians (a provision Obama promised to veto, then refused to do so), it also makes provisions for government intrusion into civilian networks for the purposes of waging warfare, essentially definig the internet as a "battlefield".

Section 954 of the NDAA, entitled "Military Activities in Cyberspace", states:

Congress affirms that the Department of Defense has the capability, and upon direction by the President may conduct offensive operations in cyberspace to defend our Nation, Allies and interests subject to (1) the policy principles and legal regimes that the Department follows for kinetic capabilities, including the law of armed conflict; and (2) the War Powers Resolution."

Kinetic capabilities, heh.

The government has already done so, and this legislation gives it legitimacy. That's fine.

However, my concern is obvious: The majority of us will agree that the Patriot Act has created a slippery slope, leading to the loss of civil liberties. It was passed because the government declared US soil a battlefield. Now that the government has done the same for the internet, will our free access to it suffer through loss of anonymity, surveillance, loss of functionality, etc.?

Thoughts?

Anyone else out there totally through with these legislative monstrosities?

K

If they had the NDAA in Egypt last spring, Hosni Mubarak would still be their leader.

Dan, you are an expert in egging me on, and a true professional in pushing all the right buttons. My wife might take exception to having lost her distinguishment. In any case, it's good to speak with you again!

First, Hosni Mubarak was set up by the US just like Noriega, Saddam, Kaddafi and many others who used to benefit greatly from surreptitious US involvement. Until he was very suddenly called a dictator last spring, he was considered a great democratic ally and received more foreign aid that anyone in the region... besides Israel.

Second, they didn't need a NDAA equivalent. Their government can already imprison people at will. And they did. They also shut down the internet to thwart the organization of protests.

Third, Someone else is in power now. Do you know who? And they are still protesting over there, only it's not on the news so much anymore. They're also still rounding up dissidents. They can thank their built-in NDAA-style government for that.

Not sure I follow your gist, though. Do you prefer their old leaders over the new ones, or vice-versa? Do you stand in support of the NDAA?

Kev

Egypt is having run-off elections. It's now a choice between Muslim Brotherhood and Salafist candidates. Good luck with that.

This graphic footage is from just a few days ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5IiKfU ... re=related

Their revolution this spring was organized using Facebook and Twitter. Maybe their own NDAA would have quashed it earlier. Could be our own government doesn't want the same thing happening here.

Ask me if I prefer the old leaders over the new ones in a year or two.

Here's hoping for the best on all fronts.

Hey Dan, Kevin, happy festivus for you and your loved ones....


Do you really think so? Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, Libya, Syria, Bahrain... countries with very dissimilar situations at all levels (financial, cultural, traditional), all coordinated to challenge the establishment at the same time, thanks to Facebook?

The same happened in Latin America, in the 60's all these countries went to horrible military dictatorships and in the 80's all back to an apparent "democracy"... excellent coordination, among countries as dissimilar as Paraguay and Chile.... or Libya and Tunisia.

If you just sit tight and observe the patterns with attention, sometimes the Master of Puppets neglects to totally hide the strings and you get a momentary glimpse that there may be something else hiding behind the curtain...

Peace,

What or who are you suggesting is pulling the strings? CIA? Iran? As Kevin said, Mubarak was the USA's primary ally in the region besides Israel.

Oh... China?

I can answer those questions. The CIA is very obviously behind a great deal of these "movements" and happenings. They've been propping up leaders for a very long time in that part of the world, and when it serves our purposes, we knock them back down. We send spies, conduct surveillance, infiltrate their networks, fly drones over their airspace. We foment unrest in every conceivable manner.

Yes, Mubarak was our ally, and he kept the place real neat for a while. Interesting that you mentioned China, as they've been making huge deals in Northern Africa recently. Seems their primary source of oil in Iran may be drying up soon.

Say... Doesn't Libya have a good deal of that stuff, too?

K