news flash: steffan aids terror.

Ashcroft says to those concerned over the constitution and legality of recent executive actions:

Your tactics only aid terrorists for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve.

<sarcasm> yeah, that 4th amendment does get in the way of a good ol fashioned witch hunt. </sarcasm>

what ashcroft doesn't say with his bluster and his grand patriotic bandstanding, is that the constitution and the bill of rights were not created to aid or even assist the government in the execution of thier duties. Instead it exists so that the common man can hold the government accountable for thier actions. Simply because terrorists publish manuals showing how our permissive system can be exloited to thier ends, doesn't mean that we should change or ignore the system of checks and balances in order to hand the reins of power unchecked to Ridge, Bush, and Ashcroft. All of our leaders talk of sacrifice, but it is sacrifice of freedoms that they demand, and they offer no sacrifice or compromise when it comes to achieving thier goal, whatever THAT is... What I demand, as a citizen, is sacrifice of a sure conviction and a swift vengeance in favor of seeing the accused and judging and weighing the evidence in an open hearing. There are doubts in the world as to the legitimacy of these hearings and even the accusations they are based upon. I've already seen our justice system ruin the lives and businesses of several immigrant-americans in the name of this crusade. As an informed citizen, should i be expected to say that all of these other doubts are patently false, even when i am not shown any evidence to the contrary? I want to be sure that in the course of vengeance, we do not do further harm. How can i be sure of that, and have confidence in my leaders, if they simply do not tell me what is going on? Maybe i am getting a little extreme here, but this could easily get too far out of hand, do i dare trust the crownd that brought us the arms race? .... why, next year, the budget may be deemed a matter of "National Security" (terrorists might be able to raise more funds if they knew they could raise the stakes beyond our alloted ability to respond, they could catch us with our pants down!.) and after that, we might start seeing Orwellian reports like "Don't Worry, Everything is Fine" in lieu of any negative criticism of the government.

should i stop or should i go?

stoppers	goers
10	3

so there you have it, most of us would stop, choosing to let a bodieless token of authority with no mind and no judgement rule over our common sense. the other three of us are probably dangerous anarchistic sociopaths with no regard for the law when it doesn't suit us.

Seriously... this question, asked here and on debate, was the result of an earlier debate question, essentially, "so you think that athiests are more likely to be amoral, since they have no higher authority to answer to?" The traffic light question is a test of my answer, mainly that people behave the way they do largely because of the "social contract" which they will follow regardless of contrary evidence, as long as no harm to them is involved, and they will follow this regardless of thier individual beliefs.

My answer to this question, (to which there isn't a real "right" answer, i can see the points of both,) by the way, is to run the light after first slowing and then stopping at it... essentially treating it as a stoplight. i do this in seattle quite often, and no harm comes to me.