No subject

[citizenq at hushmail.com]

>> You missed the irony, I guess I should have put in the irony-smiley.
>>
>> Given the overall context of the bill, the debate on the floor, and 
>> it's conclusion your report is shrill and Chicken-littleish, which does 
>> nothing for creating credible support of resistance to eroding civil 
>> liberty. Do your job, support your position, and do it clearly.  Right 
>> now I have no patience for Wired-generation smugness.
>>
>
>
>This is not a "Wired-generation" issue. This issue was one Ben Franklin, 
>Thomas Jefferson, and the other Founders were worried about.
>

The wired-generation issue is that we don't need glib knowitall half-information or reporting that's packaged just like an SUV ad except it's for the socalled digiscenti.  The issue is that we need the best information that we can get and Declan's superficial reportage of the Congressional debate does NOT fulfill the need.  

I don't know how you could interpret my post as being anti-civil-liberty, what my post was about was: back up what you're saying because half-measures, half-thinking, halfway responses are not good enough.  This is not "The Operating System Wars" for christ sake.  Our lives are at stake.


We need reporting that can go to the bone and get real becuase it's all so fucking packaged and showbusiness - and Wired's no better than CNN.  I need data - not someone running around regurgitating the same Chicken Little stuff as last year, or 1993, or 1991. 

>In fact, there is no chance for public debate on this express train. New 
>laws are being passed by voice vote, at midnight. Some Congressmen have 
>admitted they have no idea what they are voting to approve, only that it 
>has something to do with fighting terrorism.
>

Show me.  Show me.  Goddamn it I want to know who's saying what so I can get some truth.  Admitted to whom?  When, where?  If we are going to do the job, do it right.  Otherwise don't do it at all.  Otherwise it's just another crypto-jihad sort of madness.


>This is the Clipper/ITAR/CDA battle compressed into a week, instead of 
>years. And there is no debate, no dissent.
>

And that again is not all true, from the portions I read in the one transcript.  Ther is debate.  But I need details.  Who's not debating?  Are you sure?  In other words, to perform a service in the interests of the cause of preservation of civil liberty, we need accurate, in-depth reporting and truth, for that is the only antidote to the ignorance and darkness.  And if the people on this list can't belly up to that bar, then you should just admit to yourselves you can't provide anything of value in this battle.  

Tim, you're of independent means, Declan you get paid to think through this stuff.  Some of us have to feed families.  Help us, and own your part in the struggle as others of us must do in ways you may not ever find out about.


>You are welcome to give up _your_ civil liberties, but anyone trying to 
>take mine away has earned killing, by any means necessary.
>

IMO a worthless sentiment at this particular moment because it thinks only of yourself and not of anyone else - but I know you're a codger and I expect that sort of response, that's OK.  But there are people with a wider responsibility, or who present themselves as having taken on that mantle of wider responsibility, so I'm hoping they stand up and do the job they have to do.

>Funny, I notice how many of the critics of Cypherpunks and supporters of 
>this express train approach to repealing the Bill of Rights are 
>themselves hiding behind Cypherpunks remailers, Hushmail aliases, and 
>Ziplip nyms.
>

I'm 'hiding' because the C130s over your place are over mine too.

>--Tim May