Revisiting the paranoid style in American politics

[AdamSmith]

Reflections on Hofstadter's thesis in current context:

http://m.guardiannews.com/world/blog/2013/jun/10/edward-snowden-patriotism-versus-paranoia

[RA1]

Art Bell 15 years ago had a call in line he called the paranoia line.

To quote a very old line: Is it paranoia if they are really trying to get you?

Best regards,

RA1

[AdamSmith]

Indeed. Also heard as: Even paranoiacs have enemies.

The P.S. of course being too often: And he is us.

[RA1]

Did Pogo have an analyst and, if so, what was the diagnosis and prognosis?

Of course, he was before the age of instant and constant psychiatric "help" , but "we" needed it much more than he did.

Best regards,

RA1

[lookin]

According to a Pew poll conducted over the last few days, 56% find the NSA's blanket phone call tracking to be an acceptable way for the government to investigate terrorism. Personally, I belong to the 41% who doesn't. Not only is there what I believe to be a healthy wariness of unbridled government intrusion, but I also am not aware of any tangible benefit offered by the government in return for giving up even some, let alone all, of my privacy.

I hear, along with everyone else, that giving up privacy is one of the sacrifices we must make to keep us safer from terrorists. But those statements are nothing but fluff. The phrase "more wiggle room than an anorexic belly dancer" comes to mind. Before I would consider making such a deal, I'd want to know what we'd get in return. For example, how many terrorists would be neutralized if we repealed the Fourth Amendment in its entirety? Has anyone every heard even a single quantifiable benefit we'd receive in return for unending surveillance? And would the NSA stop asking for further loss of rights even then? Is it unpatriotic to ask what kind of a deal we're making before we make it?

I also think the paranoid/trusting dichotomy is not a very useful one. Are we ever really one or the other? I have no trouble at all being, at the very same time, both trusting of the intentions of the vast majority of government officials and wary of the intentions of others; and both optimistic about today, and cautious about tomorrow. In fact, if I ever lost the ability to be both, I'd seriously consider upping my sessions to at least twice a week.

[Guest hitoallusa]

Well I'm in the middle. I think these programs will be evolve into something more sophisticated that it will detect patterns or pulses of terror, danger and violence without necessary listening into private conversations. Like Galadriel in The Lord of the Rings.. " I feel it in the air" When we can detect the sign of danger in the air like Galadriel then I don't think there is a legal issue there. I think that is where these programs are heading to.

Private intelligence sector could be more sophisticated and intrusive than the government is. Another problem is that there is a revolving door between the private and government intelligence community. Those are much more serious issues than these programs in my opinion. As long as we can talk about these issues freely and find ways to overcome them we should be fine. The serious problem here is that the intelligence community needs leakers to deal with these issues. I'm optimistic that it will get better but in order that to happen, the environment of mutual communications and understanding has to set in the intelligence community. If it doesn't get better and the country becomes the evil state ruled by Darth Vader then I will become a monk and wait for Jesus's second coming. I hope there are lots of shoes in heaven. But I sometimes wonder if heaven is free from germs and hard surface, and I have my own wings, I wonder I need shoes.