"National Security" and a New way

I have been thinking about the whole "national security" blinder built in to our present system. And I thought about a democratic society that had access to any governmental doings and goings on. All they had to to was ask and the information had to be given.

They could decide from informed positions, and if war came to be needed, the evidence would be indisputable.

But I think the society would not need to go to war because, if it was Americans as a whole directing this ship of a country, we would move with compassion. The money spent in war would be spent helping those who need it.

Katrina. Man, we'd have been all over Katrina. In a heartbeat. And we were when we saw we couldn't rely on the "government" who had promised us they would be on these sorts of things. Much relief effort poured out.

So I was thinking of an Amendment...

What are your thoughts about this idea. They will enlighten me.

Really? No one here wants to discuss the idea of amending our Constitution to provide full transparency in government? Maybe I posted this too late last night?

I agree that the system you described would be much better... You read my mind on that one and others hehe.

I found this.. A good start. A foot in the door so to say to what you are talking about. I tend to believe good ideas don't stay confined to one mind.. they spread without so much as a word.

The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (S. 2590)
Senators Barack Obama (D-IL) and Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK)

Google-like search engine and database to track approximately $1 trillion in federal grants, contracts, earmarks and loans.

This bill would require the Office of Management and Budget to establish and maintain a single public Web site that lists all entities receiving federal funds, including the name of each entity, the amount of federal funds the entity has received annually by program, and the location of the entity. All federal assistance must be posted within 30 days of such funding being awarded to an organization.

"At the very least, taxpayers deserve to know where their money is being spent," Senator Obama said. "This common-sense legislation would shine a bright light on all federal spending to help prevent tax dollars from being wasted. If government spending can't withstand public scrutiny, then the money shouldn't be spent."

“By helping to lift the veil of secrecy in Washington, this database will help make us better legislators, reporters better journalists, and voters more active citizens,” Obama said. “It’s both unusual and encouraging to see interest groups and bloggers on the left and the right come together to achieve results. This powerful grassroots alliance shows that at the end of the day, Americans want to see Congress work together to get something done and not continue to engage in the partisan gridlock that so often brings Capitol Hill to a grinding halt.”

Dozens of editorials boards across the country including the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, Chicago Sun-Times and The Oklahoman have also endorsed S. 2590.

So what do you think of this Amaterasu? Good start?

I notice that we don't have the bottom up social structures needed to function in events like Katrina. With so many talking about how horrible government is.. What would happen if it just vanished? Katrena was a glimpse at that. We don't have the networks of citizens to be democratic as of now... many will need to volunteer to ensure democracy lives no matter the situation..

I see a huge difference between a justified war and a staged war. Reagan refused a staged war even though he was on board with putting troops in the middle of a civil war without bullets like a sacrificial lamb. See I don't think Reagon authorized Naval the shelling. That seemed more like a pearl harbor WWII setup then Gulf of Tonkin Veitnam one. In the absence of citizen observation lies too much room for evil's like 911. Solutions are as simple as what you express.

Originally posted by Amaterasu
Really? No one here wants to discuss the idea of amending our Constitution to provide full transparency in government? Maybe I posted this too late last night?

Not so much the time as the particular venue. This particular venue is aimed at Secret Societies.

That said, your governments have been focused on war-making for a very long time, squandering a great deal of your national treasure in the pursuit.

However, until enough citizens of the States (who, as a Canuck, I refuse to call Americans on principle) take a long, cold, dispassionate and mature look at your national dynamic, the status quo will be ever thus. Here in Canada, we're covered by a national health plan which, though not perfect, does afford all access to care. You guys've spent trillions blowing things up and killing and God help your mortal soul if you get sick. Which do you think makes more sense?

That said, I'd suggest this thread be moved to a political forum rather than Secret Societies. Either way, it's certainly a discussion worth having.

Originally posted by abram730
I agree that the system you described would be much better... You read my mind on that one and others hehe.

(Wondering what else I read your mind on... [grin])

I found this.. A good start. A foot in the door so to say to what you are talking about. I tend to believe good ideas don't stay confined to one mind.. they spread without so much as a word.

The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (S. 2590)
Senators Barack Obama (D-IL) and Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK)

...

So what do you think of this Amaterasu? Good start?

Maybe. Maybe too little too late. But I do like it. Still, I think we should have NO closed meetings, with access to all official discussions. In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that part of stepping up to the plate for public office is the willingness to be surveiled virtually 24/7 (with bathrooms and bedrooms "alone zones"). If we are to have a representative government that can watch us, we should therefore be able to watch those who are speaking on our behalf.

I notice that we don't have the bottom up social structures needed to function in events like Katrina. With so many talking about how horrible government is.. What would happen if it just vanished? Katrena was a glimpse at that. We don't have the networks of citizens to be democratic as of now... many will need to volunteer to ensure democracy lives no matter the situation..

To be frank... I think with our excellent communications capabilities, and our compassion, if we had not expected the Feds to do something about Katrina, we would have stepped into the fray ready to handle things right from the get-go. As it was, despite our poorly places expectations, we managed very well to help out where we could.

Without such expectations, we would have more people ready to jump in and do something for these people.

So I think it is not so much a function of "bottom up social structures," as it is a matter of what we expect from whom in these events.

I see a huge difference between a justified war and a staged war. Reagan refused a staged war even though he was on board with putting troops in the middle of a civil war without bullets like a sacrificial lamb. See I don't think Reagon authorized Naval the shelling. That seemed more like a pearl harbor WWII setup then Gulf of Tonkin Veitnam one. In the absence of citizen observation lies too much room for evil's like 911. Solutions are as simple as what you express.

You hit the nail on the head here. Without knowing what is going on, how can we intelligently comment on, let alone make decisions about, what is going on?

Thank you for your input!

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon

Originally posted by Amaterasu
Really? No one here wants to discuss the idea of amending our Constitution to provide full transparency in government? Maybe I posted this too late last night?

Not so much the time as the particular venue. This particular venue is aimed at Secret Societies.

This board is so confusing. I saw that I was in the "Conspiracy" forum, and I wanted to post in the conspiracy forum, because I think this topic relates to removing the opportunity for conspiracies. How I wound up in "Secret Societies" is beyond me.

That said, your governments have been focused on war-making for a very long time, squandering a great deal of your national treasure in the pursuit.

This is very true. I would not argue against it in the least, and it is, in fact, one of the main reasons I feel politically motivated, trying to develop solutions to the problems of our land.

However, until enough citizens of the States (who, as a Canuck, I refuse to call Americans on principle) take a long, cold, dispassionate and mature look at your national dynamic, the status quo will be ever thus.

Oh, I know it's true. Sadly, the media is bought and paid for. This makes getting good information out to our citizens a very rough road. The internet is about the only open medium at this point - and so much crap is crawling around the net, it is difficult.

Here in Canada, we're covered by a national health plan which, though not perfect, does afford all access to care. You guys've spent trillions blowing things up and killing and God help your mortal soul if you get sick. Which do you think makes more sense?

Us guys? Not ME, surely. It is the the criminals in office who have done this, against the wishes of a great many. They pretend to listen to our coincerns and then go about doing whatever it is they are making the most money off of. It is sickening and I want an end to it. Hence I suggest a fully transparent government.

That said, I'd suggest this thread be moved to a political forum rather than Secret Societies. Either way, it's certainly a discussion worth having.

Well, I surely don't mind if the thread is moved. Like I said, I saw I was in "Conspiracies" and posted. How I got to secret societies is a mystery to me.

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon

Originally posted by Amaterasu
Really? No one here wants to discuss the idea of amending our Constitution to provide full transparency in government? Maybe I posted this too late last night?

Not so much the time as the particular venue. This particular venue is aimed at Secret Societies.

This board is so confusing. I saw that I was in the "Conspiracy" forum, and I wanted to post in the conspiracy forum, because I think this topic relates to removing the opportunity for conspiracies. How I wound up in "Secret Societies" is beyond me.

Perhaps so but SS can be oh-so-interesting depending on your mindset.

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
That said, your governments have been focused on war-making for a very long time, squandering a great deal of your national treasure in the pursuit.

This is very true. I would not argue against it in the least, and it is, in fact, one of the main reasons I feel politically motivated, trying to develop solutions to the problems of our land.

Eisenhower nailed it with his 'military-industrial complex' quote in the '50's. As exists, the U.S.'s manufacturing sector is based on fulfilling military requirements. Even our ability to communicate in this forum is based on Arpanet and the military applications thereof.

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
However, until enough citizens of the States (who, as a Canuck, I refuse to call Americans on principle) take a long, cold, dispassionate and mature look at your national dynamic, the status quo will be ever thus.

Oh, I know it's true. Sadly, the media is bought and paid for. This makes getting good information out to our citizens a very rough road. The internet is about the only open medium at this point - and so much crap is crawling around the net, it is difficult.

By and large (as one who works in said media) but the reality of 'new media' is that it really isn't that much different than old media.

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Here in Canada, we're covered by a national health plan which, though not perfect, does afford all access to care. You guys've spent trillions blowing things up and killing and God help your mortal soul if you get sick. Which do you think makes more sense?

Us guys? Not ME, surely. It is the the criminals in office who have done this, against the wishes of a great many. They pretend to listen to our coincerns and then go about doing whatever it is they are making the most money off of. It is sickening and I want an end to it. Hence I suggest a fully transparent government.

You personally, no. If yes, then I can be yer bestest pal.

The "criminals in office" have been put there by the presumed collective will. Absent an inspired short leash, they'll flumox you at every turn. From my perspective, I'm glad to see that Obama's an honest threat to the status quo. If he takes your Democratic title, it should make for a race most telling.

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
That said, I'd suggest this thread be moved to a political forum rather than Secret Societies. Either way, it's certainly a discussion worth having.

Well, I surely don't mind if the thread is moved. Like I said, I saw I was in "Conspiracies" and posted. How I got to secret societies is a mystery to me.

While you're here, look around and enjoy the ride. While it can be bumpy, it can likewise be enlightening.

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Perhaps so but SS can be oh-so-interesting depending on your mindset.

Oh, I do not doubt it, and I guess I was reading/posting on a thread in SS when I went to post this thread. That's the only explanation I can come up with. I wish at the top it didn't just say "This thread is in the conspiracy forum group." Instead, I wish it would say something like, "This thread is in the conspiracy forum/Secret Societies group." Then I would know I was too low on the tree and find a way to move up.

Eisenhower nailed it with his 'military-industrial complex' quote in the '50's. As exists, the U.S.'s manufacturing sector is based on fulfilling military requirements. Even our ability to communicate in this forum is based on Arpanet and the military applications thereof.

Oh, indeed. I think he knew more than he said, and said this as the only way he could warn us without bringing ire upon himself... We may never know.

The "criminals in office" have been put there by the presumed collective will. Absent an inspired short leash, they'll flumox you at every turn. From my perspective, I'm glad to see that Obama's an honest threat to the status quo. If he takes your Democratic title, it should make for a race most telling.

Ah, there's the rub. We DID NOT put these criminals in office. Votes were tampered with, thanks to the efforts of companies like Diebold, and there were plenty of other "irregularities." You may recall that Gore got the greater number of votes in 2000... The Supreme Court appointed Bush. And none of us elected the Supreme Court.

While you're here, look around and enjoy the ride. While it can be bumpy, it can likewise be enlightening.

[smile] I may surprise you as to how enlightened I am in this regard. Thanks for the welcome.


[EDIT: Blast these quote thingies! LOL!]

[edit on 4/4/2008 by Amaterasu]

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Eisenhower nailed it with his 'military-industrial complex' quote in the '50's. As exists, the U.S.'s manufacturing sector is based on fulfilling military requirements. Even our ability to communicate in this forum is based on Arpanet and the military applications thereof.

Oh, indeed. I think he knew more than he said, and said this as the only way he could warn us without bringing ire upon himself... We may never know.

Oh, in all likelihood yes. However, what I find distressing is that the citizens of the States are so unaware of his warning, especially given that he was an ex-military man. I'd suggest that the citizens of the States as a group are more easily cowed than they'd like to admit.

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
The "criminals in office" have been put there by the presumed collective will. Absent an inspired short leash, they'll flumox you at every turn. From my perspective, I'm glad to see that Obama's an honest threat to the status quo. If he takes your Democratic title, it should make for a race most telling.

Ah, there's the rub. We DID NOT put these criminals in office. Votes were tampered with, thanks to the efforts of companies like Diebold, and there were plenty of other "irregularities." You may recall that Gore got the greater number of votes in 2000... The Supreme Court appointed Bush. And none of us elected the Supreme Court.

Fist time out, you can use that excuse. What's the excuse second time out?

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
While you're here, look around and enjoy the ride. While it can be bumpy, it can likewise be enlightening.

[smile] I may surprise you as to how enlightened I am in this regard. Thanks for the welcome.

Not at all. Just 'cuz I'm a Canuck doesn't mean I don't have a perspective.

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Oh, in all likelihood yes. However, what I find distressing is that the citizens of the States are so unaware of his warning, especially given that he was an ex-military man. I'd suggest that the citizens of the States as a group are more easily cowed than they'd like to admit.

It's not that we're cowed, sir. It has everything to do with not having the pertinent data. With a media that kisses political a**, for whatever reason, we don't have our awareness raised about anything they want us to be aware of (can anyone say Britany?). Sure, if you're looking for it, you can find a lot of information, but it's difficult to know what data are good, what are the most pertinent, and where to start when you are looking at a vast ocean of information.

Most people, when this happens, rely on someone to guide them to the points they should look at. And far too many look to Mainstream Media. They have been taught that the Media (MSM) are out for the best and brightest stories, with honesty and fervor. We know this is not true. But most people still don't want to look at their source of guidence and think, maybe I can't trust them.

And don't think Canada is much better. You're very good with the long-distance vision, but a bit myopic. Your new head guy (forgive me, I suck with names) is no better than Bush. 20,000 to one says your guy and Bush have happily agreed to figure out how to get your country to say, "Amero, eh? Cool." [shrug] High probability, at any rate.

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
The "criminals in office" have been put there by the presumed collective will. Absent an inspired short leash, they'll flumox you at every turn. From my perspective, I'm glad to see that Obama's an honest threat to the status quo. If he takes your Democratic title, it should make for a race most telling.

Ah, there's the rub. We DID NOT put these criminals in office. Votes were tampered with, thanks to the efforts of companies like Diebold, and there were plenty of other "irregularities." You may recall that Gore got the greater number of votes in 2000... The Supreme Court appointed Bush. And none of us elected the Supreme Court.

Fi(r)st time out, you can use that excuse. What's the excuse second time out?

Sorry I failed to clarify. Gore won in 2000. In 2004, Bush won because of Ohio, which was using Diebold and other machines with scant paper trail. The exit polls were coming out very skewed from what the machines said happened. By the exit polls, Kerry easily won, but by the machines, Bush squeaked by. Not that there wasn't any hanky-panky at the polls in 2000. It was because Florida was so mired in election issues that the Supreme Court was chosen to decide the issue...

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
While you're here, look around and enjoy the ride. While it can be bumpy, it can likewise be enlightening.

[smile] I may surprise you as to how enlightened I am in this regard. Thanks for the welcome.

Not at all. Just 'cuz I'm a Canuck doesn't mean I don't have a perspective.

[grin]


[EDIT - Blasted quotes again!]

[edit on 4/4/2008 by Amaterasu]

[edit on 4/4/2008 by Amaterasu]

such a group of citizens would need to be watched as, if they were connected to interests, they could do harm. They would also need that same love for country that can cause a man to lay down the ultimate price for the greater us as one must consider how much say another country would love to learn in terms of technology and Intel... see such a group of lambs can't be afraid of the wolfs and lions or be a rat chasing the cheese.

As of now it's the rats that look at the information as in those that profit from decisions. The rats that guard the grain.

Originally posted by abram730
such a group of citizens would need to be watched as, if they were connected to interests, they could do harm. They would also need that same love for country that can cause a man to lay down the ultimate price for the greater us as one must consider how much say another country would love to learn in terms of technology and Intel... see such a group of lambs can't be afraid of the wolfs and lions or be a rat chasing the cheese.

As of now it's the rats that look at the information as in those that profit from decisions. The rats that guard the grain.

Which group are you speaking of? I proposed a Constitutional Amendment to require governmental transparency. What group enters into that?

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by abram730
such a group of citizens would need to be watched as, if they were connected to interests, they could do harm. They would also need that same love for country that can cause a man to lay down the ultimate price for the greater us as one must consider how much say another country would love to learn in terms of technology and Intel... see such a group of lambs can't be afraid of the wolfs and lions or be a rat chasing the cheese.

As of now it's the rats that look at the information as in those that profit from decisions. The rats that guard the grain.

Which group are you speaking of? I proposed a Constitutional Amendment to require governmental transparency. What group enters into that?

I'm guessing that there would be strong resistance to have information available to any and all... For reasons of technology and Intel.

I was on my own tangent on that one.. That the most likely form of that would be community groups keeping an eye on government and reporting and discrepancies... Common citizens getting security clearance for oversight.

Originally posted by abram730
I'm guessing that there would be strong resistance to have information available to any and all... For reasons of technology and Intel.

I was on my own tangent on that one.. That the most likely form of that would be community groups keeping an eye on government and reporting and discrepancies... Common citizens getting security clearance for oversight.

As I see it, we should require all elected officials to carry cameras and sound pickup virtually 24/7. It would be part of their "sacrifice" for their country.

All groups convening officially should be recorded as well. No decisions made behind closed doors. If we can't trace the evidence of why an action is taken, it is suspect, and any legislation not based on documented discussion would be void until properly discussed and voted on in a public medium.

No need for a group. Just cameras/audio and public access to what they are picking up.