Daycare Daddy

Producer's Note:
This pod is a deliberate experiment in minimalist production tools. The footage was shot with a Canon PowerShot A70 digital still camera in movie clip mode using a chair and books as a tripod. The lighting for the interview was 2 clip lights, a florescent desk lamp and a child's disco ball light. All editing was done entirely in Quicktime Pro. The sound was mixed "live" in Quicktime while recapturing it with an audio capture application. Titles were created in PowerPoint.

i really liked it
gonna be a while b4 i like something more than torture rant,
but this was real, and good, and the production quality is just fine for this content
i like you, your kids, the statement, and i liked the vid
it is better than at least 90% of what is on TV
but there is nothing i'd rather see broadcast than the other, aformentioned work
good job

i think this film is great... good on you!
amazing that you shot it alll with a digital still camera and it is cool to hear your thoughts on stay at home daddying... enjoyed.

It's just nice to have a window into someone's world like this, which is what makes Current great. So, thanks for opening the window.

Dude! This was beauftiful! Now I feel a little bad about the 'attractive' comment in the other pod, because as a Dad figure you come off shining! My wife and I have a similar situation, where I work from home in the same line of work as you, and she works at a stable job with good benefits. We're considering kids next year, and this is almost a 'how to' video for what we discussed for our life. Amazing. This piece touched me, and your kids are absolutely adorable. Greenlighted! -zen

Thanks Zen.

Well done (regardless of any "minimalist" production), insightful piece. I enjoyed it thoroughly. greenlight!

yeah dude... i am a fan of your work. well done.

Hey Plisko,
I like what you have done here. It is a good piece of work. It is a changeup to other videos I have seen from you. I am a married father of four children, and have been a Wedding Photographer for almost 15 years. I have only one day a week that is 'scheduled'. The other six days I am extrememly flexible. My wife has worked part time for the 15 years we have been married. I gave the night-time feedings to all of my children (my wife is a heavy sleeper), and have changed as many diapers as she has.
I am fortunate to have that 'mix' of which you ascribe. My wife works 16 hours a week as an RN, and between our two incomes we make ends meet. I also teach part time at an Adult Ed school, one night a week.
We are both able to attend parent/teachers meetings and other school related appointments where I regularly see mostly women (no men). I am with you. I think patriarchs should be much more invloved in thier childrens lives.
Before the Indus. Revol. children saw equal time with both parents. In the 20th century the father dissappeared into the 'work place'. That is a shame and has, in my opinion, slowly but surely contributed to many of the social problems that exist today.
Keep up the good work with your children. They wil appreciate it later in life, and yes, do your best to get your wife into the picture as much as possible.

Jared Cicon

p.s.
I enjoyed watching this video of yours, mostly because it is a lot less angry than most of your others. Some people turn off when they see intense hatred in a persons deameanor. Few people are taken seriously when foaming at the mouth. As humans, we rarely ever repeat the same words at 'peak anger' as we do once we have calmed ourselves and becaome more intellectually stable. If you are preaching to the choir, you are wasting your time. If you are trying to convert, you are going about it the wrong way (IMO). If the information is powerful enough, then the stage, props, camera angles and emotional delivery is secondary to the messagge, and these things that cloud that message do it a dis-service.
I am the quintescential conservative. I am the person you need to win over if you hope to have your ideas permeate. Try less anger and more frankness. The message is much more pallatable that way.

Nice job. I did the stay at home dad thing too and really enjoyed it. Go Dads! It is tough though sometimes. Some people wonder what is wrong with a guy who stays at home. That's annoying. This might be a good topic for a longer doc.

I'd love to get your opinion on our new video: link

Jared.

I will answer you here in hopes that an exchange in this topic will be more meaningful than it has been between us up to now.

I will admit that I was angry in the Torture Bill Rant. That is probably why I called it a rant. That morning I woke up to discover that my congress had passed a bill that allows the President, ANY PRESIDENT, till kingdom come, to authorize torture and throw people in jail FOREVER based on a secret trial and secret evidence they aren't even allowed to see. All he has to do is label them a "terrorist". This monstrosity of a bill passes congress, later to be signed into law, and everyone just swallows it because they're a bunch of chicken shits. It pushed me over the edge.

As a quintisential conservative I don't know why it didn't push you over the edge.

I, like most conservatives, don't think that a government with too much power over the people will do importaint things well. I, like most conservatives, believe it is every persons responsibility to make sure they are secure in life, not the governments. I, like many conservatives, believe that we are a nation of laws but citizens should have guns just in case lawmakers stop representing us. I believe that the government should not be able to know anything they want to know about me and my life or tell me how my money should be spent. I believe we are a country of laws, not men. Not even the President is safe if he breaks the country's laws. To spare the country the "pain" of jailing a President is to say some men are too importaint for laws. I believe that is a shameful line of reasoning. This is because I also believe, like many conservatives, in originalist interpretation of the constitution when it comes to some subjects. Subjects like impeachment, checks and balances, habeus corpus, and the fact that corporations don't have the same rights as citizens because they can't be drafted, they can't be thrown in jail, and their soul cannot be saved. I believe in family values where children with attentive parents are the most importaint thing in life. I also believe in originalist interpretation of the New Testiment. Original as in. . back before they said it was the word of God. Back before it was the book of Christ Inc.: holder of the largest collective bank account and real estate holdings in the world, a lobby the size of the tobacco industry, massive television and radio holdings and a marketing wing that puts even Wallmart to shame.

I believe in all of these things, many of which I think most conservatives do. The only thing I don't agree with is that the people who have been marketing and branding the conservative name for the past 20 years and pulling nearly ALL the levers of government for the past few years have anything to do with conservative values. I live in the state of Barry Goldwater. If he made a rant video expressing his outrage today, modern conservatives would be saying he was a foaming at the mouth liberal.

My rant titled "Everything changed since. . ." complains about things that have mostly been traditional conservative complaints. It is also not an angry delivery by any stretch. I find it ironic that a self defined conservative would see it as something contrary just because I am talking about the current leadership who I see as jackles in conservative clothing. That is precisely the metaphore that all that spinning was representing. I know I got it right when some of the most conservative people I know in life were patting me on the back because the same stuff was bothering them.

You might find that my videos are a lot more about the REAL old fashon conservative values than you give credit for. I blame Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove for changing what it means to have conservatve values so much that conservatives themselves don't recognize it and liberals sound like old conservatives.

Hey Plisko,
I accept your invitation to continue our exchange. Concerning the bill you spoke of in the 'rant': I saw a situation where 'my' congress made a tough unified decision on a matter that our forefathers could never have anticipated. Our constitution is a document that was marvelously drafted. I personally think it was 'Divinely inspired'. Because it was penned by man, however, it had flaws. Flaws that wouldn't be exposed immediately. Flaws that would require re-working 25, 50, 100, 200, and probably 300 years after it's origin.
Early on, these inadequacies were remedied by the Bill of Rights. As man and America progress further into the modern era, more amending and altering will inevitably take place concerning our governmental structure and the laws that dictate our freedoms as citizens. Would I rather have it another way? Yes. Did I have a better answer to a serious dilemma? No.

I have to ask you at this point: What is your feelings about the proposed 'Southern Fence' and illegal migration?

For me, national security is the single most important issue. Kerry would have further weakened our military. He, like Bill Clinton loathed the military. Gore is floating around the stratosphere trying to put a band-aid on the Ozone. If I had another choice for President, one that was truly serious about our national security, I would vote for him (or her, maybe).
I agree with you ( I think ), that our two-party system has gotten convoluted and ineffectual.
I wish we had better representation.
I, however, (and I know this is where you and I part company) feel that the war in Iraq is necessary. I also feel that the media of the world (including our own domestic press) enjoys making America look stupid, oppressive, and misguided. It is lonely at the top brother.
Let me share an education I recieved that was really just a confirmation of what I believed concerning an event relating to the war in Iraq:

A little over a year ago I attended a lecture (talk) at the LDS building in Mildred Street in Perris, Ca. I was one of only 35 or so in attendance. Professor Mayfield (I forget his first name) was speaking. He had returned not too long ago from a year long service in Iraq. He was one of three undersecretaries responsible for istalling an inturim government immediately after the more part of the initial fighting had ended. One of the cities in the 5 provinces he was responsible for ,(There are 18 in Iraq) was a municipality named Karbala. One day he arrived home after a full 12 hours of delivering pallet after pallet of History books to a gymnasium of a school, wherein he gave tutorials to the teachers concerning thier usage.
At one point during his instruction one of the 'teachers' stood up and with tears streaming down his face, thanked professor Mayfield for the great service he was doing the country of Iraq. You see, this would be the first time in 30 years that the children of Iraq would be taught from textbooks that didn't have a picture of Saddam on every other page.
When he arrived home after his work in the city proper (Karbala), he sat down on his couch and made the mistake of turning on CNN. The graphic text on the screen read "CHAOS in KARBALA". He had been delivering and helping teach throughout the city of Karbala all day for the whole week and knew nothing of this "CHAOS". It turns out that some ever-ready reporter was given a 'tip' by an eveready 'insurgent' that there would be gun play in a remote part of the province.
Karbala was not in chaos, but veryone in America was sure it was. Thank you CNN.
What I am grateful for is that the media can't make up dead bodies. If they could, than the death toll of our troops would be 300,000, not 3,000, and I am sure most media outlets would be happy to deliver the body bags.
The simple cold hard truth of the matter is that after 3 years in Iraq, the death toll is still lower than the single day at Iwo JIma. I know this truth stings some people. Sorry.
(s

The great divide resides on the issue of whether or not Saddam aidded and encouraged world terror. For me there is no question. You are entitled to your opinion. Soon we will be kicking some ass in Iran. The leader there is as much a threat as Saddam was. People will dissagree with our involvement. It will not change my opinion. If China doesn't take care of business, we will also have to take the lead in N.Korea. I am OK with that. I am not a warmonger, I simply understand the consequences of in-action.
For all his flaws (and there is a list), 'W' is the only leader we could have elected that would conduct foriegn affairs the way I agree with.
I don't have the time to spell check. I hope I haven't made too many errors in spelling or grammer, sometimes they do result in a unintended expression. I noticed one of your fans picking my last post apart (on the 'Flame' page). It was actually sort of amusing.
Hope this post better clarifies my view (feelings) of 'The Press' in general.
Sincerely Jared Cicon

Do you give any credit to the fact that your reasoning is as old as war itself?

There is always a grave threat. Do you think that the founding fathers didn't know terrorism? Do you have any idea what the British, and British surrogates did to them during that time?

When I hear people talking about the "post 9/11 world" it makes my head explode. Do you have any idea how many times that kind of device has been used? Every few decades there it is popping up somewhere as a new boogy man and people just keep swallowing it whole every time. The only thing that saves them, if anything, are a solid set of immovable principles that they can't break.

Every war, ever, justified or not, has been carried out as a necessary evil. . . .just doing what has to be done. Every empire that has even wanted to expand has needed a narrative about their grave duty and the future of our children to sell the people so that they can make it feel OK in their minds.

To say that the ends justify the means is to say we are psychic and we know what ends our means will bring. It is a bunch of claptrap.

So what is the tough decision? The tough decision is to live and die by our principles. It is to NOT break them at any cost.

I believe the trouble we are in is that it is much easier for some people to want Daddy President take care of all of our fears than it is to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and make their own stand. Humanity craves a king. It's as simple as that. But no human is fit to be king because the job ultimately corrupts. THAT is what the founding fathers knew when they made the bill of rights.

I am a flight 93 American. Terrorists can bite me. If I was on that plane I would have been right along side them tearing out terrorist eyeballs with my fingernails if it came to it.

This is not a military battle. It is civilians vs. civilians and we are all soldiers. I will gladly die and I would gravely accept my families death in the name of keeping America's principles intact. I would be ashamed of any family member or any other American that themselves would not make that sacrifice if it was necessary. This country is great because of what it has always been. Nobody ever died for it so that people could start spinning our bill of rights as something quaint.

If terrorists think they can take this country down with sleeper cells let them try. It would take 100 9/11 style attacks to even make a dent and we would be hunting them down the whole time rather than occupying countries. I would gladly see all the money spent on the Iraq war spent legally on special forces and reasonable kinds of security measures like local law enforcement and investigation tools, nuclear and bio detection at all entry points, inspection of cargo on planes and inspection of shipping containers, tighter security on ALL public transportation and a robust boarder patrol rather than some token guys with guns and jeeps.

You could get a lot of home security, all within people's civil rights, for the trillion dollars Iraq is about to cost. You could probably also create a special ops force like none the world has ever seen who can beat the terrorists at their own game with 100 men rather than supporting a billion dollar per week military force that actually helps train terrorists in live combat operations with American tactics.

Do I want a fence around my country? Hell no. Good grief. What if I needed to leave and they didn't want me to?? Hmm???

Exactly how much do you trust your government?

This discussion hinges on that question. Would you strip yourself of all personal means of protection and give it to them? Would you think it is ok for THEM to decide what freedom means without hard laws like the bill of rights that have already served us so well?

The Torture and Prison Bill was not some hard choice. It was a surrender of core American principles to chickenshits.

Hey Plisko,
Lighten up. As bad as you fear things are, or are going to be, I do not believe the sky is falling just yet. Every generation of Americans has had crisis that required people to chose sides over. Roosevelt was warned to stay out of 'that' war across the ocean. It was none of our business, it could spell only 'doom' to America.
Your concerns have been echoed before, and time and again have been shown to be less viable than those of the opposition.
Despite all of the 'evil' that is blamed on the United States of America, despite the fatalists who are convinced that surely 'this' is the decade, 'this' is the generation who is making the irreversable mistake, our great nation remains the single most enamored and sought after destination for the worlds beleagured.
Those who travel abroad regularly come back to the states and suck soil, grateful to return to a nation (one of very few) that allows you to voice yourself the wau you do Plisko.
You talked about some secret forces who could solve all of the worlds ills with 'micro strikes'. Some sort of Secret Ops. team that could operate in clandestine cover to rid the world of all evil. I wonder just how much latitude you would grant them to operate in relation to thier 'secret activities'. Just what part of the Geneva convention would you allow them to usurp? In Guantanimo did you know that our female officers can't give muslim prisoners orders relating to certain activities because it goes against thier religion? Would our secret ops be able to 'operate' during Ramadan? Sorry, I'm not buing it.
I served in the army. I understand the self preservation instincts that create the Iraeli conscription requirements of it's citizenry both male and fefmale.
We as a nation have never been 'occupied'. We are a spoiled bunch. Ask some of the nations in the European block how important strong borders are. They don't need to be asked twice, they have been bitten more than once.
When an event happens in San Diego to some sleepy little elementary school, the likes of which happened a little over a year ago in Russia, then the lights will go on in the heads of the intellectual freedom fighters of America (or maybe not).
Intil then it will be business as usual.

I think you make a gross assumption if you think I envision our current administration as 'DaddyPresident'. It is oversimplications like this that only make for political conflict, plisco. It makes one think that you truly are not hearing them. It makes the gap much wider and more difficult to join between two ideals (schools of thought / groups of people) that could do much more united then divided on all issues across the board. An all or nothing approach in a 'Democratic' society is not the way to go.

I fear at this point we should probably recognize the value in acknowledging our rights to disagree. And isn't that the premise upon which our nation was founded anyway?

Nice talking to you. It is clear niether of us is going to equivocate. There is nothing wrong with wearing the 'other' jersey.

Jared Cicon

FDR was warned by Republicans to stay out of that war. It is that very same kind of people that are now saying we must stay IN this war. I don't think their track record is very good.

I'm sorry but I cannot lighten up. From my perspective our house is on fire and we are hemorrhaging money. Maybe the shift in congress will help maybe it won't. Either way the people have been led into trouble and it is going to be a hard road back.

Don't mistake my disgust with the current situation with my resolve that military operations are sometimes needed and sometimes beurocratic toes need to be stepped on. My issue is more about political and financial profiteering off of war and ulterior motives for war getting in the way of what's best for America.

Why are we contracting this war out? There are as many foreign contractors in Iraq as there are American troops. Why are contractors exempt from prosecution if they commit crimes? What if the actions of contractors are the tipping point that leads to our loss? How is that calculated?

Why are contractors supporting troop operations for profit in such a grave conflict that effects the fate of our very civilization? What if their profits were the tipping point between winning and loosing? How does that get calculated? This isn't even the free market where the profit makes for better competition. They are exclusive, no bid, open ended ATM accounts given to military and security contractors who appoint former politicians to their board of directors.

Why are we advocating tax cuts in a time of war? The very fate of civilization is at hand. What if those tax cuts are the tipping point that leads to our loss? How is that calculated? Why is nobody expected to contribute when military costs skyrocket?

This is the stuff that makes me crazy my friend. This is not a noble cause to right the worlds wrongs. This is Superbowl marketing skills selling planned chaos with slogans and songs so that jackals can steal under the fog of war. If they aren't screwing this all up on purpose they are so bad at national defense as to be criminally negligent and that is just as bad when the fate of our civilization is at stake. Wouldn't you think?

This is dangerous dangerous territory. Your friend FDR said "Beware of the military industrial complex." because he knew it could one day grow up to become a monster that NEEDS war to survive. Welcome to that day. Back then companies did other things to survive and they built military hardware when they were called to serve. Just like citizens are called to serve, so were corporations and assembly lines. Back then profit during war was a sin against the country. We have completely lost sight of that value.

Today, on one side, we have politicians and their advocates who use "this is time of war" and "we were attacked on 9/11" as a trump card to get anything they want, including endless military money and the bending of laws that are supposed to be unbendable. On the other side we have a hungry group of military contractors more than willing to make campaign donations and hire retired politicians in hopes of juicy contracts. How is there any possible way that these things can exist together without corruption and chaos following? Now add on top of that the fact that the American people have been so whipped up about the great "war on terror" that they are ready to surrender their rights for the cause. I'm sorry but this is a much more tangeble threat to me than terrorist sleeper cells in America.

No good can come from this. The people are fiddling with American Idol while America is cracking around them. I feel compelled to do whatever I can using my skills to help get their attention back on track. If that means getting intense and angry at times then so be it.

Sorry Plisco but you conviently and way too quickly sidestepped the sleeper cell issue. You suggest it isn't important to YOU. While that may be an honest statement on your part, I think it is more important to the rest of us than you think. There is no way in hell you could have gotten away with saying that, (even here in this forum) within 6 months of it occuring.
But you are right. The American Idol generation forgets all too quickly.
If America knew ahead of time that over 3,000 people would be killed in about 32 minutes in the WTT's. Do you think it would matter to anyone? Sorry, but it matters. You see, because right now, we do know ahead of time. We know the threat is as real today as it was on December 10, 2001. Now however, some of us are a little smarter. Despite all the people who casually suggest it was just an anomally or apparition, a glitch in the system, freak coincidental happenstance. . . . . 3,000 innocent American lives.
The three thousand dead soldiers that have occured over three years, should bother you no more than the 911 victims. They are all 'martyrs'. And you just can't see it.

Moving on.
Did you ever do the math on how much it takes to feed, train and house the military whether we are at war or not? Your suggestion that 'Big Business' is behind it all is not realistic. That same big business is very much employed during peacetime wether we have a war or not. The fact that someone has a dirtier job to do during actual conflict and is making money TOO (HALIBURTON) is a moot point.

What I do get from you however is a passion. This passion is important. Because even though I think you ar 90% wrong on most points, it is this 'feet to the fire' passion that keeps our elected officials in check and helps rectify the 10% that needs to be fixed.

I'm sorry but I feel alot better about America and what we are doing than yourself, France, and a collection of other rogue governments who never much liked us to begin with anyway.

For me, as long as we remember God and to include him as part of our lives, The same God that our founding fathers based the majority of thier governmental philosophies on, then we will be OK as a nation.
People I know who believe and have a strong thological faith, don't seem to worry as much as those aquaintances who have abandoned thier faith. I imagine for the latter group, this world must be a scary place.

Sincerely
Jared Cicon

I did not say I was not worried about sleeper cells. I said that the other things were a much more tangible threat that can do us even more harm. If we had a suicide bomber show up in night clubs once a year we would still have more people dying from smoking, car accidents, obesity and any number of other things. We were all asleep on 9/11 when it came to security. I highly doubt they will ever reach that level of success again. All these boogymen about nukes and bio weapons are extreme long shots at best. We are in MUCH more danger of natural disasters like Katrina or government disasters like slipping into dictatorship because everyone is so self absorbed they would give away the country to someone who says he will keep them safe.

For the record I was living and working in NYC when they hit us on 9/11. My wife was one of the people downtown running from falling rubble as the towers fell. I breathed the particulate ash of fallen Americans for a year after. The smell of burning skyscraper was all pervasive. I saw those faces of the missing covering the walls for blocks and blocks. I looked at my skyline every day and saw those missing buildings like a face missing it's 2 front teeth. I experienced far more than any cameras ever could. Please don't make the mistake of thinking I was not very close to this thing when I talk about sleeper cells.

I don't understand why it isn't obvious to you that terrorists have very few resources. It would take extraordinary efforts to take us down with sleeper cells alone. If they can rope a dope us into doing foolish things when our American pride is wounded they will be much more successful. Drawing us into a long and expensive occupation is exactly what they hoped for. Now we are in 2. Drawing us into a third occupation would be three for the price of one! They achieved the very same thing in Afghanistan in the 80's and it helped bankrupt the Soviets. You think we are somehow immune from the same thing if we are not VERY careful?

I guess we will not agree on the dangers of the military industrial complex. That saddens me. I don't believe the machinery of war should be MORE profitable when there is MORE fighting. Period. Profit is the religion of business not patriotism. How can anyone serve two masters in a war?

I would agree that maintaining a standing army is a necessary cost in this day and you do need industry to help support it but it should not be IT'S OWN industry. The military should be doing it's own laundry, running it's own supplies building it's own buildings and bridges and cooking it's own meals. We don't need Johnny corporation stepping in for his cut of every piece of the action. If there is ever a time when things should be as non profit as possible it is when our way of life is at stake.

Do you remember Enron? That company was the golden boy of the business world and there is a whole line of others after it. Do you remember when they were deliberately shutting down power in CA to make the cost go up? Do you remember when a fire broke out under major power lines and their traders were caught on tape cheering "burn baby burn" because then they didn't need an excuse for shutting it down? Those losses of power cost other CA businesses billions in lost revenue but what they were doing was not technically illegal.

Nobody in an office somewhere should be cheering "burn baby burn" in a war. Nobody should be doing despicable things for profit that are not technically illegal. This is not a free market where finding new loopholes should be commended. Fighting men are a SOCIALIST organization by necessity. Blood and lives are on the line, not balance sheets, and you are only as strong as your weakest link.

Plisko,
Concerning Post # 18
I coudn't disagree more with paragraphs 1 and 3. After reading paragraph 2, I am amazed you could have writen either of them (1 & 3).
I am amazed by the cognitive dissonance you employ in your reasoning. It concerns me to a high degree because I know there are many like yourself who feel this way despite history and the cold hard facts which intellectuals are supposed to 'learn' from. (Concerning 911) Your assessment that, 'Well, . . . . it will never happen again" flies in the face of why we study history. Your denial is effusive. Our disagreement on this is frightening.
It's like looking at the same color and you see green while I see peach.

Regarding paragraphs 4 and 5, the military has ALWAYS employed private contractors to do jobs that would be too costly and impractical to have military units perform.
You want to see a Ridiculous Defense budget? Then make the military provide ongoing training/logistics for everything it will ever need as a result of battle support.

Paragraphs 6 and 7 I have already covered in my previous post. I acknowledged that your watchdog disposition (when well organized) is effective in ferreting out the 5%-15% perrenial bad guys of the free market world that need to have thier feet put to the fire.

We are starting to re-hash the same topics we have already beaten each other up over, and I am sorry, but I always see your left jab coming, because you telegraph.

I haven't changed my opinion regarding any topics we have discussed and your re-iteration expresses that you haven't either. I don't know if there is room for either of us to change our opinions.

If you like however, I will continue to respond to your protest.

Sincerely
Jared Cicon

Lets operate under the assumption that we WILL be hit again by terrorists. I certainly can agree with you that these people are out to get us and it is likely they are trying for just as spectacular a hit. So let's just skip the semantics about the odds and agree it is coming. How can it be stopped?

Terrorists act as civilians just like organized crime. Let's call them global organized crime. Can we stop organized crime in our own country? Can we stop drug smuggling between us and countries who are allies? Tell me how. I'm really trying to listen. We're talking about a war against the black market. When has that war ever been won? Give me one example. The best governments can do is always a dog and pony show. They never kill it.

When I think about these things the only way I can see to stop it is a total police state at home and taking over several countries. Nobody on earth can have the luxury of freedom to act privately and/or independently if we know an attack is coming and the only goal is to stop it.

Is this what you are saying? An attack of this kind, large or small, long-shot or likely, needs to be stopped at all costs?

Since we are learning from history, I would point out that Saddam's Iraq and Stalin's Russia were both managed in a way to "protect" the people by rooting out militants from within and taking over countries that were a threat.

Where is the line for you where enough would be enough? Where is the tipping point where the measures might actually create more enemies?

If you can tell me where that line is, then I can at least walk away from this conversation knowing there is one.

Hey Plisco,
I am glad to see we agree the next terrorist attack on our soil is enevitable, the magnitude of which, being the only thing in question.

Because we have met a formiddable and elusive foe, does not mean that we 'give up'. It is the same mentality that says, 'well we can't stop them so let's not even try, let's just give all the crumb crunchers some condoms' . I don't subscribe to remedies like these.

I am willing to give up a few rights to prevent the annual or semi-annual Twin Towers incident, yes.

If you are comparing the brutal dictatorships of Stalin and Saddam to our current administration, you will get nothing but disagreement from me.

If I had all the answers, I would be smarter than the sum of both of our ideas Plisko.

You don't have to give credit if you choose not to, but in any given year in America there are 2,790 (approx., depending on length of playoff series) NBA basketball games, with 18,000 to 23,000 spectators each. Multiply that by all other sports, NFL, MLB, NSL, PGA, WNBA, NHL, (notice I put the WNBA ahead of the NHL) etc. etc. etc., and none have been succesfully targeted by terrorists. Average in all of the 4th of July celebrations, Times Square New Years Celebrations etc. etc. etc.. I give some measure of credit to government on the Federal, State, and Local levels as well as diligent and wary concerned citizens.
As long as we can enjoy years of relative peace and security on our homeland between the inevitable attacks, then yes, I can live with some infringement of freedom.

We don't have to agree Plisko. It's OK.

Sorry I took so long to get back to you, but I am right in the middle of a 'get out the vote' campaign for a commercial I produced for Doritos Crash the Superbowl contest. I made the final five and am desperately seeking votes. I am less internet savvy than my competitors.
The winner of the contest will have his (or her) ad aried as the Doritos Commercial during the Superbowl.
A little inside scoop: The Doritos ad will be the 2nd ad aired immediatley after the kickoff at the beginning of the Superbowl Game.

I will try to respond more promptly to your next comment reply. In light of the work I have in front of me relating to the Jan. 19th voting deadline, know my failure to reply in a timely manner should not be percieved as a lack of respect to the debate.

Jared

Jared,

Congratulations on your commercial! That is great news and I wish you luck. I realize that there is much going on for both of us and I don't take offense at delayed responses any more than I mean offense if I am delayed myself.

As for this debate:

I want to make sure I understand what you are saying so I'm going to tell you what I am hearing:

1) We are agreeing in this discussion that terrorist attacks are inevitable and probably impossible to stop. Even now, after: the Patriot act, the Military commissions act, the Wiretapping, Guantanamo, black prison sites, invasion of 2 countries or more. . etc etc. The attacks will still come.

2) Despite the fact that the attacks are inevitable, we still need to give credit to the government between attacks because what they are doing might be making them smaller.

3) You are willing to surrender "a few" of your rights because doing so may also make the inevitable attacks smaller.

Is that about the size of it? In all of these cases the attacks never stop?

My first thought is that I wonder what happens after the next inevitable attack when it comes? After all this hype for 5 years people are going to be upset and frightened right? Do we then take " a few" more rights away because the last batch wasn't enough? Do we invade and occupy more countries?

That was my question that you didn't answer: Where is the line when doing this will finally take us too far? This is a very serious question and I hope you can share your view. I also wonder: What assurance can you provide that we can stop the surrender of "a few" rights and "necessary" militarization from becoming more and more? What assurance can you provide that those rights will EVER be given back? Is it fair to ask these questions? They don't seem trivial at all to me. If this were a business deal I would want a contract. Wouldn't you? Why should either of us take anyone's "word" on something like this?

You mistook my comparisons of Saddam and Stalin. I was not saying that this administration was like they are. We the ordinary people today, however, are very much like the ordinary people under then at one time. People don't usher in a brutal regime. They usher in people who promise to keep them safe in troubled times. Those leaders have then been known to chip slowly away at the existing laws under the pretense of protecting the people and streamlining the system. Nobody notices the brutal regime's arrival until it is too late. It has been that way with all the famous historical dictators. Hitler, Stalin, Hussein you name the dictator and I will show you someone who got people to give up their rights to feel more safe. How can you dismiss this historical fact? The only way I can think of to avoid this trap is to never budge from our bill of rights and our principles no matter what. Period. I would rather be a martyr to that cause than give it up for a temporary feeling of safety. Maybe that is where our views differ most.

I refuse to accept your framing of things in such a way that not surrendering our rights means we refuse to take on the enemy. The Clinton administration prevented another attack for 8 years after the first World Trade Center bombing without taking away rights or assuming special Presidential power. If attacks are inevitable, then 8 years is a pretty good run. By your standards he should be commended for that. . whether you choose to or not. There are lots of alternate strategies and lots of good suggestions have already been made. To say that not fighting it this particular way is to "give up" and "not even try" is preposterous

We don't need to agree. You are correct. But I believe the road to truth is found in debate. I have no hope of changing your mind but I do crave intelligent discussion with someone who feels differently than me. If anything I'd like to at least demonstrate that there is more to my thinking than just hostility

Jared,

I deleted my last post and reposted it because it wouldn't fit and needed cutting down. Wordy bastard that I am. . . If you are subscribed by email you may have gotten the chopped one. I don't know how that works.

If you got two different ones then the correct one is the second. The one that is now posted.

Hey Plisko,
Thanks for the congrats on my commercial. I am actully in last place though in total viewership numbers. I am up against some pretty smart 'My Space' generation people. I found the internet only three years ago when I went to college for the first time.
I was just lapped by two of the other videos in total views. I am afraid that the results of the contest may simply come down to who knows how to more effectively spam and who has more internet knowledge.
It would be nice if the pure objective decision of un-biased voters decided the outcome. Win or lose, I could then live with and learn from the result.

Discussion:
You are correct on the first three points.

Here is my line on your first question.
We should weigh the pros and cons of each decision to usurp a 'right'. Who is getting damaged, and what is getting gained? So far I don't see a list of people from family members who have mysteriously dissappeared or have been incarcerated without good reason. As far as the individuals who currently are 'POW's it is very clear they are enemies of the state.
So far I do not see major damage from the legislations you enumerated at the beginning of post # 22.
I won't worry about the next round of legislation until the next round of Terrorist attacks that warrants it. Which non-occurance is now going on 6 years.

When you ask me where the slippery slope becomes too dangerous. I will submit, that the opposite should be our countries fear.
The intrusion of legislation that has given people too many freedoms is what I see proliferating for our country, not the converse. Look at Roe v. Wade. For me it is MURDER. The methodical ongoing, perpetual removal of the word 'God' from every piece of governmental literaure, function and property. I think these legislative changes and perversions that ARE occuring, are far more damaging to the original message and intent of our founding fathers than any legislation you are afraid might happen.
I have a daughter too Plisko, and should one day our 14 year old princess's come home to us and let us know they had an abortion without our consent or guidance, because they were 'afraid' to tell us, (because the LAW said they could) then I am sure you and I may become political allies on an issue we are currently polarized on.
We have been progressivly giving ourselves more and more rights since the original Draft of the Constitution. Many of them are very appropriate, ie: Womens right to vote, Equal Rights Amendment, et. etc.. To suggest that we are only changing laws to our detriment is, I feel, short sighted Plisko.

I am not dismissing any historical facts relating to the Brutal regimes of Hitler, Stalin, and Saddam. Like I told you before and will tell you again. There is NO comparison to trends in government from thiers to ours.
You will have to accept that although we are looking at the same hue, you and I see vastly different colors.

I am glad you brought up Clinton. I wasn't going to, but now he is fair game. Because of his bumbling/treasonous activites (military secrets to China - nuclear policy in North Korea - faliure to remove Osama when he could have), he is largely responsible for where we are now realting to rogue nations and terrorism. Thank you Bill nad Hillary.
Clinton the 'Midest Peacemaker', . . . . . what a freaging joke.
You know, I never really understood when the press and every liberal I know, kept saying that the Monica Lewinski fiasco was 'just about sex' and nobody elses business. All the press would say is, "It's just about sex". "It's just about sex". It wasn't JUST ABOUT SEX. That LOSER put our nations security at risk on more than one occasion (only heaven knows how many - it started long ago in Arkansas) because of his uncontrolled promiscuity.
Did you ever think of the extent Clinton was willing to go to hide his lie of "I did NOT have sexual relations with that woman"?
(Cont'd on next Post)

Hey Plisko,
You are not the only wordy Bastard in this debate.

Contd' from post #24.

Rogue and enemy nations regularly and consistently perpetrate 'moles' in various forms to engage in activites that can compromise World Leaders. The fact that a naive 19 year old intern was able access the oval office, and shake a presidency to it's core, gives thought to just how corruptible William Jefferson Clinton was. If you want to talk about CORRUPTIBILTITY and WEAKNESS, he is our poster boy. It wasn't "JUST ABOUT SEX".

{I am sorry for the condescending upper case, but sometimes I too feel like screaming, and I use it to express such in my writings. I will take a moment and catch my breat, and lower by BP before I start in again.}

Please Plisko rethink the belief that Clintons choices have led us to a safer and better place in 2007. Take a moment and list for me these myridious alternative suggestions and strategies that you hint at in your next to last paragraph of post #22, that you believe were part of a stellar 8 year run by a SELLOUT.

I too crave intellectual debate. It is why you see me returning to it frequently. If I thought that you had only anger to offer I would not have returned after our first exchange on the FLAME page.
Where I and yourself differ however, is I would like to change some of your beliefs and opinion. I also recognize that I have yet finished maturing intellectually myself

Respectfully, Jared

p.s. Sorry for the shamelss plug, but here is a link to the five contestants. Check out all five videos and vote for your favorite. If it happens not to be mine, I will never talk to you again, . . . . . . . . . not.

link

Part 1

Whoa. That's a lot of major subjects. We could get side tracked for days on any one of them, so I'm only going to bring them up as they apply to the subjects of freedom, tyranny and terrorism. I think that is the most important discussion we have been working on.

I guess your answers to my first question leads me to more questions:

How can we possibly weigh the pros and cons of removing something like Habeus Corpus? These are all secret trials with secret evidence and secret prisons. Wouldn't it be kind of too late when you finally did see a list of missing people? The same applies to a lot of the other stuff being done. . . how can anybody like you or me possibly weigh the pros and cons of something when we have no rational way to evaluate it until we feel the effects?

Your statement that we are on a slippery slope toward too much freedom shocks and scares me. I can't believe what I am hearing. Tell me: where does the slippery slope of too much freedom lead? I can point to a hundred brutal things that can become of us with too little freedom. What do you possibly see that could be worse?

Quite frankly, I am not worried that my daughter will have an abortion without my knowledge. That's a matter of good parenting and trust. What I AM worried about, however, is that my daughter will be drafted into, and killed by, the great 100 year war of civilizations that is about to be set off with electoral help from the "pro-life" movement.

I've also got news for you. "In God We Trust" didn't exist as a slogan till 1861, long after the constitution. "Under God" In the Pledge of Allegiance didn't exist until 1954. The instructions for swearing in a president in the constitution do not instruct him to touch a bible and say "so help me God," They never have. The rules in congress don't either. None of this is "originalist".

I have told you I am a religious man and we can save detailed discussion for another time but I am going to be really harsh here: to my ears, this is "Jesus Camp", "Mega Church", "War on Christmas", "Left Behind", "Protection of Marriage" bullshit. I don't see it as either Christian or American. It is Christianized marketing of overblown issues designed to whip people up into buying books, watching TV shows, donating money and swinging elections. Demagoguery, corporate mass media style. It makes me sick. How much interest in gold mines exactly does Pat Robertson own? If there was ever a better example of taking the lords name for one's own vanity I don't know what it is. If there is ever a better example of distracting religious people from real issues of humanity I don't know what it is. Sorry, but I am just as wary of corrupt religion as I am of corrupt government. They often travel together, arm in arm, on the road to tyranny.