Is America a Police State?

[Bob Hubbard]

Paul,
"There is a difference, I know the difference. Do you?" - Yes, I do.
"Now that opinion is being twisted ...", no the statements referred to here were not necessarily directed at you. I have had similar discussion on other boards, and in the 'real world' as well.

I get tired of hearing vacuous individuals declare that a particular candidate gets their vote because 'hes cute', or 'my friend said ..." without understanding -anything- about the issues. The "Blood for Oil" crowd is a good example. A few soundbytes, and a reason to be PITAs, y'nonw?

 

[Cruentus]

In regards to the patriot act, here is a pretty good discussion:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11243&page=1&pp=15

I stated my opinion about half way down the page.

:ultracool

 

[loki09789]

Sorry Bob, it wasn't necessarily pointed directly at me, but it did encompass me.

Along the line of vacuousness, I get tired of the 'types' who look at being American in a two dimensional image that it is a right and duty to protest domestic issues and forget that it is just as American to come together as one nation, in spite of our differences/diversity, and work cooperatively to accomplish a goal. It is just as American to be patriotic. In the current day, it is just as frowned upon to be nationalistic/patriotic as it is to be passionate about religion. In this age of relativism, it is is considered ignorant and blind - not ever does it get called a philosophical, informed position of positive faith. Perception is reality. That doesn't mean ignoring the bad, just try and learn from it by looking at it through the critical lens of the core values/ideology that the nation was built on and then move forward. A nations evolution is going to be slow and cyclical so it is expected that those wanting to see change in short, meaning a few administrations or what ever will be disappointed.

Right now, we are in a state of war, the general consensus is that regardless of how we got there, we are stuck with it. What is wrong with wanting to band together, get this done efficiently, quickly and effectively and not create more problems that will distract everyone from the common goal and contribute to the death of more servicemen/women than will already occur?

I have never said that demonstrating against Bush or his policies or the budget or the vote or any number of issues is 'UnAmerican.' I did give examples of some misguided patriotism that led to Women Sufragists becoming maligned as treasonous....I did say that there is a reality of having to balance security with freedom.

Yes we have a freedom to argue, debate and disagree. But we also have a history of banding together and sharing the load to accomplish a goal during war: Rationing, civic organizations for domestic protection..... during WWII and other points in history.

For those who say that our history and all of human government is frought with imperfections and will always be corrupt and there is nothing to be proud of or hopeful about, what do we do? Abolish any structure? Revert to tribal/clan level of gov.... yeah that worked too. No corruption there.

I just don't know what people are looking for here?

 

[TonyM.]

Do you live in a state and do you have police? I've been thinking and researching this since the '68 presidential elections and the only conclusion I can come up with is that I live in a police state. Sometimes it's benign and sometimes it isn't.

 

[loki09789]

This is the dictionary definition from two sources:

police state
n.
A state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the people, especially by means of a secret police force.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

police state
n : a country that maintains repressive control over the people by means of police (especially secret police)
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

based on this, no I don't see USA as a police state. At least not relative to the Third Reich, East Germany, USSR, Communist China, N. Korea...

Do we have a strange time of terrorism affecting the issue of national security vs. civil liberties? Yes.

 

[Cruentus]

O.K....

Now, this isn't directed at any one person here, so no one take this personally.

But now, we have all adequetly pointed fingers at who is to blame. It's the Government, it's the Corporations, its the citizens or "mob", it's the terrorists, its the Bush administration, it's the old Clinton administration, it's the french, Bob Hubbard and Paul Janulis through a multi-national plan to rile all the martial artists of the world politically so that MartialTalk can take over the government (WHA?? )

So, we've all blamed accordingly, me included.

Now, regardless of where the blame lies, what can we do about it?

And that my friends, is the real question. What will YOU do?

I can't tell other people what to do, but here is what I do. I first decide where I can make the difference. I can't do much about a companies behavoir, or about what Clinton did in office prior to 2000, and so forth. I DO have an effect on my government by expressing my voice. So, I do vote, and I do go meet with people in politics in my state and my city, and I do write letters and get on the phone when I can, and I do go to Senete hearings to fight for bills to pass/not pass when I have had the chance, and I do campaign when I really believe in a canidate.

Now, in terms of HOW I vote, I vote for the canidate who I believe will take us a little bit closer to having a better america and society. A stagnent canidate who isn't able to move us forward at all is not good enough for me. And, obviously, a canidate who moves us backwards is not good either. I'll vote independent, Democrat, or Republican if I believe the canidate will bring us steps forward to a better society. One thing (and this is important to me) is I don't vote on SINGLE ISSUES (gun control, or abortion, for example). Some people are single issue voters; they ONLY vote for the canidate who is "pro-life" for example. I feel that by voting single issue, I allow myself to be manipulated by canidates who may SAY they agree with me on my issue, but the reality is they aren't going to do anything to help the issue at all, and they may be worse for our country on the other issues. So I critically look at as many issues as I can to make a decision on a canidate.

Not to be bi-partisen here, but having said how I vote, I will not be voting for Bush in 04', and I will be voting for Kerry. I strongly believe that Bush has done more to harm our country then help. I don't think that Gore would have done better had he have been selected by the supreme court to run our country instead of Bush, but I do think that Kerry will help reverse some of the damage that I feel the current administration has caused. I don't think that Kerry is "our savior" but I do think that he will bring us a few needed steps in a positive direction.

Regardless of how I vote, as time allows, I stay active. Not everybody can spend the time I have spent, but every little bit counts. Now, staying active requires (my goodness)....educations! :idea: So, critical thinking skills are a must. And, I try to stay current, through many different media sources, not just a biased few or one source. I spend more, probably, because it interests me, but the average citizen can get away with an hour a weeks worth of news to stay informed, I think.

Also, the apathy of citizens are a problem as well. As citizens, we are our own worst enemy. The first rule to combat this, is don't be an apathetic citizen yourself. At the very least, get informed and vote. The second thing that I do is I try to have conversations like this one. We all have various opinions, but at LEAST by having the conversation, people will hopefully be becoming more informed, and more people who are observing or participating will vote in an informed manner in the next election. Just by having the conversations and even the debates with friends and family is helping to combat apathy.

The fact is, unlike what many ultra-liberals or ultra-conservatives would have you think, change will not occur overnight. It takes time and continuous effort. You won't see how the little part you play matters, usually, but every little part counts.

So, I'm going to try to do my part, and I hope you all will do the same. If we all did our part, I think we (citizens) would be able to take back our government.

:asian:

 

[Makalakumu]

This is the dictionary definition from two sources:

police state
n.
A state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the people, especially by means of a secret police force.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

police state
n : a country that maintains repressive control over the people by means of police (especially secret police)
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

based on this, no I don't see USA as a police state. At least not relative to the Third Reich, East Germany, USSR, Communist China, N. Korea...

Do we have a strange time of terrorism affecting the issue of national security vs. civil liberties? Yes.

Is this time of terrorism justification for concentration camps!

Read Below


General Ashcroft's Detention Camps
Time to Call for His Resignation
September 4 - 10, 2002

(illustration: Nathan Fox)


onathan Turley is a professor of constitutional and public-interest law at George Washington University Law School in D.C. He is also a defense attorney in national security cases and other matters, writes for a number of publications, and is often on television. He and I occasionally exchange leads on civil liberties stories, but I learn much more from him than he does from me.

For example, a Jonathan Turley column in the national edition of the August 14 Los Angeles Times ("Camps for Citizens: Ashcroft's Hellish Vision") begins:

"Attorney General John Ashcroft's announced desire for camps for U.S. citizens he deems to be 'enemy combatants' has moved him from merely being a political embarrassment to being a constitutional menace." Actually, ever since General Ashcroft pushed the U.S. Patriot Act through an overwhelmingly supine Congress soon after September 11, he has subverted more elements of the Bill of Rights than any attorney general in American history.

Under the Justice Department's new definition of "enemy combatant"—which won the enthusiastic approval of the president and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld—anyone defined as an "enemy combatant," very much including American citizens, can be held indefinitely by the government, without charges, a hearing, or a lawyer. In short, incommunicado.

Two American citizens—Yaser Esam Hamdi and Jose Padilla—are currently locked up in military brigs as "enemy combatants." (Hamdi is in solitary in a windowless room.) As Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe said on ABC's Nightline (August 12):

"It bothers me that the executive branch is taking the amazing position that just on the president's say-so, any American citizen can be picked up, not just in Afghanistan, but at O'Hare Airport or on the streets of any city in this country, and locked up without access to a lawyer or court just because the government says he's connected somehow with the Taliban or Al Qaeda. That's not the American way. It's not the constitutional way. . . . And no court can even figure out whether we've got the wrong guy."

In Hamdi's case, the government claims it can hold him for interrogation in a floating navy brig off Norfolk, Virginia, as long as it needs to. When Federal District Judge Robert Doumar asked the man from the Justice Department how long Hamdi is going to be locked up without charges, the government lawyer said he couldn't answer that question. The Bush administration claims the judiciary has no right to even interfere.

Now more Americans are also going to be dispossessed of every fundamental legal right in our system of justice and put into camps. Jonathan Turley reports that Justice Department aides to General Ashcroft "have indicated that a 'high-level committee' will recommend which citizens are to be stripped of their constitutional rights and sent to Ashcroft's new camps."

It should be noted that Turley, who tries hard to respect due process, even in unpalatable situations, publicly defended Ashcroft during the latter's turbulent nomination battle, which is more than I did.

Again, in his Los Angeles Times column, Turley tries to be fair: "Of course Ashcroft is not considering camps on the order of the internment camps used to incarcerate Japanese American citizens in World War II. But he can be credited only with thinking smaller; we have learned from painful experience that unchecked authority, once tasted, easily becomes insatiable." (Emphasis added.)

Turley insists that "the proposed camp plan should trigger immediate Congressional hearings and reconsideration of Ashcroft's fitness for important office. Whereas Al Qaeda is a threat to the lives of our citizens, Ashcroft has become a clear and present threat to our liberties." (Emphasis added.)

On August 8, The Wall Street Journal, which much admires Ashcroft on its editorial pages, reported that "the Goose Creek, South Carolina, facility that houses [Jose] Padilla—mostly empty since it was designated in January to hold foreigners captured in the U.S. and facing military tribunals—now has a special wing that could be used to jail about 20 U.S. citizens if the government were to deem them enemy combatants, a senior administration official said." The Justice Department has told Turley that it has not denied this story. And space can be found in military installations for more "enemy combatants."

But once the camps are operating, can General Ashcroft be restrained from detaining—not in these special camps, but in regular lockups—any American investigated under suspicion of domestic terrorism under the new, elastic FBI guidelines for criminal investigations? From page three of these Ashcroft terrorism FBI guidelines:

"The nature of the conduct engaged in by a [terrorist] enterprise will justify an inference that the standard [for opening a criminal justice investigation] is satisfied, even if there are no known statements by participants that advocate or indicate planning for violence or other prohibited acts." (Emphasis added.) That conduct can be simply "intimidating" the government, according to the USA Patriot Act.

The new Steven Spielberg-Tom Cruise movie, Minority Report, shows the government, some years hence, imprisoning "pre-criminals" before they engage in, or even think of, terrorism. That may not be just fiction, folks.

Returning to General Ashcroft's plans for American enemy combatants, an August 8 New York Times editorial—written before those plans were revealed—said: "The Bush administration seems to believe, on no good legal authority, that if it calls citizens combatants in the war on terrorism, it can imprison them indefinitely and deprive them of lawyers. This defiance of the courts repudiates two centuries of constitutional law and undermines the very freedoms that President Bush says he is defending in the struggle against terrorism."

Meanwhile, as the camps are being prepared, the braying Terry McAuliffe and the pack of Democratic presidential aspirants are campaigning on corporate crime, with no reference to the constitutional crimes being committed by Bush and Ashcroft. As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis prophesied: "The greatest menace to freedom is an inert people." And an inert Democratic leadership. See you in a month, if I'm not an Ashcroft camper.

 

[Makalakumu]

So, who are the terrorists that will fill these camps? If we disagree with the federal government, should we be looking for gold stars next?

Read On...

Officials step up monitoring of anti-war groups

Sacramento Bee

The first hint that their group had been infiltrated came when they saw the dead man's picture in the newspaper.

The story about his demise in a motorcycle accident said his name was Aaron Kilner and that he had been a detective with the Fresno County (California) Sheriff's Department.

But members of Peace Fresno, an anti-war group formed soon after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, had known the nice young man as Aaron Stokes, "the guy with the short hair and the goatee who sat in the corner," as one member described him.

"He participated in demonstrations, he took fliers with him that he said he was going to distribute, and when he was asked about his occupation he said he had some kind of trust fund or inheritance that made it possible for him to not work," said Catherine Campbell, an attorney for the peace group that now is debating whether to sue the Sheriff's Department for invasion of privacy.

Fresno County Sheriff Richard Pierce has had little to say about the incident, other than declaring that Peace Fresno is not under investigation by his department and that his detectives operate within the law.

But peace activists and law enforcement officials agree that the monitoring of anti-war groups and other activists has stepped up since the terrorist attacks of two years ago.

Attorney General John Ashcroft recently issued new guidelines on anti-terrorism investigations that critics contend will give the FBI more leeway in spying on anti-war groups and others.

Justice Department officials say the guidelines, by strengthening the FBI's ability to look for evidence of possible terrorist planning, help law enforcement protect Americans.

But the move comes on the heels of several incidents in the past year that have made civil libertarians wary of renewed government spying.

Earlier this year, as Kilner was gaining the trust of Peace Fresno members, undercover agents from the California Highway Patrol were attending training sessions by a protest group planning demonstrations at the Ministerial Conference and Expo on Agricultural Science and Technology in Sacramento.

Even after two of them were discovered by activists and asked to leave, others remained, keeping tabs secretly - and legally - on what was going on.

Last spring, anti-war protestors planning a demonstration in Oakland saw their rally broken up with rubber bullets after a state counterterrorism unit issued a secret bulletin to law enforcement warning of the potential for violence.

And a prosecutor in Albuquerque, N.M., was fired after she attended an anti-war rally there and was accused of pointing out a number of undercover police monitoring the event.

"I did no such thing," said Jennifer Albright, who is pursuing legal action over her firing and who said police infiltration of peace groups is common practice in Albuquerque.

Law enforcement spying on such groups once was commonplace, especially during the Vietnam War era. But legal experts say the practice slowed amid concerns that law enforcement was violating the free speech rights of activists.

Since Sept. 11, 2001, however, police agencies have made it clear they have no qualms about conducting investigations using cameras, plainclothes detectives and other methods. They emphasize that such probes are conducted within the constraints of the law, which allows them to covertly observe an array of public meetings and activities, but allows formal investigations to be opened only when there is suspicion of criminal activity.

Much of the increase in surveillance stems from the fact that over the past couple of years the nation has waged war overseas - in Afghanistan and Iraq - for the first time since Operation Desert Storm in 1991. The military actions spawned anti-war demonstrations nationwide, and law enforcement makes no apologies for keeping a close eye on such events.

Some agencies say they keep tabs on activists only when they are protesting and might disrupt traffic or business in public places.

"We wouldn't put an undercover person with a group simply because they had a different opinion from others," said Sgt. Justin Risley, spokesman for the Sacramento Police Department.

But, Risley added, groups that describe themselves as "peace activists" sometimes end up in illegal skirmishes.

The federal guidelines Ashcroft released give the FBI the ability to look into possible terrorism plots without opening a formal investigation.

The guidelines, released by the Justice Department but heavily redacted in portions that remain classified, allow "the proactive collection of information concerning threats to the national security, including information on individuals, groups, and organizations of possible investigative interest. ... "

What that means, Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo said, is that the FBI "can do more research."

"It emphasizes early intervention," Corallo said in a telephone interview. "This is guidance to the field offices that allows them to be more proactive."

Under the new rules, FBI offices can use public information to assess potential threats from groups or individuals and can share the information with local law enforcement, he said.

But, Corallo emphasized, the rules do not allow the FBI to launch formal probes without probable cause that criminal activity is being planned.

The American Civil Liberties Union disputes that. In a statement, the ACLU contends that the rules are "apparently designed to allow detailed monitoring of both citizens and non-citizens without any indication of ongoing or intended espionage."

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Y'know...

maybe we're all just too paranoid.

The FBI would never abuse their new found powers..

I mean...outside of Waco, Ruby Ridge and the withholding of documents in the Oklahoma City bombing..I'm certain they've had a steller history.


http://www.freepeltier.org/abuses_fbi_peltier.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1014-03.htm
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/waco.html
http://www.detnews.com/2003/metro/0307/31/c01-232680.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0617-01.htm

We won't have to worry about the abuses any more, since the checks and balances that were put in place to stop them have been removed. Its only a crime if you're caught, and if you're a federal cop..well...you make the rules right?

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/4030989.htm?1c

Please note - I have no inclination to 'disappear', or have an 'accident' any time soon.
I also wish to say hello! to those nice boys in blue from FBI.Gov who have been seen in the server logs. Hello! :wavey: Let the bad karma begin!

(Gee am I now qualified as a "Person of Interest" now? Tell me, if I'm locked up in a goverment gulag...does that suspend my court ordered child support obligation, or do I get to play double jeopardy? yee Haw!)

 

[someguy]

For the fun of it lets try this.
Letssay that martial talk is a country for now. Now we need to control whats going on. So our benevolent dictator can look into anything you want right? This allows our benevolent dictator to do what he needs if the situation arises.
Now lets go to the real world. Our government can do the same. The only differnce is that the penalty is abit more sever and the fact that the government isn't so involved in our lives in a personish manner so they are judging from a distance.
Point of this none really I just felt like calling some one a benevolent dictator even if it doesn't quite fit. Oh and that the patriot acts while the have some good to them also leave some important stuff out of them.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

One difference is that we (the MT staff) can't make a rule that gives us permission to search your computer.
The biggest penalty we can impose would be to ban and blacklist...in the -very- rare case, sue.
Contrasted with the relaxed powers of the government (search warrents no needed if 'suspected terrorist' is noted, etc)....big difference.

Oh...I do have to ask though.... do I get a pay rise if I use the "benevolent dictator" title?

 

[loki09789]

One difference is that we (the MT staff) can't make a rule that gives us permission to search your computer.
The biggest penalty we can impose would be to ban and blacklist...in the -very- rare case, sue.
Contrasted with the relaxed powers of the government (search warrents no needed if 'suspected terrorist' is noted, etc)....big difference.

Oh...I do have to ask though.... do I get a pay rise if I use the "benevolent dictator" title?

But, in keeping with the analogy, you could search through private communicaes, use the information in profiles to gain access to a member's internet identity, you could assume or steal the identity and lurk/post as that user, back track rep point submissions, tweek numbers here and there to give advantage to some or a disadvantage to others, take punitive action in MT based on things that happen from other sites and a million other abuses/manipulations of power....

of course your access/influence to the physical identity is limited because of internet reality of your 'realm', but within the internet reality your range of evil could be very broad...in the words of the wise and wonderful Mike Myers you could be: "Eveil, like the spawn of the Deeveil, your so eveil."

 

[Ender]

Some of you are looking in the wrong place for the solution. Voting may help, but not alot. Politicians are rarely people who you can trust entirely. The only way to turn the tide back is stop letting the government further intrude in our lives and let the people decide. Here in California, Arnold is doing just that. He is letting the people be heard by taking his agenda directly to the people. The voters are ramming these issuses of workmans comp and budgets down the throats of the legislatures. And we hope they are taking notice. Now this approach would fail on the national level, but the concept is the same. It's time for the people to to take back what is theirs instead on relying on the government to coddle us.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

ok..I can see that.

Searching private communications: Only PM's. We have no control over the email side.
To search the PMs requires either a hack to the software (which I refuse to install), or -ALOT- of digging through the database, and doing lookups on ID's, etc.

Gaining access to an identity... to 'login' as a user, we need to know their password. Its encrypted. I could login as you, but I have to change the PW first, and have no way to change it back without your notice. I can't change my user name, make a post, then change it back because it's a constant.

We can back track rep-point info. Its as tedious as all get out though, as you work with the raw database...everything is a number. I don't see 'loki'...I see '2151' for example.

Tweaking numbers....yup. Can add/remove post counts, rep points, etc. Lasts until the next time the database 'recalcs'.

Taking action based on what happens elsewhere....it all depends.
If a persons a jerk somewhere else, we tend to give them a chance here, depending on the circumstances. (There are people from other boards who simply aren't welcome here.)
We do share watch/ban lists with many other boards though.

About the biggest 'abuse' we did was hardcode a members 'status' to 'perby hobbit fancier' for a week...

Hmm...One could say there is a lot of room on a forum for abuse. I think part of what stops that is the 'fiber' of those involved in the operations. We try to be selective in who we bring on board to ensure that the 'desire to sniff the circuits' is at a minimum. (plus, they smell alot like old sox......)

 

[loki09789]

ok..I can see that.

Searching private communications: Only PM's. We have no control over the email side.
To search the PMs requires either a hack to the software (which I refuse to install), or -ALOT- of digging through the database, and doing lookups on ID's, etc.

Gaining access to an identity... to 'login' as a user, we need to know their password. Its encrypted. I could login as you, but I have to change the PW first, and have no way to change it back without your notice. I can't change my user name, make a post, then change it back because it's a constant.

We can back track rep-point info. Its as tedious as all get out though, as you work with the raw database...everything is a number. I don't see 'loki'...I see '2151' for example.

Tweaking numbers....yup. Can add/remove post counts, rep points, etc. Lasts until the next time the database 'recalcs'.

Taking action based on what happens elsewhere....it all depends.
If a persons a jerk somewhere else, we tend to give them a chance here, depending on the circumstances. (There are people from other boards who simply aren't welcome here.)
We do share watch/ban lists with many other boards though.

About the biggest 'abuse' we did was hardcode a members 'status' to 'perby hobbit fancier' for a week...

Hmm...One could say there is a lot of room on a forum for abuse. I think part of what stops that is the 'fiber' of those involved in the operations. We try to be selective in who we bring on board to ensure that the 'desire to sniff the circuits' is at a minimum. (plus, they smell alot like old sox......)

So, with your internet/technical checks and balances combined with your own judgement, as a board/individual, of constructing a 'fair' system there is a reliance on the 'fiber' or as I have termed it integrity and character of its members and we, as internet members, have to rely on yours as well.

Finally a glint of faith in man/humanity.....

 

[Bob Hubbard]

We've tried to be fair. Sometimes we fail. But the intent here is to provide a pleasant mostly 'flame' free experience. I am that nieve individual who believes that time spent studying the arts leads to more than just a better way of beating people up. I see it as a personal enrichment of spirit. I always hope that those who have studied longer, seen more, experienced so many wonderous things... can be more than bullies, thugs and such. I'm wrong just as often as I'm right.

I believe that when someone pledges to "protect and serve", that they will do just that. That they will be of a finer caliber individual than I. I know cops that have steller reputations, are the light in a enviroment that battles the dark. I also know of cops that have faltered...

Checks and balances must be in place to protect against humanitys nature to be grey.

I rely on the staff here to guide me, and they rely on me to guide them. Checks and balances. The problem with certain old government agencies is that the checks have been relaxed...and some of the new agencies have no checks in place. Too much room for the grey to become the dark...especially when the intention is at heart, good.

 

[loki09789]

We've tried to be fair. Sometimes we fail. But the intent here is to provide a pleasant mostly 'flame' free experience. I am that nieve individual who believes that time spent studying the arts leads to more than just a better way of beating people up. I see it as a personal enrichment of spirit. I always hope that those who have studied longer, seen more, experienced so many wonderous things... can be more than bullies, thugs and such. I'm wrong just as often as I'm right.

I believe that when someone pledges to "protect and serve", that they will do just that. That they will be of a finer caliber individual than I. I know cops that have steller reputations, are the light in a enviroment that battles the dark. I also know of cops that have faltered...

Checks and balances must be in place to protect against humanitys nature to be grey.

I rely on the staff here to guide me, and they rely on me to guide them. Checks and balances. The problem with certain old government agencies is that the checks have been relaxed...and some of the new agencies have no checks in place. Too much room for the grey to become the dark...especially when the intention is at heart, good.

As far as the art practice leading to enrichment and more grounded folks, I am a firm believer that a goal like that requires some linked instruction within the program on a regular basis - a long with a thorough understanding of the over ruling philosophy that the instructor is trying to work from.

Since most Western Martial arts practitioners are working from expectations and assumptions based on movies and homespun explanations, it is hard to find the 'enlightened' martial arts instructor in the modern practice format.