Tuesday, January 17, 2006


It's been a while since I alienated myself from many of my readers, so I guess I'm overdue...

This whole controversy about "Domestic Spying" really heats me up. I wasn't so bothered by the watchdog groups raising the issue because mostly they are like packs of little lap dogs - they bark a lot because they don't like somebody. It's just part of the game. But to have Al Gore stand up and make the ridiculous remarks he made makes me sick.

Many might disagree - which is fine, but I have no fundamental problem with "Domestic Spying". For one, the entire term is kind of a funny euphemism to begin with. "Domestic Spying". I liken it to "Hate Crimes". These terms are carefully constructed to incite an underlying paranoia as to motive, which I find irrelevant.

As for "Domestic Spying", are the people who oppose it going to be the first to bark at the government when another massive terroristic attack happens? Of course they would. Is it a little paranoid to think that the government is spying on you if you don't have something to hide? Um, yes. Personally, I say tap my phones - I've got nothin and it wouldn't take long to find that out. I think we need to allow our government -regardless of whom the president - the latitude to take care of some business. This not only includes "Domestic Spying", but it also should extend out to interrogatory techniques and other forms of gathering intel.

I'm not saying that there should be no limits - all I'm saying is that since there are many people who have a deep hatred for our president, they jump on everything possible to deface him without considering the facts. It's getting old. Hate him if you want, but try to peek underneath the coin to see the other side prior to making attacks. Al Gore should not have only looked to check out the other side of the coin, he should have reviewed the policies carried out by the administration on which he served as number two. Number two is right, Al Gore - that's exactly what you are - a big number two. Go back to inventing something - maybe you can claim the bicycle this time.

If you criticize "Domestic Spying", I won't be very sympathetic to your mourning when a loved one is a victim of "Domestic Terrorism".

As a sidenote: Just to clarify my position here, I'll state that "Hate Crimes" are crimes either way you look at it. How can a label imply that one crime is worse than another eventhough they are fundamentally the same crime? I.e. If a person is innocently beat to death by another person, is it really necessary to re-define the motive and intent making it more or less of a crime? The first person was still beat to death innocently - the outcome is the same either way. If someone robs your house, should it matter if they did it because they need money to buy crack, or because they just don't like you and want to take your things? They still robbed you. The punishment should be the same either way. (And I'll save the punishment rant for another day.)